SeaPort-NxG_Q&A_29_May_2018.pdf

SeaPort-NxG Q&A, 5.29.18

THIS IS THE LAST Q&A TO BE POSTED FOR THE SEAPORT-NXG DRAFT RFP. THE

FORMAL RFP WILL BE ISSUED ON 1 JUNE 2018 AND WILL BE POSTED TO

FBO.GOV. ANY QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BUT NOT ANSWERED AS OF 29 MAY

2018 MAY BE RESUBMITTED REFERENCING THE FORMAL RFP.

SeaPort-NxG Questions and Answers

5/29/18

Q226. We believe that the included socio-economic targets, e.g., Hubzone, are unrealistic and will be tough to meet. For example, we believe there may be insufficient Hubzones available to support 3% of the total SeaPort industrial base. Please confirm that the Government believes that the percentages associated with set-asides can be achieved from the existing industrial base.

A226. The 3% goal is based on the DoD Subcontracting Goals.

Q227. FAR 19.704 (15) (c) states, “For multiyear contracts or contracts containing options, the cumulative value of the basic contract and all options is considered in determining whether a subcontracting plan is necessary. If a subcontracting plan is necessary and the offeror is submitting an individual subcontracting plan, the individual subcontracting plan shall contain all the elements required by paragraph (a) of this section and shall contain separate statements and goals based on total subcontract dollars for the basic contract and for each option.” Would the Government confirm Offerors should ONLY be providing one set of percentage goals for the entire Seaport Next Generation contract and do not need to provide separate statements and goals based for each contract year?

A227. Offerors shall follow the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. If the Offeror is submitting an individual plan, it shall contain separate goals for the base and option (not for each contract year as stated in the question).

Q228. Question, p. 63, 5.4.2 b. Subcontracting: DFARS 252.219-7004 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program) is not in the draft RFP. If a large business participates in the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program, will its Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan satisfy the requirement to have a small business subcontracting plan in response to this RFP?

Per our approved Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan, it shall apply to all Department of Defense prime and subcontracts existing at the time of approval and awarded through the current effectivity period. Individual subcontracting plans (Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts) will not be required for any Department of Defense contracts during our participation in the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program.

A228. Offerors who are participating in the DOD Test Program for Negotiation of Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans may submit their approved comprehensive subcontracting plan. The clause at DFARS 252.219-7004 will be added to the final RFP.

Q229. Section M. During evaluation is there a ranking or preference to the type of contract submitted? Our company has both Seaport-e and other contracts that support the DoN. For example, our SPAWAR System Center Atlantic Battlespace Awareness contract has a larger value and scope than our Task Orders under Seaport-e. Do our Navy Seaport-e Task Orders carry more weight than the Non-Seaport contracts?

A229. No, there is no ranking or preference for the type or size of contract identified in the proposal as recent and relevant experience. SeaPort-e task orders do not carry more weight than Non-SeaPort-e contracts/task orders. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to demonstrate that the cited contract meets the definitions of recent and relevant experience provided in Section L, is in direct support of the DON, and is associated with one of the subcategories of one of the functional areas.

Q230. If we do not require past performance from an affiliate business, but wish them to have access to bid opportunities through us as a prime, are Meaningful Relationship letters required?

A230. No. This section of the RFP is being revised; the requirement for Meaningful Relationship letters will be deleted.

Q231. Are there any restrictions on teaming with Foreign companies?

A231. Clauses that impact subcontracting with a foreign company, such as DFARS 252.209- 7004 Subcontracting with Firms that are Owned or Controlled by the Government of a Country that is a State Sponsor of Terrorism or DFAR 252.225-7049 Export-Controlled Items, will apply at the task order level – the point at which a team member becomes a subcontractor.

Additional restrictions may be included in task order solicitations.

Q232. L.5.4.2.b states that “Large Businesses are required to submit a subcontracting plan, which contains the above goals.” If a vendor has a current approved GSA Schedule approved Subcontracting Plan , please confirm this is acceptable to submit with an offer?

A232. A GSA approved Commercial Subcontracting Plan is not acceptable.

Q233. Is it possible to get rosters of participants from the industry days in April and May?

A233. For the event that occurred in April, Sea-Air-Space Exposition, you would have to contact the Navy League, the event host, to obtain this information. Information about the May event, C-CAP Expo, will be posted on the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division Small Business page.

Q234. Page 20 of 67; Reference: Section I; 52.219-9 (Deviation 2016-O0009) and 52.219-9 (Deviation 2016-O0009) Alternate II; January 2017. Question: The titles of the clauses indicate a deviation from 2016; however, the RFP indicates clause effective dates of January 2017. The most recent version of the deviated clause we have been able to locate is dated August 2016. If there is a 2017 deviation, please provide the text of the clause for offeror review.

A234. FAR 52.219-9 and 52.219-9 Alt II (Deviations 2016-O0009) are no longer applicable and will be removed from the final RFP.

Q235. Thank you for the response to Q205 in which the government acknowledged the need for an increased hours ceiling for the CPFF CLINs - but only increased each to 16,000,000 hours for a total of 36,000,000 hours for the two CLINs. To clarify, the intent of the request was to have each CPFF CLIN hour ceiling set at 35,000,000 since we believe 16,000,000 hours for a single 5-year CPFF CLIN and 36,000,000 for both CLINs may be insufficient. We request the government increase the CPFF CLIN hour ceilings to 35,000,000 each. Thank you for your consideration.

A235. The Government revised the hour ceiling based on data from Seaport-e and has determined the increase to 16,000,000 hours to be adequate.

Q236. I have operated a sole proprietorship that provided and continues to provide NxG qualifying direct support to Navy contracts. I have recently formed a business entity, an LLC, which is the successor to the sole proprietorship. I plan on doing all future business through that entity. In light of the answers to Q7/17/87, does the sole proprietorship experience qualify the successor business entity, the LLC, for the NxG contract or must I respond to the solicitation as a sole proprietor?

A236. If the contract with the qualifying experience has been novated to the LLC, the experience transfers to the LLC. See A66 and A209.

Q237. In SAM, our company is certified as "other than small" under 541330 ($15M size standard). However, we are certified as a small business under the 541330 exception for Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture ($38.5M size standard). Please confirm that the business size determination for SeaPort-NxG will be based on the offeror's size certification in SAM under the 541330 Exception ($38.5M) and NOT under 541330 ($15M).

A237. Yes, the business size determination for SeaPort-NxG will be based on the Offeror’s size certification in SAM under 541330 Exception for Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture ($38.5M average annual receipts).

Q238. Per the draft RFP, offerors must propose the maximum amounts specified in Section B.

A213 does not include a submission item for Section B. Please clarify where offerors should include their completed Section B (if required).

A238. Offerors will not have to complete or submit Section B as part of their proposal.

Q239. I recently attended the NSWC PHD Industry Days Expo (Oxnard, May 16 2018), specifically attending to catch the Seaport/NxG brief. It was mentioned that we could go online to revisit the presentation slides used, however I cannot find anything other than Q&A sessions.

Would you please give me direction on how to obtain those presentation slides? I’d like to use to compile information to my program manager.

A239. Information concerning the NSWC PHD Industry Day will be posted on the NSWC PHD Small Business webpage.

Q240. (Ref A223) For a SeaPort NxG - Task Order RFQ response can a MAC awardee include another MAC awardee as a team member or sub-contractor even if the MAC awardee 's original submittal in response to N00178-18-R-7000 did not mention/include any other team member / subcontractor?

A240. The MAC awardee would have to request a post-award team member addition as described in A223, in order for the other company (which may be another MAC awardee or subcontractor) to be included as a subcontractor on a task order proposal.

Q241. Our subcontract agreement that contains the required SOW includes proprietary information interspersed throughout the document. Per draft RFP Section L.3.2 proprietary information shall not be included. May we simply redact the proprietary information (e.g., fee, CPFF rate, etc)?

A241. Yes, you may redact the proprietary information.