SeaPort-NxG_Q&A_10_APR_2018.pdf

SeaPort-NxG Q&A, 4.10.18

SeaPort-NxG Questions and Answers prior to 10 April 2018

Q88. We recently attended an industry day held by NSWC-Crane contracting office in DC. We learned there, and re-confirmed in the Q&A posted on fbo.gov that only direct Navy past performance will be considered to compete for the Seaport Next Generation award. We have below questions: Will subcontracting work performed within the last 5 years of proposal submission at “US Navy’s Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP)” be considered as valid past performance? If we are awarded qualified work at Navy and its virtual Syscom users just after the proposal submission due date, but prior to the awards, can we provide that additional information for consideration?

A88. Section L.2.2 a. of the draft RFP defines “recent” as within the last five years and “relevant” as mapping to one of the subcategories in either of the two functional areas. As stated in A7, a single company must have, within the past five years, experience “in direct support of the Navy.” This experience can be either as a prime or as a subcontractor. Offerors must meet this requirement at the time of proposal submission; there will not be an opportunity to supplement the original proposal submission. Offerors are reminded to use www.fbo.gov as the official source of information concerning SeaPort-NxG.

Q89. If a holdings company or corporate entity is awarded a MAC on Seaport-NxG and declares all CAGE codes of all subsidiaries or affiliates at the time of bid, could any subsidiary or affiliates bid on task orders under the MAC held by the corporate entity?

A89. Task Order awards will be made to the company who holds the MAC but the actual work may be provided by a division, subsidiary, or affiliate of the prime contractor. The Offeror shall identify these relationships in their proposal; see Section L.5.4.2 c. of the draft RFP.

Q90. I have reviewed the Draft RFP for SeaPort-NXG and have a few questions regarding the use of subcontractors. Can a prime use one of their subcontractor's past performance in the technical proposal as proof of recent and relevant experience? If a small business prime uses subcontractors, is that prime required to submit a subcontracting plan?

A90. The Government will not consider the experience of individual employees or of team members as qualifying experience for the proposed prime. See also A12. Subcontracting Plans are required in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 and DFAR 252.219-7003 which do not apply to small business concerns.

Q91. Para 4.3 states that the page limit for the Technical Proposal is 3 pages. However, on page 62, Para 5.4.2(a) states that the Recent, Relevant Exerpience shall be 5 pages. Which is correct?

A91. Technical proposals are limited to 3 pages. Section L.5.4.2.a will be corrected in the final RFP.

http://www.fbo.gov/

Q92. In reviewing the draft RFP, it is our belief that we are to choose between the two functional areas and then focus on just ONE subcategory from one of the chosen functional areas to describe relevant experience. This is based on the language on page 62 that states, “Offerors are required to submit a description of no more than one of the subcategories…”.

However, some of the language included in the referenced sections casts doubt on that assumption. On page 58 the draft RFP states, “One Technical Proposal which includes description of recent and relevant experience in at least one of the subcategories listed…”, and then on page 66 the draft RFP states, “Offerors will be required to describe recent and relevant DON experience in at least one of the following two major groups” The inclusion of the word least would seem to indicate that we could choose to do more. Can the Government please clarify their expectations for our response? If we are only to focus on one functional area and one of the subcategories in whichever functional area we choose would the Government please consider removing the word least from the final RFP to avoid any confusion? Section L

- 2.2.a, page 58 of 67, 5.4.2.a, page 62 of 67; Section M – 3.1.b, page 66 of 67

A92. The final RFP will clarify that one subcategory in one functional area needs to be addressed. See also A57, A65 and A68.

Q93. Could you clarify the instructions for completing Section B? When the actual solicitation comes out, are we supposed to be filling out the minimum quantity, minimum amount and maximum quantity? How do we determine that across the infinite possible combination of work which may be solicited? Is the UNIT PRICE calculated by dividing the MAXIMUM AMOUNT by the MAX QUANTITY? For example ITEM NO. 1000 MAX QUANTITY 8,000 with MAXIMUM AMOUNT of $400,000,000.00: Would UNIT PRICE = 50,000? Is the UNIT PRICE left blank and on the $400,000,000.00 inserted into the MAX AMOUNT section?

A93. Offerors will not be required to fill-in any portion of Section B. The Maximum Amounts shown in the table in Section B are not to exceed amounts for each priced CLIN; maximum quantities are already included. There will be no unit prices at the MAC level, and Data CLINs (4000 and 8000) are not separately priced. All successful offerors will be awarded a MAC with a base period total ceiling of $10,500,000,000, and option period ceiling of $10,500,000,000.

This will be clarified in the final RFP.

Q94. If we intend to only propose on fixed fee task orders (as a SB, we do not have a DCAA audit – nor would we pursue one) do we only fill out Item number 1000 and 5000 for FF, then Item numbers 3000 and 7000 for travel?

A94. No, all MAC awards will include all CLINs. It is the business decision of each awardee to determine Task Order solicitations on which they will propose.

Q95. On pages 56 and 57, regarding 52.237-10 (e), it notes “The offeror shall include a copy of its policy addressing uncompensated overtime with its proposal” however this isn’t included as a required item in the instructions. Is this required?

A95. The requirement of FAR 52.237-10 to provide a policy on uncompensated overtime is not applicable to the MAC but may be applicable to certain Task Orders. This will be clarified in the final RFP.

Q96. Would a Prime contract proving OEM products to the Navy qualify us for submitting a bid?

A96. SeaPort-NxG is only for services, providing supplies does not qualify.

Q97. Will there be a page limit for the Subcontracting Plan that LBs must submit with their proposals?

A97. No. See Section L.5.4.2.b of the draft solicitation.

Q98. As far as proving your direct support to the Navy in the past 5 years, does that 5 year relevancy have to be current throughout the Awaiting Award process, or until just until the Solicitation Period has ended?

A98. The qualifying experience must be relevant at the time of proposal submission. See A88.

Q99. In Section L, para. 4.3 (a) on Page 60, it states that “If the experience was garnered performing as a subcontractor, a copy of the subcontract including the statement of work (SOW) that shows the scope of the subcontract, shall be provided.” Our subcontract and SOW are over 20 pages in length. Is it acceptable to include the subcontract and SOW documents as an Appendix to the Technical Proposal? Are these pages excluded from the Technical volume page count limits?

A99. Yes, this information should be submitted as an appendix or attachment to the Technical Proposal. These pages do not count against the page limit.

Q100. As a "next generation" product, isn't it time for an accessibility update? Why does the draft RFP continue to mandate IE from Microsoft for the SeaPort-NxG contract? In doing so, you are inadvertently ENDORSING Microsoft only, as IE is not available on a Mac. There are browsers that are compatible with both PCs and Macs such as Google Chrome. Portal access requirements are: Browser type: 128-bit encryption, https-capable IE 11.x or higher. Will the Government reconsider this requirement, and include Google Chrome and Apple Safari? The existing SeaPort-e portal, in requiring IE, forces users to close a Pop-up warning EVERY time the system is accessed. Over the life of the contract, this wastes countless thousands of hours by contractors using anything other than IE, for no valid reason. In addition, IE is not available on a Mac, and in mandating IE over all other available browsers, the government is endorsing Microsoft only. Below is the warning that must be clicked on every time. Why does that add any value? It only delays accessing the site, EVERY TIME, for YEARS. Again, those on a Mac cannot get IE. Warning, you are using Safari Version 11 The recommended browser to access this site is: - Internet Explorer 11.0 or better.

A100. The Navy utilized Microsoft Internet Explorer because it's been the official NMCI browser configuration. As such, the software developers have performed all system testing with utilizing this browser configuration. While the SeaPort web application is able to be run in the Chrome browser, it has not been specifically tested in this configuration and therefore users may experience performance issues when running the application in this browser. The SeaPort web application is not compatible with Safari or other browsers.

Q101. In Section L, on page 60 of 67, Section 4.3, Volume I, Evaluation Factor 1, sub paragraph (a) states: “If the experience was garnered as a prime contractor, the contract number shall be provided. If the experience was garnered performing as a subcontractor, a copy of the subcontract including the statement of work (SOW) that shows the scope of the subcontract, shall be provided.” To be clear, if the offeror’s experience was as a ‘prime’ contractor, there is no requirement to provide a copy of the contract or the SOW. Is that the correct interpretation of this paragraph?

A101. Correct. If the experience was as a prime, a copy of the contract is not required but the Offeror is to provide the contract number.

Q102. There are three areas in the Draft RFP that appear to be conflicting. First - In Section M, on page 66 of 67, section 3.1, (b) states “Offerors will be required to describe recent and relevant DON experience in at least one of the following two major groups: (1) Engineering Support Services - engineering disciplines to technically support development of new and modification of existing Naval capabilities and systems, significant alterations to existing systems, integration and interface of existing equipment or software into different applications or platforms to support the warfighter or (2) Program Management Support Services - applying the business, financial and technical disciplines necessary to assist in managing acquisition efforts/programs, information technology services including system software analysis, design, development, test. No qualitative assessment will be made of the experience described.”

Second - In Section L, on page 62 of 67, the second paragraph states “If the experience was garnered as a prime contractor, the contract number shall be provided. If the experience was garnered performing as a subcontractor, a copy of the subcontract including the statement of work (SOW) which demonstrates the scope of the subcontract, shall be provided.” Third - On page 63 of 67, the sixth line states “Past performance references are not required and will not be evaluated.” Given these three statements, the instructions are not clear. For prime contracts, is the Solicitation requesting detailed information supporting the 23 SOW functional areas (similar to a past performance qualification), or simply requesting the Prime contract number and a statement specifying the specific Functional Area (SOW Paragraphs C.3.1 and C.3.2) that the offeror’s experience correlates with?”

A102. The Technical Proposal is to provide a description of recent and relevant DON experience in one of the subcategories in one of the functional areas. In demonstrating this experience, the Offeror shall provide a contract number if they gained this experience as a prime contractor and a copy of the subcontract if they gained this experience as a subcontractor. It is expected that this narrative will discuss the work performed on the cited contracts/subcontracts.

Q103. Would the Government like our Cover Letter, SF 33, Section B, and Section K responses all in one document or should each requirement be its own separate file?

A103. Each document that is a portion of the response should be submitted. Section L.4.0 will be revised in the final RFP to identify a naming convention such as: Company Name_CAGE_Name of Document (i.e. ABC Corporation_01234_Cover Letter).

Q104. Reference: Draft RFP Page 20 of 67, Clause 52.219-14. Question: Does this clause apply to IDIQ level, or does it apply to each and every Task Order on Seaport-NxG?

A104. The clause FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting applies to MAC awards to Small Businesses and any Task Order that has been set-aside for Small Business.

Q105. Reference: Draft RFP Page 60 of 67, Paragraph I. (a) “Offerors shall provide information which will show evidence of previous experience providing direct support to the Department of the Navy, as either a prime contractor or a subcontractor, in at least one of the areas listed in Section C.” Question: Is there any currency (e.g., within last five years), Period of Performance (e.g., more than one year performance) and/or Contract (Subcontract) value (e.g., more than $500K) required for the previous experience supporting DoN? If not, as one of the possible scenarios, a $10K subcontract which supported DoN 15 years ago will be qualified.

A105. There is a requirement that the experience be recent, having occurred in the last five years, but can have been performed as either a prime or subcontractor. There are no requirements concerning the length or dollar value of the work that was performed. The scenario would not qualify because the experience does not meet the definition of recent. See also A10.

Q106. Please clarify the intent and content of the “Meaningful Relationship” letter discussed at the bottom of the Draft RFP page 64. It is understood that this applies to all business entities within a single corporate structure. Will the Government accept one letter listing the requested information on all entities included with appropriate signatures or does it require individual letters for each of the entities?

A106. These letters will identify all corporate entities, other than subcontractors or consultants, which may be included in Task Order proposal and performance. A letter is required for each meaningful relationship identified.

Q107. We are currently collecting questions for submission, by when should the questions be submitted? Is there a deadline for the questions to be submitted?

A107. The Government will answer as many questions as possible up to the release of the final RFP. Once released, the Government will only answer questions related to the final RFP.

Q108. In the past some EOD and Special Forces work has been performed via the existing Seaport contract. Does direct support of this type of work to the USN qualify that contractor for a Seaport NexGen contract? When citing EOD or Special Forces as the basis for consideration of a Seaport Nex Gen contract, which of the 23 functional areas would be the best to reference for a proposal submission?

A108. Engineering or Program Management Support Services in direct support of DoN EOD or Special Forces activities may qualify the Offeror. It is up to the Offeror to demonstrate how their experience correlates to any one of the subcategories in one of the functional areas.

Q109. Is it correct to conclude the SF-33 and fill-ins will not count toward a Technical Proposal page limit?

A109. Yes.

Q110. Is the maximum pass through rate applicable to subcontractor labor only?

A110. The maximum pass through rate is applicable to subcontractor fully burdened cost on labor CLINs.

Q111. Page 61 of 67, Para 5.3.1 states offerors must propose the maximum amounts specified in Section B. We understand this requirement. However, each CLIN of Section B also includes a unit price. Unit prices for labor hours will vary by geographic location and state/local tax requirements. Are offerors expected to provide a unit price and, if so, will the Government provide a location and Wage Determination (assuming use of Service Contract Act guidelines) to provide fair and equal competition among offers? Please advise.

A111. See A95. Not-to-exceed values have been established for each priced CLIN; no unit prices are applicable at the MAC level. Factors that affect direct labor cost such as location, Department of Labor Wage Determinations, etc. will be identified as applicable by Task Order solicitations.

Q112. Is there a cut off period for the current Seaport-e contract to submit responses to solicitations?

A112. Each Task Order solicitation issued under SeaPort-e will specify the date of proposal submission applicable to that solicitation.

Q113. Page 63 of 67, paragraph 5.4.2.b, states: “Large Business Offerors are required to provide a narrative, which details how the following requirements will be met in their subcontracting plans.” We understand that the actual Subcontracting Plan has no page limit. However, is this narrative to be included in the Technical Proposal Volume and therefore subject to the 3-page limit?

A113. The requirement for a narrative in addition to the subcontracting plan will be deleted in the final RFP; Section L.5.4.2.b will be modified to reflect this change.

Q114. Ref. pg 6, Maximum Rates, C. Other Direct Costs and Travel. Please define adders.

A114. Other Direct Costs and Travel on page 6 will be modified in the final RFP to state “Indirect cost elements such as G&A and material handling may be applied to ODCs and Travel but fee may not be included.

Q115. Ref. Q&A 36. Will Collective Bargaining Agreements and Davis Bacon Act be incorporated?

A115. When applicable, Collective Bargaining Agreements would be incorporated on individual Task Orders. Wage Rate Requirements (Construction), formerly known as the Davis-Bacon Act, apply only to Construction which is outside the scope of SeaPort-NxG.

Q116. While we appreciate the Government’s efforts to simplify the SeaPort Next Generation RFP, I am more than taken back by the written statement released by the Navy Contracting Officer on April 5th, 2018. You stated: “Additionally, there are several firms soliciting to help other firms with their SeaPort-NxG proposals for a fee. The SeaPort-NxG proposal process has been designed to be extremely easy. No company should have to pay another company to help them. The process is contained in the draft Request for Proposals which has been posted to fbo.gov. Any questions on the draft RFP should be submitted by email to seaportnextgen.fct@navy.mil and the answers will be posted on fbo.gov. The Government is allowing ample time for questions and answers before issuing the formal RFP. Once the formal RFP is issued, industry will have 30 days to submit proposals electronically.” While I’m sure this was not the intention, the statement comes across as very uniformed of what goes into a RFP response from industry’s side. When a company is considering the internal resource allocation decision of whether to outsource or insource a proposal, the consideration as to how many pages of technical writing are required by the government is rarely the deciding factor.

Many small businesses have no proposal resources in house. In some cases—including for this bid because the Navy is allowing subcontract past performance--this may be their first prime bid. Some companies sub all proposals out. Others sub out the simple ones so they can concentrate on the complex bids. In other cases, a proposal like this can be significantly less costly to sub out rather than do in house. Whether they complete the proposal in house or outsource, a company faces proposal development costs. There is a cost to the company whether they are paying an employee or paying an external resource. If the proposal is kept in-house, all tasks need to be completed internally, which may be more expensive on a costed-out basis than outsourcing to a support firm that can provide efficiencies of scale. Because proposal firms are proficient and read hundreds and hundreds of RFPs a year, the Government is more likely to get a compliant proposal. Experienced proposal firms reviewing your RFP and providing comments back on all the discrepancies also save the Government from making protestable mistakes. The Government of the United States has no business telling companies how to make internal resourcing decisions nor how to complete their proposals. Are you going to answer the question from a company as to which past performance they should use? Are you going to help them work out issues related to affiliation, subsidiaries and complex corporate structures? Are you going to review their proposals for compliance and tell them how to correct their mistakes? No. You can’t. But those questions still need to be answered, especially for small businesses. Rather than comment on matters that are inherently not in the purview of government oversight, please focus on improving the RFP.

There are many discrepancies and contradictory elements in the draft that deserve your attention. While I’d like to point those out to you and make suggestions for improvement, you are not fostering industry-government collaboration by putting out such a statement.

A116. The decision to outsource proposal preparation is entirely an internal company decision. Companies receiving advice from a consultant on proposal preparation will not be disqualified from receiving award of a SeaPort-NxG MAC. A draft RFP has been issued to provide Offerors with the opportunity for comment.

Q117. Paragraph 5.4.2 Evaluation Factor 1 – Technical Capability. Is there a definition of what is contained in the subheadings for Engineering Support Services and Program Management Support Services? Specifically, is Program Management Support Services sub item Functional and Direct Programmatic Administrative Support the area for providing direct support to the NAVSEA shipbuilding program offices?

A117. Draft RFP section M.3.1(b) provides the definition of these two general task areas. The subcategories listed are the types of services that are included in either category. It is up to each Offeror to demonstrate how their experience is relevant to the statement of work. As noted, no qualitative assessment will be made of the experience you describe in your proposal;

the information will be used solely to ensure your company has experience performing some effort related to the scope of work.

Q118. Reference: Draft solicitation page 60 of 67, Section L, 4.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT, paragraph 4.2 states: “All information contained in the offerors proposal shall adhere to the following: Developed utilizing Microsoft Office Products only” Questions: 1. L.4.2 indicates that all proposals should be “developed” utilizing Microsoft Office products only. Does this mean that the final proposal documents should be submitted in formats compatible with Microsoft Office, such as Microsoft Word? 2. Currently the draft solicitation is provided as a PDF. Will the Government provide the final solicitation in Microsoft Word format? 3. For documents that require signature, such as the Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters and the SF33, can offerors submit those documents in Adobe PDF format?

A118. Yes, final proposal documents should be submitted in formats compatible with Microsoft Office. No, the final solicitation can only be posted in a PDF format. Yes, the signed documents may be submitted in PDF format.

Q119. Reference: Draft solicitation page 61 of 67, Section L, 5.2 COVER LETTER Question:

As part of the requirements in paragraph 5.2, there is a list of seven (7) items to include in the offer letter. However, #5 is currently missing from this list. Is this a clerical error or is a cover letter requirement missing from the draft solicitation?

A119. A cover letter requirement is missing; #5 should state that the Offeror should identify their size and any socio-economic program that they have certified to in FAR 52.219-1.

Q120. Reference: Draft solicitation page 6 of 67, SECTION B TEXT, B. Maximum Profit/Fee Rate for CPFF CLINS only. “Fee becomes a fixed dollar amount at the time of task order award and is subject to the provisions of the Level of Effort clause of the task order. The maximum fee rate being proposed at the task order level by the prime contractor shall flow down to all subcontractors/consultants included as part of your (the Prime) proposal.”

Question: Can the Government confirm that if, for example, a Prime contractor bids a Fee at 6.0% on a Task Order, then subcontractor will also be limited to a maximum of 6.0% Fee on their bid?

A120. The example is correct. The fee rate proposed by the prime contractor for a Task Order is the maximum fee rate allowed for subcontractors and consultants proposed on that Task Order.

[END OF 10 APRIL 2018 Q&A]