SeaPort-NxG_QA_8_May_2018.pdf

SeaPort-NxG Q&A, 5.8.18

SeaPort-NxG Questions and Answers

8 MAY 2018

Q179. Can you tell me what the latest schedule is for SeaPort-NxG?

A179. The latest notional schedule is:

Formal RFP Release: 01 June 2018 Proposals Due: 02 July 2018 Awards Made: 30 November 2018

Q180. The current SeaPort contract has caps on certain rates, including pass-through rates and fee. While we understand the Government’s intent, is to streamline the cost analysis/realism process and negotiate lower costs, we are concerned that this universal policy negatively affects small businesses. It is commonly understood that: 1) Small businesses generally have higher indirect rates (due primarily to lower revenue to spread costs against); and 2) Small businesses are subject to significant fluctuations in sales and variable costs, and thus high volatility of indirect rates. Understanding the above, SeaPort’s current rates ceiling structure (generally 8%) can result in a significant negative impact on a small business if the company’s DCAA approved indirect rates are greater than the SeaPort contractual ceiling. For example, on a $1M subcontract with a max pass through rate of 8% (inclusive of G&A and fee), and a small business with a DCAA approved G&A rate of 9% and a contractual fee ceiling of 6% (which cannot be applied in this scenario), the small business would be subject to a $75,400 loss in revenue / indirect rate recovery (consisting of $10k in G&A and $65.4k in fee). With this in mind, will the Government consider establishing separate (higher) caps for small businesses, or accepting DCAA approved rates, and contract fee, on pass through/subcontracts? The ceiling on fee also negatively constrains small businesses on high-risk FFP contracts that lack the capital to take on these riskier contracts. This is compounded on multiple year contracts with fixed unit prices, as well as the passthrough issue noted above. Will the Government consider removing the cap on fee on FFP contracts?

A180. The Navy’s plan for SeaPort-NxG is to follow the SeaPort-e model to the greatest extent in order to maintain the same healthy competitive atmosphere and to continue supporting Small Business. SeaPort-e has been very successful in supporting Small Business. Since its inception 551 different small businesses have won task orders, and 54 small businesses have grown to “Other than Small” based in large part on the work they performed under SeaPort-e. As stated in Section B, the maximum fee rate is applicable to Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) CLINs only.

Q181. Regarding Section 5.4.1 Presence on page 61 of 67 of the draft solicitation, we understand that there is no longer any need to establish presence in the seven Zones, but can you explain how TO contracting activity will work within that Zone structure?

For example, is the Zone for each TO release determined by the location of the contracting office or primary place of performance? Also, will OCONUS contracting offices such as Yokosuka, Sigonella, etc., be able to use SeaPort-NxG?

A181. All awardees will receive all 7 zones. The zones are associated with the ordering office’s location; individual task order solicitations may identify personnel location requirements.

Q182. Given the amount of required information that is to be contained in the cover letter, will the Government consider a 2-page limit for the cover letter instead of 1 page as outlined in the Draft RFP?

A182. One page is sufficient.

Q183. Will the final RFP allow for the inclusion of a title page on the file submissions to ensure proper reference to proprietary information restrictions on the proposal submission? Will the Government also please identify that the title pages are excluded from the page limits?

A183. Proposals are not to include any proprietary data.

Q184. Regarding the proposal validity, page 58, 1.0 provides: Proposals submitted shall be valid for 365 days from the date of submittal. Page 62, 5.2 #6 provides:

Proposal validity for 365 days after issuance date of the RFP. Will the Government please clarify the validity requirement?

A184. The proposal validity period for all offers shall be 365 days from the closing date of the RFP. Pages 58 and 61 of the RFP will be corrected.

Q185. A144 states that “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.” For large businesses with many task orders under Seaport-e, this could involve including 30+ subcontractors who may or may not also be submitting their own bid as prime. a) Will the Government please clarify that the Government wants offerors to include all possible subcontractors with the MAC proposal submission? b) For contractors to provide timely requests for the addition of team members after award, will SeaPort NxG use a similar timeframe as Seaport-e which provides that contractors must allow no less than 3 to 4 business days for team member addition requests to be reviewed?

A185. Yes, the Government does prefer that all potential team members/future subcontractors be identified with the MAC proposal submission. Team members may be added post-award and the MAC PCO will process them as expeditiously as possible but the Government cannot estimate how long it may take to add team members post-award because we expect there will be numerous requests. Therefore, it would be in the offeror’s best interest to include all potential team members in their MAC proposal submission. A spreadsheet will be provided with the formal RFP for offerors to identify potential team members.

Q186. Section L para 2.2 and 5.4.2 require the offeror to show proof of recent and relevant DoN experience with a contract number (prime) or copy of subcontract (sub). If the offeror is proposing DoN experience where work is performed under a classified prime DoD contract (prime) to which the Navy will not have access for verification, will unclassified copies of the Technical Task Order suffice?

A186. The contract number should still be provided. No classified material should be included in the proposal. Offers should provide an unclassified description of work performed and the name, phone number, and email address of the Government contract Point-of-Contact.

A187. If a company is a Small Business under the governing NAICS code but the company did not include this NAICS code in its last SAM update, will said company be allowed to assert its Small Business status via other means? The last sentence in 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications, paragraph (d), appears to accommodate an amendment to SAM with our proposal without revising SAM, and this question would arise if the bidder did not include 541330 in its SAM certification but has pending business under a lower NAICS code threshold that may be impacted if the bidder is forced to update its SAM registration early in order to bid for the SeaPort NxG MAC. Such small businesses may not be able to bid on the SeaPort NxG MAC if certification updates are not permitted by other means.

A187. Offerors must have SAM certification under NAICS 541330 to receive a SeaPort- NxG award. Offerors will be determined to be small businesses or other than small businesses based on what is registered in SAM. The referenced sentence of FAR 52.204-8 (d) does not apply to size standards. It only applies to other representations and certifications promulgated by FAR clauses.

Q188. Will Enterprise-Wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA) be a requirement in NxG?

A188. It will be incorporated at the task order level.

Q189. Will Electronic Cost Reporting and Financial Tracking (eCRAFT) System be a requirement in NxG?

A189. No, eCRAFT is only applicable to NAVSEA Warfare Center Task Orders.

Q190. Will each IDIQ holder be required to maintain a publicly available Webpage throughout the period of performance of the NxG as currently required in the current Seaport-e?

A190. No, this will not be a requirement under SeaPort-NxG.

Q191. Section I, Page 32 of 67, FAR Clause 52.232-16 PROGRESS PAYMENTS (APR 2012). Is the Government only allowing Progress Payments as defined by this FAR for reimbursement of costs under NxG?

A191. FAR clause 522.232-16 will be deleted in the final RFP. Clauses governing payment are listed on page 21 of the draft RFP. The decision to provide for progress payments will be made at the task order level.

Q192. Why is FAR Clause 52.232-40 PROVIDING ACCELERATED PAYMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTORS (DEC 2013) excluded from NxG? We are a small company and depend upon accelerated payments. Why is the Clause

LIMITATION OF COST OR LIMITATION OF FUNDS LANGUAGE (FAR 52.232-20 &

FAR 52.232-22) excluded from NxG? Why is Clause PAYMENTS OF FEE(S) (COMPLETION) (NAVSEA) (MAY 1993) & Clause PAYMENTS OF FEE(S) (LEVEL OF EFFORT – ALTERNATE 1) (NAVSEA) (MAY 2010) excluded from NxG?

A192. SeaPort-NxG is a vehicle available across the DON ordering activities listed in Section C and as such, NAVSEA clauses are not applicable at the MAC level. As noted throughout the draft RFP, each ordering activity will insert their own component clauses at the Task Order level as appropriate.

Q193. We will be identifying the past performance of a former wholly-owned subsidiary.

However, while the subsidiary still exists as a shell company, the past performance, which is an ongoing contract, now belongs to the corporate offeror. Therefore, our interpretation of L.5.4.2.c. is that we do not have to submit a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter since we will not be taking credit for the work of a parent company, affiliate, division, and/or subsidiary. Can the Government please confirm that our interpretation of L.5.4.2.c. is correct?

A193. Since the contract belongs to the company that would be the prime offeror, a meaningful relationship letter is not required. The Government requires either a Meaningful Relationship letter or a contract that has been fully novated to the new name.

Q194. Will the Government please clarify that the “maximum pass through rates” are only applicable for task order bidding purposes and not applicable during task order execution?

A194. As stated in Section B of the draft RFP, the maximum pass through rate is the maximum rate than can be charged against subcontract cost.

Q195. Page 63 or 67, b. Subcontracting. Will the Seaport NxG contract require Small

Business Subcontracting reporting at the task order level in the Seaport NxG portal?

A195. Task Order Offerors may be required to address planned subcontracting goals but reporting of actual subcontracting experience will be at the MAC level.

Q196. Will the Government please clarify how the small business size status will be determined in the situation where all the CAGE codes of wholly owned subsidiaries of a

Holding Company are included under the SeaPort-NxG MAC? Will the Government please clarify how the 8(a) status will be determined in the situation where all the CAGE codes of wholly owned subsidiaries of a Holding Company are included under the

SeaPort-NxG MAC? Will the Govt please clarify the conditions under which a subsidiary can bid on a task order under the MAC held by its corporate entity? For example, if the

MAC holder is a graduated 8(a), but the subsidiary bidding on the TO is an active 8(a), does that allow the subsidiary to bid on 8(a) set aside TO? If one of the subsidiaries and cage codes declared by a holding company is a Joint Venture (JV), will the JV be allowed to bid on a Seaport NxG TO on the basis of its parent company being a MAC holder?

A196. Business size is determined by the company that has been awarded the MAC.

Q197. Your answer to question 32 stated that “If a company is a small business at the time they are awarded a SeaPort-NxG MAC…”. I believe the small business certification will be at the time of proposal submission, therefore, if a company was a SB at time of proposal submission but became a LB at time of award, it would still be classified as a SB. Please address.

A197. Size status will be verified by the Government after closing of the RFP. Given the volume of proposals expected, it is not possible to definitively predict when SAM will be checked.

Q198. Page 9 of 67, C.4, “Any change to the status of the SeaPort-NxG awardee does not alleviate the contractual responsibilities including but not limited to: 3) Any CAF not paid in full from the acquired contractor.” As there are no other references to Contract

Access Fee (CAF) in the draft RFP, will the government please remove item 3?

A198. Page 9 of the RFP will be updated to remove “3) Any CAF not paid in full from the acquired contractor.”

Q199. Under SeaPort NexGen will the Government require Small Business to re-certify on a solicitation basis? Small businesses must continually struggle to compete against large business who graduated out of their SB Status. Yet, these now large businesses are still allowed to compete as a small business until the MAC has expired. There are contractors with 100 million dollars in annual revenue. yet when a small business set-aside solicitation is released and a question is raised about re-certification the answer is always, “No.”

A199. SeaPort-NxG MACs will require awardees to recertify their size status at the end of the base five year ordering period and prior to option exercise of the option five year ordering period. At the task order level, only socio-economic small business set-aside RFPs will require offerors to recertify their size status and their socio-economic status in SAM to ensure they are eligible for award. For non-socio-economic small business set-aside task order competitions (i.e., just a small business set-aside), offerors will not be required to recertify their size status in accordance with FAR 52.219-28 Post-Award Small Business Program Representation.

Q200. I just wanted to take a second to say thank you to whomever the people are who have the patience to answer all the questions. 178 questions for a proposal limited to three pages where virtually everyone will be accepted? Kudos to you all!

A200. Thank you. The Government will continue to accept questions on the draft RFP and answer as many as we can prior to issuance of the formal RFP, however, when the formal RFP is released, the Government will no longer answer questions on the draft RFP. Any unanswered questions will have to be resubmitted referencing the formal

RFP.