N0017824R7000_SeaPort_NxG_ RA_ RFP_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SeaPort NxG IDIQ MAC Rolling Admissions II
- Solicitation number
- N0017824R7000
About this file
This document is a set of questions and answers related to Solicitation N0017824R7000 for the SeaPort NxG IDIQ MAC Rolling Admissions II.
The key details are:
- This is a rolling admissions solicitation to competitively award multiple award IDIQ contracts (MACs) for the SeaPort NxG program.
- The MAC contracts will allow prime contractors to compete for future task order awards under SeaPort NxG.
- The solicitation is being issued by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division on behalf of the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and other Navy SYSCOM partners.
- The Q&A covers topics such as registration and portal access, joint ventures and mentor-protege arrangements, past performance and relevant experience requirements, subcontracting plans, and other administrative and technical proposal requirements.
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
2 May 2024
| Category | REFERENCE | QUESTION | ANSWER | DATE REC'D | |
| 1 | General | General | Can responses provided under previous SeaPort-e or SeaPort NxG solicitations be utilized for this Rolling Admissions II proposal? | Answers provided under previous SeaPort-e or previous NxG solicitations do not apply to this current SeaPort NxG Rolling Admissions II solicitation N0017824R7000. | 4/9/24 |
| 2 | General | General | Do current SeaPort MAC holders need to propose under this Rolling Admissions? | No. | 4/9/24 |
| 3 | General | General | Our company has several active SeaPort portal logins but those were created for us as a subcontractor or previous SeaPort-e MAC holder. Can we use those logins to submit a Seaport NxG On Ramp proposal? | Rolling Admissions Solicitation Number N00178-24-R-7000 was released on SAM.gov on 9 April 2024. Please refer to the Rolling Admissions solicitation on the SAM.gov website for instructions on submitting your registration information and a proposal for the Rolling Admissions. You do not respond to the RFP through your existing SeaPort account. There is a separate module for Rolling Admissions and registration and submission takes place there. | 4/9/24 |
| 4 | General | General | My company is a subcontractor on Seaport NXG. Do I need to reregister as a Prime and start the process all over if we want to submit our Prime application for this rolling period? | If your company is a subcontractor only and wants to bid as a Prime MAC holder, then a proposal must be submitted through the portal in accordance with instructions set forth in the RFP. | 4/17/24 |
| 5 | General | SAM.gov | Under SAM.gov posting (classification), Place of Performance is listed as “Dahlgren , VA”. This is NOT mentioned anywhere in the solicitation document that I could find Please clarify. | Dahlgren, VA is the locatation of the ordering activity issuing the Rolling Admissions II solicitation. There is no work at the MAC level. Subsquently competed task order solicitations will identify the place of performance. | |
| 6 | General | J.2 | The third checklist on the SAM Certification sheet requests Existing SAM Record is Current through______. Can the Government confirm that the date required is the same as the "Expiration Date" found on SAM.Gov? | Yes | 4/15/24 |
| 7 | General | J.4 | In column J, does the government want DUNS or UIE numbers? | Provide UEI only. | 4/17/24 |
| 8 | General | Pg 45, 4.5 & 5.0 | The RFP offers a "Naming Convention" for the Cover Letter and the SF33 indicating they should be separate documents. However, the Cover Letter and SF33 are listd under the Heading "Technial Proposal Content" as subheadings indicating they should be included in the Technical Proposal. Can the Govt. clarify if the Cover Letter and SF33 should be separate documents or included in the technical Proposal document or in both? | Yes, the cover letter and SF33 should be separate documents to be uploaded as part of the Technical proposal. | 4/15/24 |
| 9 | General | Page 44, 4.2 | All information contained in the offerors proposal shall adhere to the following: Developed utilizing Microsoft Office Products only. Is it permissible to submit the proposal files in PDF excluding the Excel document? | Yes | 4/16/24 |
| 10 | General | Mod 2, Page 6, para 4.2 | The government states that responses will be developed utilizing Microsoft Office Products only. For documents requiring a signature, does the government want those converted to .pdf for digital signature? | Yes | 4/17/24 |
| 11 | General | We are trying to get registered on SeaPort and the instructions state that we “must also submit at least one attachment for each of the three categories listed on the Category dropdown on the Manage Attachments page”. The dropdown has four Categories, and the last one is Technical Proposal. That is the only category I did not upload a document for. The system will not let me submit. It says that we must add attachments for each category first. What is required for the Technical Proposal Category? I didn’t find a template for that category. | Yes, there are four (4) categories. The documents to be loaded as part of the Technical Proposal are listed on page 45 of the RFP dated 04_11_2024. | 4/19/24 | |
| 12 | General | Attachment J-4 Contractor Information Spreadsheet | Column S, Socioeconomic Status has a dropdown selection for SDVOSB, WOSB, 8(a), and HUBZone. However, you can only select one choice from the dropdown. If a small business fits more than one socioeconomic status, how should that be represented in the contractor information spreadsheet? For example, our company is 8(a), SDVOSB, and HUBZone. | Yes, you can add multiple entries of socioeconomic status to the spreadsheet and that information will be reconciled prior to contract award. | 4/22/24 |
| 13 | General | Attachment J-4 Contractor Information Spreadsheet | Please clarify what is referenced by the column heading, “Responsibility Certification Checked? (Y/N)”. There is no checkbox within SAM with this terminology and we are not aware of any certification required within SAM for “Responsibility”. | Column AC of Attachment J.4 is to ensure that an Offerors have submitted their System for Award Management (SAM) Certification (see Attachment J.2). | 4/23/24 |
| 14 | General | SF33, Block 12 | please confirm that the blank in Block 12 should be filled in with "365" calendar days. Otherwise, please advise how to complete this field. | Yes | 4/22/24 |
| 15 | General | SF33, Block 15A | Should bidders leave "Code" and "Facility" under 15A blank? If not, please advise how to complete these fields. | "Code" is the Offeror's Cage Code and can be completed by the offeror. Facility can be left blank. | 4/22/24 |
| 16 | General | DCAA Audit | Will not undergoing a DCAA audit impact our ability to be awarded this contract? | Not undergoing a DCAA audit only prohibits MAC holders from holding Cost-type task orders. | 4/22/24 |
| 17 | General | Attachment J. 1 | If an Offeror already has a SeaPort NxG Portal Account, will there be any adjustments to the registration instructions outlined within Solicitation_J.1_SeaPort-NxG+Registration+Instructions_FY24_04102024? | No, the Rolling Admissions module is separate from the rest of SeaPort. Please proceed with the instructions in J.1. | |
| 18 | General | Foreign Entities | Are foreign entities permitted to submit an offeror for award of a SeaPort NxG MAC? | No, foreign entities can not bid unless they have an approved foreign ownership, control or influence approval from DSCA in accordance with DFAR Clause 252.204-7020 NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements. | |
| 19 | Joint Ventures/MPP | C.10.3 | After reviewing the final RFP – we were surprised that it does not include the MPP carve-out in section c.10.3 of the conformed MAC? Was that an oversight or is it a change to the MAC? | Specific language regarding the SBA Mentor Protege Program participants was determined to not be required as https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-125/section-125.8 explicitly states the rules and regulations for SBA MPP participants to submit a proposal under and contract vehicle. | 4/9/24 |
| 20 | Joint Ventures/MPP | We are a member of a joint venture that would like to bid on this RFP and it’s our understanding that the joint venture cannot bid since we, as a member, own a contract. | It is recommended that vendors submit their proposal for the JV as planned with a note in the cover letter regarding the currently held SeaPort NxG MAC and the desire to terminate that MAC should the JV be awarded a MAC at Rolling Admissions. Our office will take the appropriate course of action at that time. | 4/10/24 | |
| 21 | Joint Ventures/MPP | Page 16 of 54 – Paragraph C.10.3 – Joint Ventures (JVs) | Are there any exceptions to the Government’s exclusion of a Joint Venture having the ability to be awarded a NxG IDIQ such as a sanctioned SBA Mentor Protégé Joint Venture that is an established legal entity separate from the established legal entities of the Mentor Company and the Protégé company? | In accordance with Section C.10.3, the "One MAC per company" rule applies to MPP JVs, however, MPP JVs are allowed to bid at the Task Order level under the small business's (mentor or protege) MAC. If neither partner of the MPP JV holds a MAC, the MPP JV itself OR one of the partners (but not both) is allowed to apply for a MAC at Rolling Admissions. Past Performance from either the mentor or protege can be used for either partner to win a stand alone MAC. | 4/10/24 |
| 22 | Joint Ventures/MPP | Section C.10.3, page 16 of 54 - Joint Venture and individual partners can only hold one SeaPort NxG MAC | We respectfully request that the Government consider an exception to this requirement for SBA approved Mentor-Protégé joint ventures. Such an exception would ensure that the protégés in a SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé joint ventures have opportunities to receive the benefits of the MPP (such as general business guidance, financial assistance, business development, and other general and administrative requirements), while also providing such companies the ability to individually respond to opportunities as a prime MAC awardee, or as a subcontractor to another prime MAC awardee who may also be a member of a mentor-protégé joint venture. Additionally, such an exception would provide more opportunities for competition, especially for set-aside contracts under the SeaPort NxG MAC for which the protégé qualifies. Please advise if an exception to this requirement in Section C.10.3 can be made for Mentor-Protégé JVs. | Offerors do not need this exception to receive benefits of the MPP JV. For example, Past Performance from either the mentor or protege that meets the criteria outlined in Section C can be used for either partner to win a stand alone MAC | 4/10/24 |
| 23 | Joint Ventures/MPP | Section C.10 on pages 15-16 | does not align with the January 4, 2024 unilateral mass modification issued to all SeaPort NxG MAC holders. That modification amended the wording in section C.10 to state the following. Many offerors have developed teaming and business strategies to align with the current MAC language as written. Will the government kindly update the seaport-NxG on-ramp solicitation (N0017824R7000) section C.10 to mirror that of the current SeaPort NxG MAC? | No, the Government intends to make the Affiliates Rule in the SeaPort NxG MAC consistent with the Rolling Admissions II RFP via mass mod dated 2 May 2024. | 4/11/24 |
| 24 | Joint Ventures/MPP | C.10.2. - One Prime Contract Per Company (Third Paragraph): | Will the entire section of C.10.2 from the 4 Jan 2024 Mass Mod be incorporated into the 2024 RFP including the omitted paragraph above? | No, it will not be incorporated. | 4/11/24 |
| 25 | Joint Ventures/MPP | Page 43 of 54, Section L, Paragraph 3.11 | Offeror respectfully requests the Affiliates rule in the Solicitation (N0017824R7000) found on Page 15 of 54, under Section C, C.10. AFFILIATES RULE be updated per below to ensure consistency between the provisions of the Solicitation and the most recent conformed MAC. | No, the Government intends to make the Affiliates Rule in the SeaPort NxG MAC consistent with the Rolling Admissions II RFP via mass mod dated 2 May 2024. | 4/11/24 |
| 26 | Joint Ventures/MPP | pages 15 & 16, Section C.10.2 and C.10.3 | Are SBA-approved Mentor Protégé Joint Ventures (MP JVs) subject to “One Prime Contract Per Company” and “Joint Ventures.” We are a current SeaPort-NxG MAC holder and the latest MOD 12 states, “The only exception to the one contract per company rule is in the case of a firm that has an SBA-approved mentor-protégé agreement authorized under 13 CFR § 125.9. For MPP JVs, the mentor, protégé, and JV can each hold a MAC. Partners within the JV are allowed more than one MPP JV MAC within the SeaPort program provided the additional mentor-protégé relationships have been approved by the SBA and the related MPP JVs do not compete against each other for particular task orders. See 13 CFR § 125.9.” When we posed the question of when to apply for the MP JV to also be a MAC holder, we were advised by the SeaPort Program Contracting Officer to apply at the SeaPort NxG Onramp rolling admissions. Please advise/clarify. | In accordance with Section C.10.3, the "One MAC per company" rule applies to MPP JVs, however, MPP JVs are allowed to bid at the Task Order level under the small business's (mentor or protege) MAC. If neither partner of the MPP JV holds a MAC, the MPP JV itself OR one of the partners (but not both) is allowed to apply for a MAC at Rolling Admissions. | 4/11/24 |
| 27 | Joint Ventures/MPP | The rolling admissions solicitation contract document does not appear to conform with the most recent version of the Seaport NxG contract which Seaport NxG Prime Contractors currently hold. Will the Government confirm that the terms will be updated so that it is reflective of the current contract? | The Government intends for the current SeaPort NxG MAC and the Rolling Admissions II RFP to be consistent. | 4/11/24 | |
| 28 | Joint Ventures/MPP | Section C.10.2 One Prime Contract Per Company (page 15); Section C.10.3 Joint Ventures (page C.10.3); Section 3.11 Only One Prime Contract Per Company is allowed (page 43): | Will the Government please confirm that there is an exception to the “One Prime Contract Per Company” rule whereby the Government will allow for approved SBA Mentor Protégé Program JVs to hold a contract? If the above exception applies to this rolling admission, then will the Government confirm that all approved SBA Mentor Protégé Program JVs, even those established between entity-owned affiliated concerns, may hold a MAC in addition to the mentor or protégé company? | See answer 26 | 4/11/24 |
| 29 | Joint Ventures/MPP | C.10.2. - One Prime Contract Per Company | Seaport NxGEN released a mass modification to option exercise current Seaport NxGEN contract holders. That contract modification incorporated Mentor Protégé Joint Venture language, specifically, “the exception to the one contract per company rule is in the case of a firm that has an SBA-approved mentor-protégé agreement authorized under 13 CFR § 125.9.” In Solicitation No: N0017824R7000, under Sections C.10.2 One Prime Contract Per Company and C.10.3 Joint Ventures on pages 15-16, the SBA-approved mentor-protégé agreement authorized under 13 CFR § 125.9 language was not incorporated. Does the government plan to amend Solicitation N0017824R7000 with this language? | No, the Government will not amend the solicitation. In accordance with Section C.10.3, the "One MAC per company" rule applies to MPP JVs, however, MPP JVs are allowed to bid at the Task Order level under the small business's (mentor or protege) MAC. If neither partner of the MPP JV holds a MAC, the MPP JV itself OR one of the partners (but not both) is allowed to apply for a MAC at Rolling Admissions. The SBA MPP JVs must be compliant with 13 CFR 125.9 | 4/12/24 |
| 30 | Joint Ventures/MPP | Can a mentor and protege both hold separate SeaPort NxG MACs? | Yes, in accordance with the SBA regulations this is allowed as the mentor and protege are not considered affiliates. | ||
| 31 | Joint Ventures/MPP | Does SeaPort participate in the DoD Mentor Protege Program? | No, the DoD MPP is managed seperately than the SBA MPP. The DoD Mentor Protege Program is a post-award cost share program once a contract is awarded and has no bearing on how SeaPort contracts are awarded. The SBA MPP affects size status and past performance in awards of a contract so that is recognized by the SeaPort IDIQs. | ||
| 32 | Joint Ventures/MPP | Will the Government please confirm that two companies only affiliated with one another through the formation of an SBA-approved MPP-JV are each eligible to hold SeaPort NxG MAC awards AND their MPP-JV entity is also eligible to hold its own SeaPort NxG MAC award? In other words, the mentor entity, the protege entity, and the resultant MPP-JV can each hold their own SeaPort NxG MAC award? | In accordance with Section C.10.3, the "One MAC per company" rule applies to MPP JVs, however, MPP JVs are allowed to bid at the Task Order level under the small business's (mentor or protege) MAC. If neither partner of the MPP JV holds a MAC, the MPP JV itself OR one of the partners (but not both) is allowed to apply for a MAC at Rolling Admissions. The SBA MPP JVs must be compliant with 13 CFR 125.9 | 4/16/24 | |
| 33 | Joint Ventures/MPP | C.10 (Pages 15-16 of 54) | Sections are in conflict with modification P00007 issued 01/04/2024 to existing MAC holders concerning the eligibility of SBA MPP JVs. Will the government amend the subject solicitation to reflect the language as modified in P00007? | See answer 29 | 4/16/24 |
| 34 | Joint Ventures/MPP | Section 3.11 | The language in Section 3.11 of the RFP does not explicitly reflect the exceptions for Mentor-Protege Joint Ventures (JVs) as detailed in the existing Prime IDIQ contract Section C.10.2. we respectfully request that Section 3.11 of the RFP be reviewed and modified to clearly include the Mentor-Protege exception. | See answer 29 | 4/17/24 |
| 35 | Joint Ventures/MPP | Section 3.11 (page 43) | contains language that is inconsistent with Sections C.10.2 and C.10.3 of the current SeaPort NxG MAC...Please revise the language in the RFP to reflect Sections C.10.2 and C.10.3 of the current SeaPort NxG MAC. | See answer 29 | |
| 36 | Joint Ventures/MPP | If both corporate entities within an SBA-approved MPP-JV each hold their own respective SeaPort NxG MAC awards, is the resultant MPP-JV also eligible to hold its own SeaPort NxG MAC award? | See answer 32 | 4/18/24 | |
| 37 | Approved Acctg System - Joint Ventures/MPP | Section L.5.7 Page 48-49 | Will the Government please confirm the DCAA Approved Accounting system may be held by either the montor or the protege Joint Venture? | The offeror submitting a bid to become a SeaPort NxG MAC holder will be the entity receiving the DCAA audit and must hold the approved accounting system. | 4/24/24 |
| 38 | Non-Affiliate Certificates | Section l, Page 6 & 7 | Under what specific circumstances is a Non-Affiliate Certificate required? [Section L, Page 7, Paragraph 5.2] | This would only be applicable for an offeror that may be affiliated with a current Seaport NxG MAC. | |
| 39 | Non-Affiliate Certificates | Section L, Page 6, Paragraph 4.3 | Is the Non-Affiliate Certificate to be included as part of the Cover Letter or is it a separate attachment as shown in the Naming Convention Table Section L, Page 6, Paragraph 4.3 | Either is acceptable | |
| 40 | Non-Affiliate Certificates | Section L, Page 7, Paragraph 5.2 | Where can we find the appropriate form or format for the Non-Affiliate Certificate within the solicitation documents? | Visit the SBA website for information on the MPP program and certificates of non-affiliation. | 4/16/24 |
| 41 | Non-Affiliate Certificates | Page 46, Section 5.2 (Cover Letter) | bullet 7 states "“any certificates of non-affiliation to another SeaPort NxG Prime MAC holder…” | See answer 40 | |
| Question: Can the Government provide clarification on what should be included in the certificate? | |||||
| 42 | OCI | Section 6.5 | Section 6.5 of the RFP states that if the offeror determines that “a potential organizational conflict of interest does not exist at any tier, the offeror shall include a statement to that effect in its response to this solicitation.” Shall offerors include their OCI statement in the cover letter? If not, please indicate where the Government would like for the OCI statement to be included. | If you have an actual OCI, you must identify the OCI in your cover letter and submit your OCI mitigation plan in accordance with Section C.13 Organizational Conflict of Interest. | 4/10/24 |
| 43 | OCI | OCI | This section states that “If the offeror determines that a potential organization conflict of interest does not exist at any tier, the offeror shall include a statement to that effect in its response to the solicitation”. Where in the proposal should this statement be included? This offeror suggests the cover letter as a potential place to insert this statement. | See answer 43 | 4/11/24 |
| 44 | Registration - SAM | Registration - SAM | When the website pulls from sam.gov, it’s showing that we are a large business when in fact we are a very small business. We revisited our sam.gov profile this morning to confirm the problem isn’t on our end. Should I go ahead with the registration even though the pull-in from sam.gov shows us as a large business? We are well below the $47M threshold for this NAICS code. | Please ensure that your size status is accurately provided in your proposal documents (i.e., cover letter and Attachment J.4) and proceed with the registration. The data from SAM will be reconciled in the portal prior to award. | 4/10/24 |
| 45 | Registration | Section 2.1 - 2.5, pages 2-3 | In regards to these sections, please clarify if Step 2 of the registration process is completed prior to proposal submission or if Step 2 is the actual submission of the proposal and all attachments? | In order to submit a proposal for Seaport NxG Rolling Admissions II, companies must register for a SeaPort account in the portal as instructed in Attachment J.1 and submit their SeaPort NxG porposal to the government through the portal. | 4/16/24 |
| 46 | Registration | When I imported my company information from sam.gov, the seaport indicates it as Large Business which is not accurate. I’m registered as small business. The option to change it is greyed out. How do I correct it? | See answer 45 | ||
| 47 | Registration | Also, when I try to submit the form, I get an error message stating that an attachment for each category is required. What category is it referring to? | See answer 45 | ||
| 48 | Relevant Experience | Section L - Technical Experience | Our company is interested in applying to SeaPort NxG to support DoD and DON but has previously only supported commercial/private sector clients. Would the Government accept recent and relevant experience from commercial past performance in lieu of DoD experience? | Recent and relevant experience in one of the 23 functional areas must be in direct support of the Department of Defense (DOD) that can be shown applicable to the Department of Navy (DON). | 4/10/24 |
| 49 | Relevant Experience | Page 46, Section 5.4.1, 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 | Can Navy Phase 2 SBIR contracts that have relevant tasks directly related to the 23 functional areas and categories listed be included as examples of contracts that support “recent and relevant technical experience providing support to the Department of Defense (DOD)”? | SBIR contracts that support “recent and relevant” technical experience for the DOD as it relates to DON are acceptable. | |
| 50 | Relevant Experience | The project used to show Dod/Navy work, do those projects have to have been performed under NAICS 541300? Or do they just need to be applicable to the functional areas? | SeaPort utilizes a single NAICS, 541330, and an offeror's SAM record must reflect that NAICS at the time of prposal submission. Experience must be applicable to one of the 23 functional areas listed in Section C. | 4/16/24 | |
| Relevant Experience | Relevant Experience | on page 9, section 5.4.4 | The Government may consider the experience of individual employees as qualifying experience for a proposed prime Contractor.” Does this mean that in lieu of prime or subcontract experience, the offeror can use the experience of a senior project manager that has direct experience as active Marine Corps as well as several years leading support to the Department of the Navy while employed with another company? | Yes | 4/15/24 |
| 52 | Relevant Experience | Section L.5.4.3 | Can the government please confirm that this includes experience as a second tier subcontractor, provided the work was supporting the DoD or DoN? Provided this work is permitted, should the offeror provide the 1st tier subcontractor's name/POC information in lieu of the Prime for validation purposes, or would the government prefer contact information for both entities (Prime and 1st tier subcontractor)? | This experience could count if the offeror demonstrates the work was performed in direct support of the Department of Defense (DOD) that can be shown as applicable to the Deaprtment of Navy (DON) purposes. Please follow RFP instructions required documentation to be provided. | |
| 53 | Relevant Experience | Page 47 of 54, Section 5.4 Paragraph 5.4.1 | If we do not have direct experience with the DON but with other Department of Defense (DOD) agencies, would we still be seen as qualified to pursue as a prime contractor? Or could we only submit as a subcontractor to another firm? | Section 5.4.1, page 47 of 54 specifically states in bold "recent and relevant experience in one (AND ONLY ONE) of the 23 functional area subategories listed below, in either engineering support or program management support that was in direct support of Department of Defense (DOD) that can be shown as applicable to Department of NAVY (DON) purposes. | 4/17/24 |
| 54 | Relevant Experience | the RFP only list 4th estate agencies (DAU, DCAA, DCMA, etc.) to demonstrate applicability to support the DON. We have Army experience that can be shown to support the DON. Is this acceptable as well the 4th estate DoD agencies. | See answer 53 | 4/17/24 | |
| 55 | Relevant Experience | We are looking for more information regarding the scope of work for Solicitation No. N0017824R7000 - SeaPort NxG IDIQ. We would like more clarification on the engineering requirements listed in the RFP in particular. I did not see where there may have been a Q&A already, but any additional information you could provide would be greatly appreciated. | The scope of work for the MAC is broad as specific tasking will be delinated at the Task Order solicitiation level. | 4/22/24 | |
| 56 | Relevant Experience | Amendment 002, para 5.4.4 (page 9) | states “the Government may consider the experience of individual employees as qualifying experience for a proposed prime Contractor.” Does that employee’s experience have to be while under employment of the proposed prime contractor/offeror, or can it be prior to employment, as long as the work was performed during the past 10 years? | That experience can be gained prior to employment with the offeror as long as it was recent and relevant. | 4/23/24 |
| 57 | Relevant Experience | Para 5.4.3 (page 9) | states the offeror must provide the Government with evidence of recent and relevant technical experience providing support to the Department of Defense (DOD), as either a prime Contractor or a Subcontractor. Are these supporting documents separate from the 5-page limit for the technical proposal? | The Naming Convention located on page 45 of 54 of the RFP shows "N/A" for page limit of Experience Supporting Docs. | 4/24/24 |
| 58 | Relevant Experience | Para 4.3 (page 6; naming convention table) | says N/A for page limit of supporting documents. Is there truly no limit to the amount of supporting documentation allowed? | Yes, however, documentation is limited to the requirement list in L.5.4.1 "An offeror's description of recent and relevant experience shall reference ONE (1) but not more than three (3) contract/subcontracts...." | 4/25/24 |
| 59 | Relevant Experience | Page no. 7 within paragraph 5.4.1 | will the Government consider the use of a different federal agency such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with experience in one of the 23 subcategories in lieu of Department of Defense (DOD)? | See answer 53 | 4/23/24 |
| 60 | Relevant Experience | Subcontract | For the subcontracting experience listed in the Technical Proposal, will SeaPort NxG deem as sufficient the following information regarding each contract?: Prime name, Contract Number, Subcontract Number, DoD or DoN Activity Supported, Government Point of Contact, Period of Performance Dates, and Description of Tasking Performed. | Please refer to Section L.5.4.3 for documentation to be provided in support of experience garnered by the Offeror for verification purposes. | 4/21/24 |
| 61 | Relevant Experience | 5.4 | Outside of subcategory, category, and recent and relevant experience (applicable to DON purposes/category and subcategory) explained in 5.4 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, what other information should be included in the Technical Proposal (if any)? | All requirements necessary for submitting a Technical proposal are explained in Section L.5.4. | 4/22/24 |
| 62 | Relevant Experience | 5.4.3 | our understanding is that, as long as a valid Prime contract number is provided and the work is not Classified, no supporting documentation is required. Is this correct? | See answer 60 | 4/23/24 |
| 63 | Subcontracting Plan | Paragraph 5.8 on page 10 | experience for a proposed prime Contractor.” Does this mean that in lieu of prime or subcontract experience, the offeror can use the experience of a senior project manager that has direct experience as active Marine Corps as well as several years leading support to the Department of the Navy while employed with another company? | An offeror's subcontracting plan should be based on what an offer anticipaes as their "total planned subcontract dollars" as stated in L.5.8.1. The intent of Section L.5.8.3 is to ensure the offeror knows how the reporting is expected which is based on actual total obligated dollars. | 4/11/24 |
| 64 | Maximum Pass Through Rate | Page 2 | Can you please give an example of how Pass Through rate is calculated for companies that have DCAA approved accounting system and the typical DCAA approved rates. We are trying to make sure we understand how you calculate the Pass Through Rate of 8% for any Labor CLIN. | There is no cost proposal required for submitting an offer for a SeaPort NxG IDIQ MAC. Pass through questions/examples can be provied at the Task Order level when bidding on individual solicitations. |
https://usg01.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsam.gov%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cusn.ncr.sea-00.mbx.nssc-seaport-ra%40us.navy.mil%7C825636985ae14f714a2108dc625d617a%7Ce3333e00c8774b87b6ad45e942de1750%7C0%7C0%7C638493400552840325%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6cR3pg7phm%2FPX%2FcbgM9%2BWbBdJtUAmSc5pNrYaOcHj8Q%3D&reserved=0
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .