SeaPort-NxG_Q&A_1_May_2018.pdf

SeaPort-NxG Q&A, 5.1.18

SeaPort-NxG Questions and Answers

1 MAY 2018

Q164. Page 63 of the Draft RFP: The Navy requests three final SF 294s from large businesses as evidence of an Offerors’ ability to meet the 20% subcontracted goal. Will the Navy please affirm that Offerors classified as a large business for the new solicitation, but a small business on past awards, need not submit copies of 294s if they have not been previously required to submit these forms / have not had any requirements to do SF 294s?

A164. The requirement to provide SF294s will be removed from the final RFP.

Q165. Reference: Draft solicitation page 63 of 67, Section L, 5.4.2 EVALUATION FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY, c. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters, if applicable. Questions: Are the Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters to be submitted as part of Volume I – Technical Proposal or should these letters be submitted separately as their own standalone document? Is there a page limit for the Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters?

A165. The Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters should be submitted as a separate document. Each letter shall not exceed 2 pages. The final RFP will include amended instructions.

Q166. On page 63 of the RFP it states “The Offerors shall provide copies of three final SF 294s (does not count in the page limitation) for the three relevant contracts, which best demonstrates the offerors ability to achieve the proposed subcontracting goals.”

The limitation of final SF 294’s precludes the use of an offeror’s Seaport-e basic contract as all such contracts are still active and SF 294’s are submitted at the basic contract level. Offeror requests to know if an exception can be made for Seaport-e basic contracts. In addition, for many medium sized professional services companies in the Navy market, the majority of work has been accomplished under Seaport-e, which has not ended, and thus does not have a “Final” SF 294. Since Seaport-e has existed for up to 14 years for some companies, they may not have three SF 294s from other contracts to submit. Will the submission of less than three SF 294s be acceptable to the government, if no other 294s exist for other prime contracts? If this requirement cannot be relaxed, can the government provide an alternative requirement for showing past small business subcontracting efforts?

A166. This requirement will be deleted. See A164.

Q167. Given that the draft solicitation has pages of detailed requirements for the safeguarding & dissemination of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), does the government intend to email any solicitation/RFP documents with CUI markings? If so, it seems the government would have to first create a distribution list of offerors’ CUI-compliant email accounts.

A167. No, the RFP will not contain any CUI markings; the entire RFP will be posted to

FBO.

Q168. My company is a wholly-owned PROXY company of a larger foreign-owned company. Since a PROXY company is recognized as a separate, 100% US-operated company, with its own Board of Directors and President, can the wholly-owned PROXY company hold a MAC award and the foreign-owned parent company hold another MAC award?

A168. No, the Proxy company exists within the corporate structure of the parent company.

Q169. Page 61, 5.2 Cover Letter, the RFP does not appear to be requesting submission of approved accounting system documentation to be eligible to receive cost type or flexibly priced task orders. Will the Government require submission of approved accounting system documentation with proposal submission?

A169. Approved accounting system documentation is not required at the MAC level;

however, it will be required for cost-reimbursement Task Orders.

Q170. DELETED

Q171. Page 63 of 67, b. Subcontracting. Will Veteran-owned Small Business still be a required socio-economic group under small business subcontracting plan?

A171. Since the SeaPort-NxG MAC is based on DOD Subcontracting goals, Veteran- Owned Small Business (VOSB) are not included. However, individual Task Orders may include VOSB goals to which Task Order Offerors will have to comply.

Q172. The SeaPort-NxG NAICS code is 541330 utilizing the exception for marine engineering and naval architecture which has a size standard of $38.5 million. Our company is small under NAICS 483111 with a size standard of 500 employees. We do direct support for the Navy Military Sealift Command under that NAICS code and have received small business set aside awards as prime contractor. Is it possible that we could bid task orders if awarded a MAC, and bid as a small business using NAICS 483111?

A172. No, SeaPort-NxG MACs and all task orders will utilize NAICS, 541330, with the marine engineering and naval architecture exception of average annual receipts of $38.5M. The Government will verify that Offerors have certified to this NAICS in their SAM record.

Q173. What are the anticipated competitive process duration and expected timelines for solicitations of Task Order(s) awarded under SeaPort-NxG? Previously it took eighteen months from Customer generated requirement and funding availability to Task Order award. What is the expected competitive time procurement action lead time from Customer’s requirement definition to Task Order Award?

A173. Each ordering activity establishes its own procurement action lead times for Task Order awards.

Q174. Will this contract vehicle provide means for requiring customers to fund and execute multiple year Task Orders? I.e. Customer is not to be limited to one-year performance and funded Task Orders?

A174. It is up to individual ordering activities to determine and obtain approval for their specific type of contract methodology at the Task Order Level.

Q175. L.4.3, pg. 60 Volume I, Technical Proposal does not allow for a cover page or table of contents. These items would assist in identifying offerors and the volume content. Are offerors permitted to submit a volume cover page and table of contents that do not count against page limits?

A175. The Cover Letter and 3-page Technical Proposal will suffice.

Q176. Regarding Q/A 150: Would the Government please confirm that if an offeror chooses to cite more than 1 recent and relevant contract, each of those contracts may address a different subcategory?

A176. Addressing more than one subcategory is not prohibited but it also is not necessary. Demonstrated experience in one subcategory in one functional area is all that is required to have qualifying experience.

Q177. Page 63 of 67, paragraph 5.4.2.b states that “Large Business Offerors are required to provide a narrative, which details how the following requirements will be met in their subcontracting plans” and that “the subcontracted effort must be comprised of meaningful work under the statement of work within the task orders.” With the requirements above in mind, are Large Business Offerors required to name specific subcontractors in their subcontracting plans? If yes, how is an Offeror to know subcontractor identities upon contract award before any task orders are solicited and bid?

A177. At the MAC level, Offerors are only required to provide subcontracting goal percentages without identifying specific names of prospective subcontractors.

Q178. Page 21 of 67, FAR CLAUSE 52.244-2 Is the PCO going to retain the right of consent to subcontractors under FAR 52.244-2, rather than having the ACO involved in that process?

A178. Task Order Contracting Officers will retain the right to approve and add subcontractors. The Seaport-NxG MAC Contracting Officer will approve and add team members.