SeaPort-NxG_Q&A_15_May_2018.pdf

SeaPort-NxG Q&A, 5.15.18

SeaPort-NxG Questions and Answers 5/15/18

Q201. Q142 of the Q/A indicates that “Large Business Offerors are to subcontract at least 20% of the total dollars obligated under the contract.” As part of the small business subcontracting plan, the offeror is required to present their small business goals as a percentage of the estimated contract value. For the purposes of the submission, will the Government please confirm that the 20% subcontracting goal is intended to be calculated against the Section B values shown for all CLINs.

A201. The goals presented in the Subcontracting Plan should be expressed as percentages only, not dollar values. The minimum percentages required are stated in Section L, paragraph 5.4.2.b. The Subcontracting Plan must state that the proposed goals are based on the total planned subcontracting dollars under the contract (not per task order). Since Offerors have no way of knowing exactly how much work will be won under the contract, dollar values are not required. The dollar values shown in Section B per CLIN are the maximum dollar amounts that shall not be exceeded over the life of the contract and therefore do not represent the expected amount to be obligated. Large businesses should review the statement of work and determine what work scope they plan on proposing for in task order competitions. Based on that, they should then determine what amount of meaningful work scope they plan on subcontracting to various types of small businesses which must be at least 20%. Within the 20% (or greater percentage), the following minimums are required: Small Disadvantaged Businesses (5%), Women-Owned Small Businesses (5%), Hub-Zones (3%) and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (3%). See A31, A97, A113, A124, A126, A142, A164, A166, A171, A177, and A195.

Q202. Q144 of the Q/A indicates that “it is preferred that all team members are identified at time of award of the MAC.” Q177 of the Q/A indicates however, “at the MAC level, Offerors are required to only provide subcontracting goal percentages without identifying specific names of prospective subcontractors.” Will the Government please confirm that team members are required to be identified in the submission?

A202. As part of their proposal, Offerors are to provide a list of their team members; see A143.

However, the Subcontracting Plan required by FAR 52.219-9 should not include specific names of prospective subcontractors.

Q203. There has been certain Q&A discussions about teaming partners. Will the government require copies of teaming agreements to be included our submission? If not, what will be required about subcontractor and teaming information?

A203. No, copies of teaming agreements are not to be provided with an Offeror’s proposal submission. Team members are not considered to be subcontractors at the MAC level, only at the task order level. See A143.

Q204. Section L, Page 61, Section 5.3.2 states, “Section K: All fill-ins to be completed by the offeror”. A146 stated that regarding the fill-ins, at a minimum 529.204-8(b)(2) is to be completed by the Offeror. A155 confirms that for Small Businesses offerors assume that no “*” fill-ins apply to them as the Clause is not applicable or required for completion by Small Businesses. What about Section K, Page 51, Section 52.209-5 Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters (Oct 2015) – should this be included along with the 52.204-8(b)(2) fill-in as a minimum fill-in even for Small Businesses? Also, in the response, can we cut and paste the applicable Section K fill-in requirements or does the USG want us to include the entire Section K in the response?

A204. The certification at FAR 52.209-5 is covered by FAR 52.204-8(b)(2), and does not need to be provided separately by the Offeror if their SAM Representation and Certifications are current. Offerors may provide only the section(s) of Section K that they are required to provide.

Q205. CLINs 2000 and 6000 each have a dollar ceiling of $4.75B and an hours ceiling of 8,000,000 hours for a 5-year period. While the dollar ceiling is sufficient, we believe the hours ceiling is not and recommend a 35,000,000 hour labor ceiling per cost plus CLIN. An analysis shows that the top 8 Seaport-e vendors each exceed 8,000,000 in any 5-year rolling period for the last three years, with the highest exceeding 25,000,000 hours. The analysis used data from the Seaport-e Task Order Award Report and assumed 2% of the award value was ODC and an average rate of $75/hr. We believe these are reasonable assumptions for demonstrating that 8,000,000 hours for any rolling 5-year period is not sufficient. Will the government consider increasing the hours ceiling for CLINs 2000 and 6000 to 35,000,000 hours, which is in-line with current Seaport-e Cost Plus CLIN hours ceilings?

A205. Yes, CLINs 2000 and 6000 of the RFP will be revised to 16,000,000.

Q206. This is a question from an earlier Government slide presentation (Dec-2017), if Government users are going to be able to “further restrict set-asides to any designation under NAICS”, will that include the ability to set aside a task order solicitation for VOSB (in addition to WOSB, 8(a), SDVOSB)?

A206. Ordering offices will be able to further restrict set-asides for WOSB, 8(a), SDVOSB, and HUB Zone designations. However, there will not be set-asides for VOSB as this type of set-asides is limited to the Veteran’s Administration.

Q207. Will large businesses be required to include copies of their subcontracting agreements with teammates as part of their Subcontracting Plan submissions?

A207. No. Offerors are only required to provide subcontracting goal percentages without identifying specific names of prospective subcontractors as part of their Subcontracting Plan.

Subcontracts are not established at the MAC level, only at the Task Order level. However, Offerors should identify to the greatest extent possible all of their team members with their MAC proposal. (A177)

Q208. Offerors using experience that was garnered as a subcontractor should include a copy of the subcontract and SOW. Does that subcontract need to include the most recent modification, or will the original subcontract suffice?

A208. The original subcontract will suffice, but the most recent conformed copy of the subcontract is desired.

Q209. Our company – currently a large business – will be selling its government contracts to a WOSB, inclusive of our past direct support of the Navy. This sale will likely not occur prior to the deadline for Seaport-NxG. If we are awarded a MAC as a large business, can the WOSB novate the contract post sale to compete as a small business?

A209. The contracts would have to be novated prior to the closing of the SeaPort-NxG solicitation in order for the qualifying experience to belong to the WOSB. See A66.

Q210. If a company wins an FY18 or FY19 multiple year task order under SeaPort-E, could the period of performance extend through the SeaPort NXG kickoff? Or would there be a re-compete under SeaPort NXG?

A210. SeaPort-e Task Orders can be awarded through 31 December 2019 with a period of performance of 5 years. SeaPort-NxG MACs are planned to be awarded by December 2018;

therefore, there will be an overlap between SeaPort-e and SeaPort-NxG. However, SeaPort-e and SeaPort-NxG are completely separate MACs. Task Orders awarded under SeaPort-e will remain under SeaPort-e until complete.

Q211. Would N00178-18-R-7000 Section C.3. work performed for the Military Sealift Command (MSC) be considered in “direct support to the Department of the Navy?”

A211. Military Sealift Command (MSC) is part of the DON.

Q212. What exactly is the content desired in the Technical Proposal? Are offerors to describe “… recent and relevant experience in direct support of the DON in at least one of the subcategories …” or “… submit a description of no more than one of the subcategories …?

A212. The Technical Proposal shall provide a description of recent and relevant experience in direct support of the DON in one of the subcategories in one of the functional areas. See A92.

Q213. Is correct to conclude the SF-33 and fill-ins will not count toward a Technical Proposal page limit?

A213. The SF 33 and Section K fill-ins WILL NOT count as part of the Technical Proposal 3-page limit. The proposal shall be limited to the following separate email attachments, identified by the identified Naming Convention and page limitations shown below:

Submission Identification Document Name Page Limit Cover Letter Company_Name_CAGE_ Cover_Letter 1 Technical Proposal Company_Name_CAGE_Technical_Proposal 3 *Subcontract SOW (if applicable) Company_Name_CAGE_Subcontract_SOW N/A SF33 (Cover Page) Company_Name_CAGE_SF33 1 Section K Company_Name_CAGE_ SectionK N/A List of Team Members Company_Name_CAGE_Teaming N/A Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) Company_Name_CAGE_Subcontracting_Plan N/A

Q214. Can the Government provide an updated Draft RFP that incorporates all of the answers to questions? This will enable industry to have an accurate and up-to-date Draft RFP.

A214. The Government will continue to revise the draft RFP based on Industry questions up until the final RFP is issued in early June. Once released, Offerors’ questions shall reference the final RFP document. Any unanswered questions submitted against the draft RFP will have to be resubmitted referencing the formal RFP.

Q215. Is there a dollar value threshold for a project that a contractor needs to show for a prime contract with the Navy to qualify?

A215. No, there is no minimum dollar threshold for DON experience to qualify.

Q216. I'm writing because a number of businesses have contacted us about being "on their team" for the NXG proposal. My understanding is anyone who 1) has been a prime and 2) won some awards doing Navy work 3) in the two work scope areas of NXG 4) in the last 5 years will be qualified to compete on their own. Isn’t this true? More specifically: is there ANY advantage to having a team member in our proposal if we've met the requirements on our own?

A216. Yes, it is true based on your description that companies with attributes 1-4 in your question would be qualified to compete on their own and win a prime MAC assuming they don’t owe any federal taxes, are not debarred, etc. (See A7) with one correction – in number 3 above you reference two work scope areas, only one is required. Having team members does not provide any advantage to winning a MAC award. However, if you are going to propose on task order solicitations and you are going to propose subcontractors, it would be advantageous if those subcontractors had been identified as team members in your SeaPort-NG proposal so that they could get access to the portal in a timely fashion. Team members can be added after award; however, untimely request and the resultant delay in the approval process could impact Task Order proposal submission. See A144 and A18.

Q217. According to the draft RFP there is a discrepancy regarding the page limitation for the Technical Capability/Technical Proposal. Within the Draft RFP on Page 60 of 67, the instructions state the Technical Proposal is limited to 3-pages, while on Page 62 of 67, the Evaluation Criteria states Technical Capability/Technical Proposal is limited to 5-pages. Will the

Government please clarify the following: a.) what is the correct page limitation for the Technical Capability/Technical Proposal section and b.) please confirm the name of this section, is it “Technical Capability” or “Technical Proposal”?

A217. The first part of your question has already been answered; see A91. Offerors are reminded to review previous Q&A attachments to the FBO announcement, as their question may have already been answered. “Technical Proposal” is the volume of the Offeror’s proposal that addresses their recent and relevant experience in direct support of the DON. “Technical Capability” is the evaluation criteria the Government will use to determine an Offeror has qualifying experience.

Q218. We are the prime contract for a Navy BPA. However, there have been no task orders issued nor awarded. Will the fact that we are prime on the BPA constitute direct Navy Experience?

A218. Simply holding a Navy BPA is not sufficient. A company would have had to actually perform work (services), i.e., been awarded/issued an order.

Q219. We have been receiving individual TOs under an IDIQ under SEAPORTe. Is each TO considered individually as recent and relevant under section L, 2.2a, of the SEAPORT NXG solicitation?

A219. Yes, recent and relevant experience in direct support of the DON can be demonstrated by individual SeaPort-e Task Order awards.

Q220. Upon reviewing the NAVY’s solicitation SEAPORT-NXG N00178-18-R-7000, it is clear that our company by itself cannot meet the experience requirement. While our company has very good commercial experience and could easily succeed in providing the Navy the required service (in selected areas) we do not have the required “direct” Navy experience. The only way to move forward and overcome this obstacle is to either partner with a prime contractor and work as a subcontractor until we obtain the requisite experience (not ideal given our experience with prime contractors) or convince SEAPORT-NXG to drop the requirement – this is not likely. Perhaps either the PTAC, SBA or SEAPORT resources, who are copied on the email, know of a current and reliable seaport-e prime contractor looking for a new subcontractor otherwise our company is not in a position to proceed.

A220. As stated in the RFP (L.5.4.2), it is recommended that your company pursue direct Navy experience by teaming with a company that does qualify for SeaPort-NxG. The PTAC can advise on how to locate SeaPort MAC holders and companies that hold prime contracts with the DON in the areas your company is interested in pursuing.

Q221. Section L.5.4.2.b requires a subcontracting plan for large business Offerors. Should responses include both a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and a Small Business Participation Plan?

A221. Large businesses are required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan only with their proposals for SeaPort-NxG in accordance with FAR 19.702. See A31. Small Business Participation plans are required at the task order level.

Q222. We understand that offerors must have SAM certification under NAICS 541330 to receive a SeaPort-NxG award (Q&A document, Answer #187). Can NAICS code 541330 be one of several NAICS codes we possess or does it need to be our primary NAICS code on SAM?

A222. An offeror can be certified in more than one NAICS code; however, in order to receive award of a SeaPort-NxG MAC, offerors must be certified in NAICS 541330. This does not need to be the primary NAICS. The Government will verify an offeror’s certification in SAM.

Q223. Given the Government’s responses to Questions 37 143, 144, 147 and 185, would the Government confirm that the spreadsheet that will be provided with the formal RFP for offerors to identify potential teammates as part of their proposal submission will ONLY require the company name, address, DUNs, CAGE, size standard and socio-economic status, and NO other team member information will be needed? 2. A143 states: “At the time of award, all successful Offerors will be emailed information regarding access to the registration site within the SeaPort-NxG portal and information on how to register themselves and their team members. Successful Offerors will need to formally submit the information provided as part of the proposal within the registration site.” Would the Government please confirm that this action is just to allow the proposed team members access to the portal, and that these team members would be considered approved team members at this point (as their company name, address, DUNs, CAGE, size standard and socio-economic status would have been evaluated in the proposal) and therefore NO additional information for these team members would need to be entered at that time except POC information to establish their access to the portal? 3.

Would the Government please confirm that the ONLY information that will EVER be needed by Primes for their team members at the NxG contract level during proposal preparation, submission, and post award actions to establish portal access will be the company name, address, DUNs, CAGE, size standard and socio-economic status, and that other information such as past performance information, capabilities, will NOT be necessary simply to get team members approved at the contract level?

A223. For the SeaPort-NxG MAC, Offerors are to provide the team member information described in A143. All MAC awardees will then be responsible for registering all of their team members in the SeaPort-NxG portal which will require additional information such as email addresses, etc. Post- award addition of team members to the MAC requires the SeaPort-NxG Contracting Officer’s approval. Requests for team member additions are submitted through the portal and will require additional information. Only those entities that are approved as MAC team members may be Task Order subcontractors. Task Order post-award additions of subcontractors requires Task Order Contracting Officer approval. Information required for subcontractor additions may include past performance information, capabilities, cost information and justification for the need to add the subcontractor after the competitive award of the Task Order.

Q224. A. This question addresses Seaport-e task orders (issued by NAVSEA HQs or its field activities) with level of effort requirements, to include fee per hour payment based upon the clause HQ B-2-0015 PAYMENTS OF FEE(S) (LEVEL OF EFFORT ALTERNATE 1) (NAVSEA) (MAY 2010). The RFP for these task orders sometimes allow for offerors to propose Uncompensated Time, but it is not clear if the Government will pay fee/hour for uncompensated time. Can these RFPs and resulting task order awards clarify whether the Government is paying fee on both compensated hours AND uncompensated hours? Or paying fee on just compensated hours?

B. In CY 2010 NAVSEA HQs issued two new clauses regarding hours on level of effort task orders and payment of fee, a) HQ B-2-0015 PAYMENTS OF FEE(S) (LEVEL OF EFFORT ALTERNATE

1) (NAVSEA) (MAY 2010) and b) NAVSEA 5252.216-9122 LEVEL OF EFFORT - ALTERNATE I (MAY 2010). It is my understanding that these two clauses are supposed to be used together. If these two clauses are supposed to be paired together, can NAVSEA HQs change the first paragraph of each clause to cross-reference its sister clause, and say something to the effect that “This clause is to be used in conjunction with XXX clause.” Or is it possible to combine the language into one clause? Since there is no NAVSEA clause book accessible to the general public, this suggestion is really for the benefit of industry. We have encountered situations where, during execution of a task order that had the two CY 2000 clauses, contracting officers replaced only one CY 2000 clause with the CY 2010 version. The end result was a task order with the CY 2000 clause and the CY 2010 clause, thus creating confusion for years regarding payment of fee and delivery. Somehow the task order needs to state the binding relationship between the two clauses.

C. Seaport-e task orders typically include the NAVSEA 5252.216-9122 LEVEL OF EFFORT - ALTERNATE I (MAY 2010) clause, which says “…performance may be extended and the estimated cost may be increased in order to permit the Contractor to provide all of the man-hours listed in paragraph (a) above. The Contractor shall continue to be paid fee for each man-hour performed in accordance with the terms of the contract.” This is an open ended commitment, and the Government has used this clause to extend a five-year period of performance into task orders with six, seven, eight and nine years of performance (e.g., 2009 – 2018). Since the Government develops the LOE estimate in the RFP and ultimately controls the burn rate for the expenditure of hours based upon the amount of funding provided, the prime contractor is at the mercy of the Government, and is forced to perform for years past the original POP. In short, NAVSEA has inadvertently given itself the ability to extend services for years past the original POP until all hours are expended. By comparison, FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”, on the other hand, limits extensions to six months.

D. This is a follow-on question to c) above. While FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services” limits extensions to six months, it also allows the Government to use “the rates in the contract.”

Likewise, when NAVSEA extends performance on task order beyond OY4 and into OY5 - OY9, it uses “the rates in the contract.” Specifically, we have task orders with the same OY4 labor rates and OY4 fee/hour rates for performance in OY5 – 0Y9. This is also inherently unfair, and there has to be a means to increase both the average hourly labor rate and the total fee pool allowing the prime to collect fee at the percentage from its original proposal (be it 4%, 5%, 6% etc.). In a real life example, our company has an LOE contract where at the end of OY5 we’ve expended 1/3rd of the total LOE. In theory, the Government could make us perform into OY14 (the 15th year of the contract) and collect fee/hour at the OY4 rate, which was proposed 17 years prior.

At the time of proposal submission, there was no indication that performance could be extended for 15 years. I’m sure that the circumstances described in question c) (extending POP) and question d) (performing OY5 – OY9 at OY4 labor and fee/hour rates) are loopholes that were not contemplated fifteen years ago, however they need to be addressed in Seaport NxG.

A224. The NAVSEA texts/provisions referenced in the above questions are not applicable at the MAC level. Each ordering activity will add its own component texts/provisions at the task order level.

Q225. What is the definition of “recent” for the experience requirement?

A225. The RFP definition of “recent” is being revised from 5 years to 10 years.