SeaPort-NxG_Q&A_13_MAR_2018.pdf

SeaPort-NxG Q&A, 3.13.18

SeaPort-NxG Questions and Answers

13 March 2018

Q60. If a contractor has performed work within the past five years (within one of the functional areas) in direct support of the Navy (i.e., Marine Corps), but that work was not executed under a SeaPort-e Task Order, is the contractor still eligible for a SeaPort-NXG MAC award?

A60. Yes, qualifying experience in direct support of the DoN is not limited to SeaPort-e Task Orders.

Q61. What specific information will be required for each proposed team member? For instance, will a list of proposed companies with their CAGE Code and DUNS number be sufficient? Or, will an assessment of each proposed team member’s experience against the 23 functional areas be required? Will prime contractors be able to use a teammates’ experience supporting the Department of the Navy as part of their proposal response? Having this guidance now will allow prospective offerors to begin compiling necessary information for their proposed team members.

A61. Only the Prime Offeror’s experience will be validated for award based on evidence of recent, relevant technical experience in one of the 23 functional areas in direct support of the DoN. Prime Contractors will not be able to use the experience of teammates to satisfy SeaPort-NxG’s requirement of providing direct support to the DoN.

Instructions on the submission of Teammate Information will be provided in the RFP. See also A18 and A37.

Q62. I wanted to reach out to you and let you know how much the Navy’s industrial base appreciates the approach you have taken with the follow-on to Seaport-e, to include how you solicited information and input from industry on several occasions, the multiple briefings you made to stakeholders at various forums (such as the NAVSEA Industry Day and the CDCA Defense Summit) to raise awareness, and the more streamlined features of the NexGen contract. You have set a new standard in the Navy regarding inclusiveness and the idea of an integrated team seem more real. As most Navy services work is executed via Seaport, your business base has been awaiting information as to how NexGen would look for some time, and we are quite pleased. The majority of firms feared that the Navy might have been influenced to take an approach more similar to GSA OASIS with several contract pools, addressing multiple NAICS per contract pool, and utilized a restrictive points based proposal approach which could have eliminated portions of the Navy’s industrial base. We appreciate that the NexGen approach will be very similar to Seaport-e and will be simple and inclusive, which should reduce government and contractor transaction costs and provide the Navy with the largest possible business base and resources to execute the important work of the warfighter. As many challenges as other parts of the DoD and the Navy have with contracting timelines and approaches NexGen seems a breath of fresh air. Why was the Seaport-e contract a 15 year contract and NexGen is only 10 years?

SeaPort-NxG Q&A, 3.13.18

A62. In accordance with DFARS 217.204 the ordering period of a task order contract awarded by DoD pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304a shall not exceed 10 years.

Q63. In reference to Q&A 58 - the Navy did not address the concerns I raised about the new SeaPort conops. Instead they highlighted that under the old Seaport conops, SB did quite well (which I agree with). The point is they are changing the mechanism that enabled those results.

I believe that my concerns about the new plan is legitimate and that many small businesses providing services in the under 15M NAICS codes are going to lose out. If they limit the new Seaport SB lane to say, 40-60 businesses, it's only going to be the giant smalls/mid-tier that win a prime contract and the rest of us are on the outside looking in - a far cry from the old seaport-e model where 551 different small businesses got to be a prime performing work directly for the Navy. However, the real issue is running a substantial amount of 541330 and 541611 work under a contract competed under the 541330/38.5 exception - that's just not fair.

A63. Since its inception, SeaPort has only ever used the NAICS Code 541330 under the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons exception. That is not changing under SeaPort-NxG which will continue to utilize NAICS Code 541330 under the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons exception. Additionally, the Navy is not limiting the number of Small Businesses (or Large) who can receive an NxG MAC. All businesses that qualify (see A7) will receive a MAC no matter how many that turns out to be.

Q64. The Navy has previously expressed a desire to significantly reduce the number of awardees for Seaport-NxG. How does the Navy plan to accomplish this? Does the Navy expect the requirement “in direct support of the Department of the Navy” to be sufficient, or will new evaluation criteria be included in the solicitation?

A64. The Navy will award MACs to all companies that meet the criteria for award listed in the RFP however many that turns out to be.

Q65. Reference Answers 7, 44 and 45, will large business offerors be required to propose to more than one functional area to increase their probability of receiving an award, or will one functional area be sufficient?

A65. No. One functional area is sufficient to receive a SeaPort-NxG award. Listing more than one functional area that an Offeror has provided direct support to the DoN will not increase the likelihood of receiving a SeaPort-NxG award.

[END of 13 MAR 2018 Q&A]