SeaPort_NxG_RFP_Q&A_FINAL.pdf

N0017818R7000 SeaPort-NxG Q&A 18 June 2018

NOTE: Amendment 001 to RFP N00178-18-R-7000 has been posted to fbo.gov along with this Q&A set.

FQ1. Reference: RFP N00178-18-R-7000, Page 58 of 62, Paragraph 4.2 under 4.0 Proposal Format, states the following: All information contained in the offerors proposal shall adhere to the following: Developed utilizing Microsoft Office Products only Question: Can Offerors utilize Adobe Acrobat (pdf documents) products as well, considering: 1. The SF33 and Section K are already in a pdf format, and 2. Any signed documents, such as the Cover Letter, will also need to be in pdf format in order to protect signatures.

FA1. Section L.4.2 is amended to allow for both Microsoft Office Products and Adobe Acrobat Products. Section L.4.3 is amended to include the allowable file type for each document as follows:

Submission Identification Document Name Page Limit Format Cover Letter Company_Name_CAGE_ Cover_Letter 1 Adobe

Technical Proposal Company_Name_CAGE_Technical_Proposal 3 Word or

Adobe Subcontract SOW (if applicable) Company_Name_CAGE_Subcontract_SOW N/A Word or

Adobe

SF33 (Cover Page) Company_Name_CAGE_SF33 1 Adobe

Contractor Information Spreadsheet (Attachment J.1)

Company_Name_CAGE_Teaming N/A Excel

System for Award Management Self Certification of Offeror (Attachment J.2)

Company_Name_CAGE_SAMCeritification N/A Word or

Subcontracting Plan (if applicable)

Company_Name_CAGE_Subcontracting_Plan N/A Word or

FQ2. Page 62 of the Seaport NxG Final RFP, under Section M, subparagraph 3.1 EVALUATION PROCESS, states, “(b) Offerors will be required to describe recent and relevant DON experience in at least one of the 23 functional areas subcategories as defined in Sections C.” Is it a correct assumption that we can list two or more subcategories to which are experience relates? In other words, if the bidder describes experience on a single contract supporting DON within the last 10 years which covers more than one of the functional area subcategories within a single major category (Engineering OR Program Management), please confirm that bidder's submittal would not be considered non-compliant.

FA2. Addressing more than one of the functional area subcategories is not prohibited (an Offeror would not be considered non-compliant) but is unnecessary. Offerors need only to demonstrate recent and relevant experience in one of the functional area subcategories in order to qualify for an award. Addressing more than one subcategory does not increase an Offeror’s chances of receiving an award. Offerors may address more than one but not more than three subcategories; Section L.5.3 is amended to add this instruction. Section M.3.1 is amended to remove the words “at least”. As stated in Section M.3.1(b), no qualitative assessment will be made of the experience described; the information will be used solely to ensure companies proposing for a SeaPort-NxG MAC have experience performing some effort related to that covered by the scopes of work. All Offerors whose proposals are evaluated as passing the above criteria will be considered to have submitted a technically acceptable proposal.

FQ3. Will the Government allow a list of acronyms and their definitions?

FA3. Offerors can define acronyms within the 3-page limit of the Technical Proposal.

FQ4. Reference: Solicitation Section C.8.2.2 & Section C.12 Question: Solicitation Section C.8.2.2 states “To be eligible as a Small Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Women-Owned Small Business, 8(a) Business, or HubZone Business during the competitive ordering process, the Offeror must have had that status at the time of Task Order proposal submission.”

Solicitation Section C.12 states “Representations of WOSB, SDVOSB, 8(a) and HUBZone shall be monitored for award eligibility in set-asides at the Task Order level.” Is the government’s intent to monitor award eligibility at the Task Order level for all Small Business Set-Asides (via certifications at that level) or only for those set-aside for WOSB, SDVOSB, 8(a), and HUBZone concerns? If the latter, will the government please modify Section C.8.2.2 accordingly to clarify? It is understood that recertifications at the 5-year Option renewal are still required.

FA4. Individual Task Orders may be set-aside for SB, WOSB, SDVOSB, 8(a) and HUBZone.

For Task Orders that are set-aside for SB, Task Order PCO’s will be responsible for verifying the eligibility of Task Order Offerors (i.e. the Offeror is identified as a SB on their SeaPort-NxG MAC). The designation of SB is made at the time of award of the SeaPort-NxG MAC.

Awardees who certify as Small maintain that designation until recertification is required. For Task Orders that are set-aside for WOSB, SDVOSB, 8(a) or HUBZone, the Offerors shall certify their eligibility at the time of Task Order proposal submission.

FQ5. Does the government consider United States Coast Guard ship building and engineering experience, as Department of Navy experience?

FA5. No, the USCG is not part of the DON.

FQ6. Page 14. Section C Statement of Work, Paragraph C.11 ROLLING ADMISSION. This states “The Navy may periodically decide to expand existing Seaport Enhanced Multiple Award Contracts (MACs).”

Should this state “Seaport Next Generation” instead of “Seaport Enhanced”?

FA6. Yes. Section C.11 is amended to change the reference to SeaPort Next Generation.

FQ7. Page 58, Section L, Paragraph 4.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT, Subparagraph 4.2. This paragraph states that proposals should be developed utilizing Microsoft Office products only. Our Technical Proposal will be prepared using Microsoft Word. Is the .docx Microsoft Word format acceptable for submission?

FA7. Yes.

FQ8. Page 58, Section L, Paragraph 4.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT, Subparagraph 4.3. This paragraph states the page limitations for the Technical Proposal is three (3) pages. Do a title/cover page and table of contents count against the page count?

FA8. A cover page and table of contents are unnecessary. If submitted they will count toward the 3-page limit of the Technical Proposal. Offerors may include their company name and CAGE code in the header.

FQ9. Reference L.5.7 TEAM MEMBERS. Offerors should submit a list of their proposed Team Members (potential Subcontractors) at the time of proposal submission of the MAC award.

Information should include: 1. Team Member Name & Address; 2. Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Number, 3. DUNs Number; 4. Business Size and Socio-economic designation, Offerors shall use the attached spreadsheet to provide team member information with the proposal. Attachment J.1 Contractor Information Spreadsheet Attachment J.1 requires team members to provide their Tax Identification Number (TIN) on the spreadsheet but the instructions in Paragraph 5.7 does not. Is the TIN required from our Team Members? Is the Small Business field the area where a prime offeror is to submit a team member’s Socio-economic designation(s), as well as their Business Size?

FA9. The TIN is not required for team members. Attachment J.1 is amended to delete this field from the spreadsheet. Section L.5.7 is amended to delete the requirement to provide the socio-economic designation for team members.

FQ10. Reference: SECTION L, Page 61, 5.6 TEAM MEMBERS Q: Will the Government accept any Company POC or does it need to be a POC listed in SAM?

A10. Section L.5.6 does not require that a POC be identified in the team member information;

however, a POC will be required when MAC Awardees register their team members. This should be the individual the team member has identified to you as their POC.

FQ11. “Offerors are required to submit a description of one of the functional area subcategories listed below in either engineering support or program management support in direct support of Department of the Navy (DON)” Do we need to demonstrate Engineering/Program Management as a Prime with the Department of the Navy (DON) or can we do this through our subs? As a

Prime contractor can we use this past performance along with sub past performance to qualify for the above requirement?

FA11. No. Section L.5.3. of the RFP (last sentence) states “The Government will not consider the experience of individual employees or of team members as qualifying experience for a proposed prime Contractor”.

FQ12. Section L 5.3 pg 60--MARSOC and NAVSPECWARCOM are service components of the DON but are operationally controlled by SOCOM. Does multiple prime awards directly from the NAVSPECWARCOM and MARSOC Contracting Office count as experience providing support to the DON? If not allowed, please provide clarification on the support to the DON if 2 service components are not acceptable?

FA12. Direct support to any DON activity (including USMC activities) is considered direct support to the DON.

Q13. Section L 5.5 pg 61 Please confirm no pricing data is required for submission?

FA13. No cost or pricing data is to be submitted and Section B is not required to be filled out.

Section L.5.5 is amended to clarify this.

FQ14. Q&A 201, Pg. 13, C.9.2, pg 60, L 5.4 and M 3.1Q&A 201 stated that Small Business Plan goals are to proposed as percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars. The minimum goals in C.9.2 and L

5.4 also state these are percentages of total planned subcontracted dollars. However, also in L 5.4 and in M 3.1 there are requirements that goals are to be based on total obligated dollars. Please clarify if the plan goals are to be proposed as percentages of total obligated dollars or percentages of total subcontracted dollars

FA14. The Small Business Plan goals are to be proposed as a percentage of total planned subcontracted dollars. The last paragraph of Section L.5.4 and Section M.3.1 are amended.

FQ15. The RFP Section L, 52.237-10 IDENTIFICATION OF UNCOMPENSATED OVERTIME (MAR 2015) states “The offeror shall include a copy of its policy addressing uncompensated overtime with its proposal.” Since there is no cost proposal element of the bid submission, does the government want a copy of a company’s Uncompensated Overtime policy?

FA15. A copy of the Offeror’s uncompensated overtime policy is not to be submitted with the MAC proposal. Note the statement above the provision title that says “The following provision (52.237-10) is applicable at the task order level only”.

FQ16. Page # – 59 of 62 Paragraph Number or Identifier – Section 5.3, Engineering Support Services bullet list, bullet 7 “Modeling, Simulation, Stimulation, and Analysis Support” Question – Would the Government consider making “Analysis Support” its own subcategory instead of grouping it together with “Modeling, Simulation, Stimulation”?

FA16. These subcategories are broadly defined. “Analysis Support” is not limited to analysis support associated with modeling, simulation or stimulation.

FQ17. pg57, 3.7. The PWS of a contract we were sub-contractors on is marked FOUO, per CUI guidelines, I can't email it without encryption, will the government accept AMRDEC or other encrypted email proposals?

FA17. The designated proposal mailboxes are able to receive encrypted emails.

FQ18. Page 60, Section 5.3, last sentence before Section 5.4 as follows: "The Government will not consider the experience of individual employees or of team members as qualifying experience for a proposed prime Contractor."QUESTION/COMMENT: Our company is in the developmental stage of its 8(a) term -- the first 4 years of the 9 years total before graduating from the program. Companies in this developmental stage are typically allowed to use employee experience in lieu of corporate/company experience to assist them in being more competitive and to help ensure they progress through the 8(a) program. We therefore request that the above language be modified to allow SBA approved 8(a) companies in their developmental stage to be able to use experience of individual employees as well as any corporate/company experience to qualify as recent/relevant experience.

FA18. The Government requires corporate experience in order to support the needs of the DON as they are competed under SeaPort-NxG. As stated in Section L.5.3, potential offerors who do not presently have experience providing direct support to the DON are advised to consider becoming a subcontractor to a contract holder in order to gain that experience. SeaPort-NxG anticipates holding an on-ramp, or rolling admission, approximately two years after award of the initial MAC contracts, potential offerors who did not have experience at the time of the initial awards may then meet that criterion.

FQ19. Section C.10, p 14 states that only one contract will be awarded to one company and that a “Company” includes affiliates. Would the Government please confirm that two companies, who are un-related operationally, have completely separate leadership, and do not share resources, but happen to be majority owned by a single private-equity firm that is not involved in daily operations, are each eligible for award of a contract? Page 58, Paragraph L.3.12:Please confirm that an individual’s ownership of a majority interest in two business concerns does not cause the two business concerns to be a “Company” for purposes of the “Only one Prime Contract” rule. Page 58, Paragraph L.3.12: Please confirm that ownership of two business concerns by the same members of the same family does not cause the two business concerns to be a “Company” for purposes of the “Only one Prime Contract” rule.

FA19. Both companies would not be eligible for an award. In accordance with FAR 2.101, affiliates are defined as associated business concerns if, directly or indirectly, a third party controls or can control both. Both being owned by the same firm/individual meets the definition of “affiliated”.

FQ20. Section L, 4.2, Proposal Format, pg. 59 states - All information contained in the offerors proposal shall adhere to the following: • 10-point (minimum) (Times New Roman font) in the text. Attachment_J.1_-_Contractor_Information_Spreadsheet was provided with Arial 10 point in the heading and Calibri 11 point in the cells for data. Question: Should offerors submit Attachment_J.1 in the fonts’ provided or should the Attachment_J.1 fonts be 10-point (minimum) (Times New Roman font)?

FA20. Offerors should submit Attachment J.1 in the fonts specified.

Q21. The RFP refers to an SF-33 Form that is not included in the solicitation. Would this form be released soon? When opening and reviewing the PDF of the Final RFP. I am unable to extract pages from the PDF file. Each page returns “bad parameter.” Will this error be corrected in a future version?

FA21. The SF-33 is included in the RFP as the first page. It is a form that shows “SF-33” on the bottom. We have not received any other reports of these issues. It is recommended that you attempt opening the document with a newer version of Adobe or open Adobe first and then open the file.

FQ22. Page 57, Para 2.2, D: Requires vendors to submit a List of Team Members. Question: If we are not proposing teaming partners, do we include the List of Team Members attachment?

FA22. Offerors who are not including team members should still include Attachment J.1 in their proposal and provide the requested information for itself. Include a definitive statement on the form that no team members are proposed. Offerors are advised that post-award requests for team member approvals submitted immediately or soon after award of the MACs will not be answered right away as the MAC PCO will be busy and will not be able to respond. This could affect an Offerors ability to propose for task orders. Section L.5.7 is amended to require Offerors to fill out J.1 for themselves in addition to their team members.

FQ23. N00178-18-R-7000.PDF, Section L, 4.3, page 58 of 62Section L.4.3 states “The Government will not consider any information presented beyond the last whole word within the Page limit”. We understand from reading the Q&As previously answered, Q175 states that a cover page or table of contents is not required nor desired. Would the Government like to offerors to include a compliance matrix or acronym list?

FA23. Due to the limited size of the proposal, a compliance matrix or acronym list are not necessary. If included, they will count against the 3-page limit. See FA3.

FQ24. During the pre-Solicitation phase at Q&A’s 7, 60, 73, 88, and in the Draft RFP (Sec 2.2) reference to “recent” and relevant all stated recent is defined as within the last five years. The 1 June solicitation stated (Section 5.3 Technical Proposal (p.60)) “For the purposes of the technical proposal, recent is defined as within the last ten years”. Request verify that the change to a ten year period stated in the 1 June RFP for recent contracts is now the window expected for relevant DON contracts/subcontracts mapping to one of the functional areas (subcategories) in one of the two main Categories.

FA24. The formal RFP does now define recent as being within the last ten years.

FQ25. On page 57, you of the final RFP, you stated that " Small and Small Disadvantaged Businesses are STRONGLY encouraged to propose as prime Contractors". You have also included the following Contract Clause on page 24, "52.219-29 Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to, Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business Concerns".

However, on page 11, under section C.8.2 - Competitive Ordering Process, you have not included Economically Disadvantage Women-Owned Business. For the task orders, are you planning to also restrict competition to this social economic category?

FA25. Economically Disadvantage Women-Owned Business (EDWOB) set-asides are limited to certain NAICS. The SeaPort-NxG NAICS of 541330 is not eligible for EDWOB set-asides.

FQ26. Our firm only needs to submit 52.204-8(b)(2) of Section K. Do we need to just submit Page 47 of the solicitation or the entire Section K?

FA26. Please submit just the one page.

FQ27. Are electronic signatures acceptable for the SF33?

FA27. Yes, electronic signatures are acceptable.

FQ28. Attachment J.1, Contractor Information Spreadsheet, is not clearly identified as a submission on page 58, Section 4.3. Is the spreadsheet to be used for the “List of Team Members” submittal? If so, should the document be submitted as an Excel spreadsheet?

FA28. Yes, Attachment J.1 is to be used to provide the information for the Prime and List of Team Members and should be submitted as an Excel document. Sections L.4.3 and L.5.7 are amended to clarify this.

FQ29. Pg 14; Section C.12 - The RFP states the following, “Size status of the MACs shall reflect either Small Business or other than Small Business (Large Business) under NAICS 541330 – with the $38.5M Exception.” Can the Government please clarify whether this means that all offerors are subject to the $38.5M exception or only those bidders who are classified under NAICS 541330 a, b, or c?

FA29. All Offerors should be SAM registered under NAICS 541330 and are subject to the $38.5 exception.

FQ30. Page 59; Section 5.3 - Can the Government clarify whether or not the requirements of Section 5.3 imply that the one functional area subcategory that the offeror responds to is the only functional area subcategory that the offeror will receive work under?

FA30. The Statement of Work (Section C) of all SeaPort-NxG MAC awards will include both categories and all of the functional area subcategories. All Awardees will be eligible to propose on any Task Order solicitation issued with the scope of SeaPort-NxG. The wording of Section L.5.3 is amended.

FQ31. Page 56, Paragraph L.2.1: The paragraph includes the statement that “offerors are encouraged to submit proposals prior to the latest closing date.” If a contractor were to submit their proposal early, what would happen (or be required of the offeror) if the Government were to issue an amendment?

FA31. All Offerors should acknowledge receipt of amendments in Blk 14 of the SF33. If an Offeror has already submitted their proposal, at a minimum they should submit a revised SF33 with Blk 14 completed. If the amendment warrants changes to the Offeror’s original proposal, all proposal documents should be resubmitted and the email submission should clearly state that the original proposal is withdrawn and that the attached documents constitute the revised proposal. See also FA156.

FQ32. Section B, CLINS 2000 and 6000 - Given the maximum $4.5B value of CLINS 2000 and 6000 and the current maximum hours of 16,000,000, the government is indicating it anticipates an average hourly billing rate of $281.25, which seems excessive given the Navy Tripwire threshold rate of $156.00/hour and the types of work historically awarded under Seaport-e.

Request the government consider increasing the maximum hours to no less than 30,000,000 to allow for a more realistic cap on hours for each CLIN when compared to the established maximum values. Given there is no minimum set for hours under the MAC, the increase benefits only the government by allowing more flexible use of the vehicle across the very broad scope which includes work for which the average billing rate will be significantly less than the $156.00/hour Tripwire threshold rate (especially in many of the functional area subcategories listed in the Program Management category).

FA32. The hours per CLIN are not being revised.

Q33. Page 60, Paragraph 5.3 - The RFP states, “The Government will not consider the experience of individual employees or of team members as qualifying experience for a proposed prime contractor.” The US Government Accountability Office has ruled in favor of allowing the evaluation of experience to consider information regarding affiliated companies, and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(a)(2)(iii) allows the evaluation to consider key personnel who have relevant experience. In consideration of this, please clarify the use of experience for affiliated companies.

FA33. FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) is referring to the evaluation of past performance. As noted in Section M.3.1(d), past performance references are not required or desired. Section L.5.3 is describing the requirements to be met to be considered technically acceptable. Offerors cannot use their affiliate’s experience to qualify them for a MAC. One solution would be for the affiliate with the experience to hold the MAC and then the other affiliate could propose for task order solicitations, see C.10.2.

FQ34. Page 60, Paragraph 5.3 - The RFP states, “Support provided via contract with DOD agencies otherwise referred to as 4th estate agencies (DAU, DCAA, DCMA, etc.) and not directly in support of the DON in the areas listed in Section C will not be accepted.” Please clarify whether support for other Department of Defense entities (Army, Air Force, Marines) will be accepted.

FA34. Only experience in direct support of DON is qualifying.

FQ35. Page 11, Paragraph C.8 - The RFP states that task orders are solicited in the SeaPort portal. Please clarify the relationship between opportunities on SeaPort-e versus SeaPort-NxG, and whether companies currently bidding/holding contracts on SeaPort-e MAC will be able to concurrently bid on task orders in SeaPort-NxG.

FA35. Companies who currently hold SeaPort-e MACs will be able to concurrently bid/work on task orders under SeaPort-NxG provided they were awarded a SeaPort-NxG MAC. SeaPort-e and SeaPort-NxG are two separate Multiple Award Contracts (MACs) and portals. Having a SeaPort-e contract does not automatically qualify a company for a SeaPort-NxG award; a valid proposal must be submitted.

FQ36. Page 57, Section L, 2.3 states: "Current and active System for Award Management (SAM) registration is required." The government SAM administrators have recently required companies to submit notarized hard copy company administrator appointment letters for any new or updated SAM registrations. We've held a registration in good standing with SAM since SAM inception, and having recently updated our registration we were required to submit an appointment letter (dated May 21, 2018). As a result, our SAM registration status (and likely the status of hundreds of other companies subject to the same appointment letter requirement) currently shows "submitted" versus "approved." While we certify that we know of no reason that SAM might decline approval of our updated registration, we have not been able to obtain any additional status of our SAM registration. We contacted SAM using a telephone number they provided to obtain status - it required 27 speed dials before the call went through, then we were on hold for 45 minutes before a representative picked up. We asked to confirm receipt of our appointment letter and for an estimated time to complete review of our registration update and appointment letter. The representative told us that they could not answer our questions but we would receive an email when the review was completed. What are the ramifications of our SAM registration being in "submitted" status versus "approved" if SAM is unable to complete the review/approval process before the SeaPort NxG proposal due date? Will any SAM registration status other than "approved" result in disqualification of consideration for a SeaPort NxG award?

FA36. A status of “submitted” at the time of the proposal due date is acceptable. Due to the backlog in SAM, Attachment J.2 System for Award Management Self Certification of Offeror has been added to certify submitted SAM requirements.

FQ37. It is understood, per Section L - Page 58 of 62, that offerors are limited to 3 pages for the Technical Proposal. Can the Navy clarify whether this requirement limits offerors to 3 TOTAL pages for the Technical Proposal submittal or 3 pages per recent and relevant contract experience?

FA37. The Technical Proposal is limited to a total of 3 pages.

FQ38. Page 56, Section L, 1.1 states, “Proposals submitted shall be valid for 365 days from the closing date of the RFP.” Yet, Page 59, Section L, 5.2 COVER LETTER, Item 2 states, “Proposal validity for 365 days after issuance date of the RFP.” Which statement is correct?

FA38. Proposals shall be valid for 365 days from the closing date of the RFP. Section L.5.2 is amended.

FQ39. Section 5.2 Cover Letter; 4. Business Size; Page 59 of 62 We are a small business certified as an 8 (a), HUBZone and WOSB. Should we include our socio-economic status in the cover letter?

FA39. Offerors are only to identify their company size in the cover letter.

FQ40. Section 5.3 Technical Proposal; Page 60 of 62 Our experience was garnered performing as a Prime Contractor. Should we specify the specific functional area (subcategory) that our experience correlates with in the description of tasking performed section of the technical proposal? If not, please let us know where to include the name of our functional area subcategory

FA40. Yes, your Technical Proposal should describe the functional area subcategory that your experience correlates to as well as providing the contract number.

FQ41. Reference: RFP Section L, 5.0 Proposal Content, 5.3 Technical Proposal, Page 59 of 62.

Question: For purposes of submitting a description, will Task Orders under a Subcontract IDIQ be treated as a single subcontract thus description?

FA41. Yes, an individual Task Order may be used to describe the recent and relevant experience. Provide both the task order number as well as the contract number.

FQ42. The following question is regarding SOLICITATION NO. N0017818R7000, Page 14 of 62, Section C.10.2 – One Prime Per Company. Also reference the Government’s answer to question 196 previously posted. The question is: The answer to question 196 states that the business size is determined by the company that has been awarded the MAC. Assume a corporate structure with 8 affiliated subsidiaries. If an 8(a) company within this corporate structure is awarded a Seaport-NxG MAC as an 8(a)-certified small business, can all the subsidiary companies within the same corporate structure also respond to solicitations that are set aside as 8(a), even though they are not a certified 8(a), since the business size is determined by the company that has been awarded the MAC?

FA42. Yes, as long as the Prime Awardee can certify as 8(a), proposals in response to Task Order 8(a) set-asides can include subsidiary companies that are not 8(a). If the 8(a) offeror proposes, then that specific business entity (not a subsidiary) would be required to adhere to the Limitations on Subcontracting requirements, 52.219-14, as well as carry the 8(a) banner since that is the company of record.

FQ43. My SB has been performing work under a prime contractor's Seaport e prime contract for a number of years. I recently started a non-affiliated SBA approved HUBZone company in support of those community efforts. Understanding that the two companies have no "meaningful relationships" as defined by the draft solicitation, will the Navy allow the newly formed HUBZone company to use the past performance experience of the SB company in order to submit a proposal as a HUBZone Seaport NxG prime contractor?

FA43. Since both companies are owned by the same individual they are affiliated based on the definition in C.10.1. As an affiliate, the HUBZone company can use the experience of the SB company in their Technical Proposal.

FQ44. 5.7 Team Members: Can the government confirm which information on the teaming spreadsheet will be required after award to input into the Navy’s system?

FA44. Below are the fields that will be required at registration:

Field Notes

Team Member Type in the full legal name of your team member as it appears in SAM.

Address Street address of the team member’s primary location. This address MUST match the Physical Address as it appears in SAM.

City City of the team member's primary location.

State State of the team member's primary location.

ZIP ZIP+4 postal code of your team member's primary location.

CAGE Code The team member's CAGE code.

DUNS The team member's DUNS number.

EPOC First Name The E-Business Point-of-Contact (EPOC) is authorized to represent the company in contractual matters (e.g., Submitting proposals, accepting Task Order awards) and is generally intended to be the company’s primary representative or user of the SeaPort portal. An account will be created for the provided e-mail address. This person will be responsible for registration of additional users.

EPOC Last Name

EPOC E-mail

Confirm EPOC E-mail

EPOC Phone Number

Alternate EPOC First Name

Alternate EPOC Last Name

Alternate EPOC E-mail

Confirm Alternate EPOC E-mail

Alternate EPOC Phone Number

Business Ownership Select either:

Large Business, if a large business, or one or more Small Business designations.

If you select Large Business, all Small Business designations will be cleared.

If you select any small business subcategories (e.g., WOSB), Small Business will automatically be checked and Large Business will be cleared. Enter all small business subcategories as applicable.

FQ45. On Page 58 Section 4.3 under Proposal Format the first bullet item states: “Proposals shall be limited to the separate email attachments identified by the Naming Convention and page limitations below.” Can one email contain all the required but separate attachments (i.e. one email with FIVE attachments) or do we have to submit one separate email with only one attachment FIVE times? i.e. one email with cover letter, one email with proposal, one email with SF33, etc.

FA45. One email is acceptable as long as it does not exceed 5 MB. If it exceeds 5 MB, Offerors may separate their submission among multiple emails and should number them email 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3, etc.

FQ46. How can bidders access Q&A and other relevant NextGen information? Will post-RFP Q&A be made available through FBO postings?

FA46. All information concerning SeaPort-NxG including the RFP, amendment, announcements and Q&As will be posted to FBO.

FQ47. Reference: Section K, 52.230-1 COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NOTICES AND CERTIFICATION, Pg 52, paragraph 1 (“NOTE:”) If a company is a small business, is any of the documentation requested by Section K, 52.230-1 required to be in the proposal?

FA47. The certification 52.230-1 is not applicable to small businesses and should not be included in the proposal if the Offeror is a small business.

Q48. On Page 3 of 62, it shows CLINS: CLINs 4000-4999 as (Not Separately Priced (NSP) Data - Contract Data Requirements List - To be delivered in accordance with DD Form 1423-1 On Page 5 of 62, it shows CLINS CLINs 8000-8999 as (Not Separately Priced (NSP) Data - Contract Data Requirements List - To be delivered in accordance with DD Form 1423-1 But then on Page 16 of 62 - Section D - Packaging and Marking, it reads: Data - Line Item 4000 (and if option is exercised) 7000 - Data to be delivered by Integrated Digital Environment (IDE) or other electronic media shall be as specified in the task order. All unclassified data to be shipped shall be prepared for shipment in accordance with best commercial practice Question: Should CLIN 7000 be CLIN 8000 instead?

FA48. Yes, CLIN 8000 is the Not Separately Priced CLIN for data deliverables. Sections D and E are amended to make this correction.

FQ49. Although Page 46 of 62, starts the beginning of Section K - Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors; Question: Should all pages (46-51) be submitted; or just the pages that require answering: Page(s): 47, 50, and 51?

FA49. Section K is amended as follows: DFAR 252.204-7007 Alternate A Annual Representations and Certifications is added; the FAR 52.209-5 is deleted because it is included in FAR 52.204-8; and FAR 52.204-8 (c)(2) identifies the following as applicable: 52.204-17 Ownership or Control of Offeror and 52.204-20 Predecessor of Offeror.

Section L is amended to include the provision FAR 52.204-16 Commercial and Government Entity Code Reporting. The paragraph originally included in L.5.6 is deleted and replaced with the following: In accordance with FAR 52.204-7 the Offeror shall complete the Annual Representations and Certifications at www.SAM.gov. Due to a backlog in SAM processing registrations, Attachment J.2 System for Award Management Certification shall be filled out by all Offerors and submitted.

FQ50. Question 1: Page 62, Section M, 3.1 Evaluation Process, (c). This section states the Government will determine if the subcontracting goals are proposed in accordance with FAR Part 19 (listed in L.5.6). L.5.6 addresses Section K of the RFP, while L.5.4 addresses Subcontracting Plan. Would the Government please confirm that the correct reference for M, 3.1, (c) is L.5.4.

FA50. The correct reference in M.3.1(c) should be to L.5.4. Section M.3.1(a) is amended to make this correction.

FQ51. Page 59, Section 5.3 Technical Proposal – We understand that for the Technical Proposal, only the recent and relevant experience in one functional area subcategory is to be described by 1 and not more than 3 contracts. Is it acceptable for the Technical Proposal to contain a table showing several contracts for a functional area subcategory but only discuss in the text, 1 to 3 of the contracts?

FA51. No, the Technical Proposal shall refer to no more than 3 contracts/subcontracts.

FQ52. Section M 3.1, p 62 states, “The Government will determine if the subcontracting goals are proposed in accordance with FAR Part 19 (listed in L.5.6).” Draft RFP Q&A 201 states:

FQ201. 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 http://www.sam.gov/

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…” Would the Government please confirm that offerors do not need to state dollar values to be evaluated as having an acceptable subcontracting plan? If the Government does not want offerors to include dollar values for the goals in the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, as dollar amounts for goals is a required field for eSRS reporting, will the Government please advise what contractors should enter when reporting against the contract in eSRS?

A52. The goals presented in the Subcontracting Plan should be expressed as percentages only, not dollar values. Section L.5.4 is amended to add this statement.

FQ53. Section L 5.4 p 61 states, “In accordance with FAR 19, Large Businesses are required to submit a subcontracting plan, which contains the above goals.” Would the Government please confirm that an offeror should use the following periods against which to propose goals: Base:

30 Dec 2018 – 29 Dec 2023 Option: 30 Dec 2023 – 29 Dec 2028.

FA53. Yes, the proposed goals should be based on the Base and Option periods of performance identified in the RFP.

FQ54. Page 56, Section 2.2 – Which email address should companies with company names starting with a number submit to the government?

FA54. Use the alphabetical spelling of the number to determine the appropriate mailbox.

Section L.2.1 is amended to add these directions.

FQ55. Section 4.3 indicates that the Government would like two separate files: one for the SF33 and another for Section K. This appears to conflict with Section 2.2. Would the Government like the SF33 to be in a separate file from Section K, or should these be submitted in one volume?

FA55. The SF33 and Section K are to be submitted as separate volumes consistent with Section L.4.3. Section L.2.2 is amended to clarify this.

FQ56. Should the offeror omit the proprietary data restriction on the header/footer sections on its proposal?

FA56. Proprietary data restrictions are permissible. Offerors are to limit proprietary information in their proposals in accordance with Section L.3.2,.

FQ57. The page size is not specified even though 1 inch margins are specified. Am I correct in assuming that pages are standard 8.5 x 11 pages?

FA57. Yes, these directions are based on 8.5 x 11 page size.

FQ58. Please confirm that headers and footers are permissible outside of the 1 inch margin requirement.

FA58. Yes, headers and footers are allowable outside the margins. Section L.4.2 is amended to include this instruction.

FQ59. We would like to assert Data Rights that derive from SBIR Contracts as part of our Representations and Certifications in the event that a Task Order includes work pertaining to the underlying technology. Should we submit, as part of the SF33 Section K.25 252.227-7017?

FA59. Any assertion in accordance with DFAR 252.227-7017 would be submitted as part of individual Task Order proposals.

FQ60. Page 58, 4.3 states that documents are to be named Company_Name_CAGE_XXX. Does the Government wish for the word "Company" to be included prior to the company name i.e.

Company_XYZ Name_CAGE_Cover_Letter? Is the reference to “CAGE” in the Naming Convention to be replaced by the “Individual entity’s “Cage Code Number”, as follows:

Company_Name_”number”_Cover_Letter … Or should the entry be indicated as:

Company_Name_“CAGE”_”number”_Cover_Letter … and so on?

FA60. No, do not include the word “Company” in front of the company name. Do not include the word “CAGE” in the name just the entity’s CAGE number.

FQ61. Is it true that this submission is due Response Date: Jul 02, 2018 2:00 pm Eastern? Was this moved up from September?

FA61. Yes, proposals are due July 2, 2018. No, this has not been moved up from September.

We did publish an earlier notional schedule indicating proposals would be due 2nd QTR of FY18 which would have been Jan-Mar 2018, so the actual proposal due date is later than originally forecasted.

FQ62. Does direct support of the Marine Corp qualify as “direct support of the Navy” being that the Marine Corp is under the Department of the Navy?

FA62. Yes, the USMC is part of the DON and therefore, direct support to the USMC qualifies as direct support to the DON.

FQ63. Section L, Paragraph 5.3 Technical Proposal (page 59 of 62 pdf) – for recent and relevant experience, does the project have to be 100% complete or is it acceptable to submit a project that is currently underway.

A63. A project that is currently underway is acceptable as long as actual tasking is being performed; simply holding a MAC or BPA is not sufficient.

FQ64. Page 13 of 62 C.9.1 - Definitions: It is stated that “Team members and subcontractors do not have to hold a MAC contract in order to perform tasking under SeaPort orders.” Am I correct in understanding that this means team members and subcontractors won’t be required to use the portal? And, if so, page 57 of 62 section 2.5 states “Access will be provided only to those vendors that are awarded a SeaPort-NxG MAC.” Please provide clarification.

FA64. Team members are required to have access to the portal in order to upload their subcontract proposals. As stated in Section L.2.5, access will be given to all SeaPort-NxG MAC awardees so that they can register their team members. After registration is completed, team members will have portal access and are subject to the same portal responsibilities as the prime.

Sections C.7.1 and L.2.5 are amended to clarify that portal access will include team members.

Section C.9.1 is stating that team members and subcontractors do not also have to have their own SeaPort-NxG MAC as a prime contractor in order to perform as a subcontractor.

FQ65. Is a SBIR Phase II considered appropriate as relevant experience for Functional Subcategory 2 Software Engineering, Development, Programming and Network Services?

FA65. Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contracts in direct support of the DON that covers at least one of the 23 functional area subcategories may qualify as relevant.

FQ66. Page 60 of 62 Paragraph 5.3 Technical Proposal Question: For experience garnered as a subcontractor, the last subparagraph says that “in addition to the information listed above, a copy of the subcontract SOW, shall be provided along with the Prime Contractor’s name and Contract Number.” Is the Contract Number referred to in this sentence the same as the Contract Number in the bulletized list describing the information prime contractors provide? I.E., do both Contract Numbers refer to the Prime’s Contract Number?

FA66. The last paragraph in Section L.5.3 is referring to when your company is citing experience gained while performing as a subcontractor. Along with the subcontract SOW, include the name of your Prime Contractor and the Prime Contractor’s Government Contract number. The preceding paragraph is referring to when you are citing experience as a Prime Contractor; then provide your company’s Government Contract number.

FQ67. Could you please clarify if Attachment J.1 – Contractor Information Spreadsheet and Announcement #4 are an actual Amendment? – that should be listed on the SF 33? Reference:

FBO: Added: Jun 01, 2018 11:02 am: Amendment to provide Attachment J.1 - Contractor Information Spreadsheet and to include Announcement #4.

FA67. Neither the posting of Attachment J.1 and Announcement #4 was an amendment to the RFP. Only formal Amendments should be listed on the SF33; formal Amendments are issued on a SF30. At this time, Amendment 0001 is the only RFP Amendment that needs to be acknowledged on the SF33.

FQ68. eSRS does not allow ISR reporting at the task order level- only at the IDIQ level. Please clarify.

FA68. See FA52.

FQ69. RFP Section(s): Attachment J.1Question: Attachment J.1 – Contractor Information Spreadsheet asks for Point of Contact information, please confirm this is the primary POC for the contract itself and will not be used to identify the E-POC in the Seaport system. Or should this be the E-POC?

FA69. The individual to be identified should be the POC for all electronic notices issued through the SeaPort-NxG portal.

FQ70. RFP Par C.8.7, Pg 12 of 62: The RFP gives a minimum protest threshold of $20M. FAR 16.505(a)(10)(i)(B)(2) sets the minimum protest threshold for task orders at $25M. Was this an administrative error? If not, what drives the difference?

FA70. The reference in the RFP is outdated; the minimum protest threshold is $25M. Section C.8.7 is amended to incorporate the correct FAR cite and dollar threshold.

FQ71. The solicitation incorporates clauses for HUBZone, SDV and WOB set-asides and sole sources, thus contemplating using those SBA programs, but do not incorporate the SBA clauses regarding 8(a) awards (52.219.11, .12, .17, .18). As such, it would appear that the RFP is not contemplating 8(a) task orders. Is it the intent to not utilize 8(a) options under the contract, once awarded?

FA71. The absence of the appropriate 8(a) clauses is an oversite, the Government intends to allow for 8(a) task orders. Section I is amended to include 52.219-17 and 52.219-18. The clauses 52.219-11 and 52.219-12 are not applicable since they are prescribed for sole source 8(a) awards.

FQ72. The solicitation states that there can be only one prime contract per company. Is it permissible for multiple subsidiaries of the same company to submit proposals, and upon award, the company will select which subsidiary will retain the contract and be used as a portal for all other subsidiaries?

FA72. No, the Government does not intend to award more than one MAC to affiliated companies. The company must make this business decision prior to the time of proposal submission.

FQ73. RFP Section 5.3, pp. 59-60: May offerors cite projects for Navy organizations that don’t report their spending to FPDS (e.g., Chief of Naval Installations Command-MWR/VQ)?

FA73. Offerors need to provide the Government a prime contract number or subcontracting SOW that shows experience in a functional subcategory in order to verify the experience cited.

FPDS-NG data is not relevant.

FQ74. RFP Section 5.3, p. 60: The RFP defines recent as within 10 years. May offerors use projects that were performed within the last 10 years even if they were awarded prior to 10 years ago?

FA74. Yes.

FQ75. Page 58 of 62 - Section 4.3 - Many company names are lengthy and will lead to excessively long document/file names. Is there a limit on the size of the file name (number of characters)? Will the Government allow the use of an abbreviated company name in the Document/File Name? Is it acceptable to use an ampersand (&) in the file name?

FA75. Yes, Offerors may use abbreviated company names as long as the first letter of the abbreviated name is consistent with the actual company name. It is recommended that special characters, such as ‘&’ be avoided.

FQ76. Page 61 of 62 - Section 5.7 - Team Members - Please confirm that offerors are not required to include any signed letters of intent/commitment authorizing the offeror to add another vendor as a proposed Team Member. What is to prevent Offerors from looking up CAGE codes in SAM and adding any company as a team member?

FA76. Signed letters of intent are not required for team members, only the submission of Attachment J.1 List of Team Members. How many and which companies are proposed as team members does not increase your chances for receiving a MAC award, so to do this would be of no benefit to you. The benefit of including team members with the initial proposal is that they are ready to be entered into the Registration site upon award of the MAC so the Team Members can then be proposed as subcontractors and they will be granted portal access.

FQ77. Section L.2.1 states “Offerors are encouraged to submit proposals prior to the latest closing date. Inclusion of a delivery receipt with an email submission will be the only indication of successful receipt of proposal.” We respectfully request the Government reconsider providing responses to offerors to confirm proposal receipt. It is our experience that email attachments are sometimes stripped when sending to navy.mil accounts, and delivery receipts are not always reliable.

FA77. Section L.2.1 instructs Offerors to limit their emails to less than 5MB and not to include .zip files in order to prevent this issue.

FQ78. Section L requirements for a small business subcontracting plan state “The subcontracting plan must state that the proposal goals are based on total obligated dollars.” FAR requirements for a small business subcontracting plan typically require that goals are expressed in terms of total dollars subcontracted, and as a percentage of total planned subcontracting dollars. Is it acceptable for the small business subcontracting plan submitted with this proposal to state goals in terms of percentage only with the statement that the goals are based on total obligated dollars.?

FA78. 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.

FQ79. Can you provide a more verbose description of “Software Engineering, Development, Programming, and Network Support?” Specifically, what skill sets/quals is the government seeking in this area.

FA79. The SOW services are intended to be broadly defined. More specific requirements including personnel qualifications will be identified at the Task Order solicitation level.

FQ80. Reference is made to Section L, Paragraph 5.3 (pages 59-60).