SeaPort-NxG_Q&A_24_APR_2018.pdf

SeaPort-NxG Q&A, 4.24.18

SeaPort-NxG Questions and Answers 24 April 2018

Q143. The answer to question 18 states that "Offerors should identify their proposed team members so they and their team members can receive access to the SeaPort-NxG portal once award is made." The answer to question 37 states that "Offerors will be required to submit the Team Member's Name (as registered in SAM), the DUNs Number, and Cage Code. The SeaPort-NxG RFP will include instructions on how and when to submit proposed teammate(s) registration information. Since SeaPort-e and SeaPort-NxG are standalone contracts, a teammate added to SeaPort-e will not automatically be added to a SeaPort-NxG's MAC, or vice versa." The draft RFP does not contain information for including companies as subcontractors in an offeror's proposal. As many existing SeaPort-e prime contact holders have dozens of registered subcontractors, request the Government provide the detailed instructions for submitting proposed teammate(s) registration information so that offerors can begin compiling the necessary data prior to RFP release.

A143. Section L of the final RFP will provide a format for Offerors to provide team member information. The information requested will include: company name, address, DUNs, CAGE, size standard and socio-economic status. 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.

Q144. For the initial Seaport Contract many contractors put “mega-teams” together that in retrospect did not seem like the correct strategy. Also, for the legacy contract, adding teammates after award seemed relatively simple. Would the USG please provide guidance on how teammates would be allowed to be added after the upcoming awards are announced?

Does the USG have a preference that teams should be created before proposal submission or as needed as individual delivery orders may dictate?

A144. It is preferred that all team members are identified at time of award of the MAC. Team members can be added after award; however, untimely request and the resultant delay in the approval process could impact Task Order proposal submission.

Q145. We have performed as a prime on several relevant and recent contracts for the DoN.

In the Technical Proposal should we include information on more than one contract or limit our response to one contract? Is there an upper limit on number of contracts cited for relevant experience?

A145. Offerors are not required to limit their technical proposal to only one contract/subcontract; however, one is sufficient. The final RFP will include a limitation that no more than 3 total references be provided.

Q146. In Section L, on page 60 of 67 Section 4.3, the last sentence states “The offeror is required to submit one entire completed copy (signed by the offeror) of the RFP in their proposal.” On page 61 of 67, Section 5.3, the paragraph states “Standard Form 33 with blocks 12 through 18 completed. DO NOT CHANGE THE SF33 IN ANY WAY EXCEPT TO ADD THE OFFERORS INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED IN BLOCKS 12 THROUGH 18. The offeror is to submit one copy of the signed SF33 cover page and any fill-ins.” Does the Government want the signed SF33 along with the entire RFP as part of the submission, or just the signed and completed SF33 as described in Section 5.3?

A146. The SF33 submission should include the Cover Page with Blocks 12 through 18 completed, as applicable, and Section K (at a minimum 52.204-8(b)(2)) completed by the Offeror. These instructions will be clarified in the final RFP.

Q147. In which volume should the Offerors list its proposed subcontractors? What information should be provided for the proposed subcontractors (socio-economic status? company name and CAGE, or DUNS)? Is there any qualification requirement for the proposed subcontractors (e.g., not been debarred or suspended per SAM.gov, etc.)? What’s the page limitation for this part of narrative?

A147. Refer to A143 for the information that will be required for team members; there is no page limit. There is no qualification requirement for the proposed team members since they would not be considered subcontractors until proposed at the Task Order level. As part of each Task Order RFP process, there may be qualification requirements, such as verification of SAM record, that apply to subcontractors.

Q148 Reference: Draft RFP Page 66 of 67, Paragraph 3.1 (a) “. The Government will first determine, by verification in SAM, that the offeror … and has accurately portrayed their size status.” Question: Should the Offeror certify its size status in its proposal? If yes, in which Volume? If no, how does the Government determine the size status of the Offeror? This has an impact on future set-aside Task Order competition eligibility. This issue also applies to Socio-Economic status such as 8(a), SDVOSB, etc. Should Offeror certify its socio-economic status in its proposal? How does the Government intend to verify/validate the Offeror’s statement on its socio-economic status?

A148. Offerors are to identify in their Cover Letter their company size; the final RFP will be modified to add this requirement in Section L. The Government intends to verify the Offerors’ status with the certifications in SAM. Prime Offerors are not to identify any socio-economic program designations at the MAC level; however, further designation by socio-economic group may be made at the Task Order level. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to ensure their socio-economic categories are accurately reflected in SAM because SAM will be used to verify status at the time of Task Order proposal submittal. (This amends A119 which stated socio-economic program status would be indicated in the cover letter.)

Q149. See Section L.5.4.2.c (page 63) – According to this section an offeror cannot take credit for any prior experience gained as a subcontractor regardless of its relevance.

However, this restriction appears to be contradicted by the Evaluation Factor I (Technical

Capability) text (see page 60) that states, “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.”.

Please clarify.

A149. Section L.5.4.2.c is about meaningful relationship commitment letters in the context of an Offeror taking credit for recent/relevant experience of entities within its own corporate structure (see definition on page 64 of the draft RFP). In this context, Offerors cannot take credit for recent/relevant experience of their subcontractors because their subcontractors are not within their corporate structure and the subcontractor’s experience is not their own experience. This should not be confused with the evaluation criteria which requires direct support to the DON either as a prime or as a subcontractor in at least one of the areas listed in Section C.

Q150. In response to paragraph 5.4.2.a, is it the Government’s intent that offerors cite one (1) recent and relevant contract and describe how it correlates to at least one (1) subcategory? OR is it the Government’s intent that offerors write broadly to one (1) subcategory, citing multiple recent and relevant contracts as experience?

A150. Either approach is acceptable; however, the final RFP will include a limit of no more than 3 recent and relevant contracts/subcontracts that can be cited as experience. See also A102.

Q151. Some Prime Task Orders function like IDIQ contracts with work assigned through an additional SOW or Technical Directive. For work performed as a Prime, will the offeror be allowed to submit a SOW or Technical Directive to show direct Navy experience?

A151. The Offeror’s Technical Proposal shall provide a contract number and description of the work performed within the scope of the cited contract. Additional directives issued for the contract may be discussed in the Technical Proposal but copies of technical directives should not be included.

Q152. Page 64 Section L 5.4.2 c bolded paragraph under second numbered list: For the purposes of this procurement, can Meaningful Relationships exist outside a corporate structure? If yes, can the government provide specifics on all other Meaningful Relationships (e.g. Mentor Protégé)?

A152. As defined in the draft RFP Section L.5.4.2.c., a “meaningful relationship” only exists within a corporate structure; a Mentor Protégé is not considered a “meaningful relationship”.

Q153. In the Draft RFP, Paragraph 5.3.2 appears to require the submission of certifications and representations with the proposal, but then directs attention to SAM and ORCA. If an offeror’s certifications and representations are up-to-date in SAM, are offerors still required to submit certifications and representations with their proposal?

A153. All Offerors should complete FAR 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications section (b)(2) indicating whether their representations and certifications in SAM are up-to-date or if they will complete each of the representations and certifications covered by the provision individually.

Q154. Is there a limitation on subcontractors/teaming for small businesses? What will be the submission requirements to demonstrate subcontractor teaming for small businesses?

A154. There is no limit to the number of team members allowed on a team. See A143 concerning the information required for team members.

Q155. Reference: L.5.3.2, pg. 61 states - Section K: All fill-ins to be completed by the offeror.

The Offeror shall insert the proposed information where an * appears in Section K. Attention is directed to www.SAM.gov regarding Online Representations and Certifications (ORCA) as outlined in Section K. Question: At the reference (Section K) the only K area that contains a * is within the Full Text Clause of 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certifications (Oct 2015). Can Small Business offerors assume that no “*” fill-ins apply to them as the Clause is not applicable or required for completion by Small Businesses?

A155. Yes.

Q156. For the Tech Proposal content, the DoN asks for a “description” and “information” to “show evidence” that our experience correlates to one of the subcategories. How in depth does our description need to be in order to prove relevance? Is the DoN looking for a description of the services and support provided that are relevant to the subcategory? Or a detailed methodology of how the services and support were accomplished?

A156. Offerors should be detailed enough in their technical proposal to show the relevance of their experience to one subcategory in one functional area subject to the page limitation.

Q157. The following statement taken from the Draft SeaPort NxG RFP implies that the requested commitment letter needs to include a “commitment” regarding the performance and utilization of the entity / teammate, i.e.., how the identified entity will be used in upcoming task orders as it relates to performance, etc. As it currently reads, it sounds as if the Government is looking for a statement that commits the Prime and the Teammate to a specific way the team mate will be used for upcoming task orders. Is that the intent with this statement? If not, would you please provide clarification regarding this statement? For each meaningful relationship identified for SeaPort-NxG proposal elements, the Offeror must provide a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter that includes the following: 1. Clear and legal identification of the meaningful relationship between the Offeror and entity identified. 2. A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the identified entity’s resources on SeaPort-NxG task orders.

A157. In the MAC proposal, Offerors are not required to describe how team members will be used in Task Orders. Meaningful relationship commitment letters only apply within a corporate structure as defined in Section L.5.4.2.c.

Q158. We appreciate the actions the NAVSEA Support Services Acquisition Program Office (SSAPO) is taking to simplify the SeaPort Next Generation (NxG) procurement process.

However, requiring offerors to have prior US Navy experience to submit a proposal, is more “restrictive” than “simplification” and is contradictory to the trends of industry. While product diversity in the IT market exists, the industry trend has been centered on enterprise optimization: standardizing processes, data, technology and applications wherever possible across the enterprise. The Federal government and industry have embraced this movement toward standardization, common platforms, and tools that can support multi-vendor environments. This is substantiated by published standards from National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Institute, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) an other governing bodies. A role of an IT solutions provider and systems integrator is to achieve the most effective utilization and maximum value from IT investments.

If only Navy experience is considered, SeaPort-NxG becomes less effective by not incorporating many of innovative solutions being provided to other Federal departments and agencies. With the implementation of standards and common IT frameworks there is no difference in providing Engineering Support Services and/or Program Management Support Services to the different branches of the Department of Defense (DoD) and very little difference in providing these same services to Federal Civilian Agencies. If NAVSEA restricts the past experience to only Navy contracts, it will not only limit competition, it will also reduce the pool of highly qualified contractors that have provided innovative and cost effective solutions to the Federal government – but not to the Navy. Question: Will the SSAPO reconsider the current very restrictive requirement for Navy past performance and accept relevant experience from any Federal agency, thus ensuring reasonable competition and a broader pool of past performance that showcases innovative solutions across multiple Federal agencies and departments?

A158. The requirement for experience in direct support of the DON is based on the unique nature of the mission of the DON and the support necessary to successfully execute that mission as described in Section L.5.4.2.a.

Q159. RFP page 20, FAR clause 52.219-9 (Deviation 2016-O0009), reduces the frequency of Summary Subcontract Report (SSR) submissions under an Individual Subcontracting Plan from biannual to annual. RFP page 63 states, “The reporting of the actual subcontracting information experienced under the SeaPort-NxG contract will occur in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). An e-mail notification will be sent twice a year to all prime contractors requiring the information to be entered into eSRS.” Can the Gov’t please clarify the frequency of submission for the SSR?

A159. FAR 52.219-9 Deviation 2016-O0009 is no longer in effect and will be removed from the final RFP. 52.219-9 requires biannual reporting and is consistent with RFP Section L.5.4.2.b.

Q160. Page 23 of the Draft RFP contains DFAR 252.244-7001, Contractor Purchasing System Administration. Can DOD please clarify if a nontraditional defense contractor, per the definition in DFAR 212.011, would need to have a certified CPSR in place prior to submitting an Offer?

A160. The criteria under which the Administrative Contracting Officer determines the need for a Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) are documented in FAR 44.302. This standard is applicable to any DOD contractor whether or not they consider themselves to be traditional. It is not necessary to have a certified CPSR to be eligible to be awarded a SeaPort-NxG MAC.

Q161. Can DOD confirm that FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items will apply to the acquisition of supplies and services from nontraditional defense contractors?

A161. No, FAR 52.212-1 will not be included in the RFP. Commercial purchasing procedures are not included as part of SeaPort-NxG.

Q162. The draft RFP states that “SeaPort-NxG anticipates holding an on-ramp, or rolling admission, approximately two years after award of the initial MAC contracts”. Will the on ramp be available for both large and small businesses?

A162. Yes, rolling admissions will be available to any qualifying business, large or small.

Q163. Request the Government provide descriptions for the Service Areas listed in C.3.1 and C.3.2

A163. The description of the task areas in C.3.1 is intentionally broad. Detailed statements of work will be part of the Task Order process.

[END OF 24 APRIL 2018 Q&A]