Questions FY24 RA RFP conformed dated 05242024 .xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 59 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SeaPort NxG IDIQ MAC Rolling Admissions II
- Solicitation number
- N0017824R7000
About this file
This document contains a set of questions and answers related to a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the SeaPort Next Generation (SeaPort NxG) IDIQ MAC Rolling Admissions II solicitation.
The key details are:
- The solicitation is to award Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ MAC) contracts to allow prime MAC holders to compete for future task order awards under the SeaPort NxG program.
- The solicitation covers a wide range of functional areas including engineering support and program management support services for the Department of the Navy.
- Questions cover topics such as accounting system requirements, joint venture eligibility, past performance requirements, proposal formatting, and other administrative details.
- The government provides responses addressing the specific questions asked, with clarification on issues like the "one MAC per company" rule for mentor-protege joint ventures, use of employee experience, and requirements for supporting documentation.
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
23 May 2024 (Posted)
| # | Category | REFERENCE | QUESTION | ANSWER |
| 65 | Accounting System | Section L.5.7 page 48-49 | Will the Government please confirm the DCAA Approved Accounting system may be held by either the mentor or protege in a Mentor Protege Joint Venture? | See answer 37 - 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. |
| 66 | MPPJV | Section C.10.2 page 15 | In Section C.10.2 of the Seaport NxG Mass Modification dated 4 January 2023, the Government included the following language regarding Joint Ventures, "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." However, this language was omitted from the SeaPort NxG IDIQ MAC Rolling Admissions II solicitation released April 9, 2024. Will the Government modify the rolling admissions solicitation to conform to the current Seaport NxG contract terms allowing mentor-protege joint ventures, the mentor, and the protege, to each hold a prime MAC?’ | 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 |
| 67 | Socio-Economic Status | Ref: Attachment J.4, Column C - Socio Economic Status | This field is a dropdown selection that requires the selection of SDVOSB, WOSB, 8(a), or HUBZONE. If our company qualifies for more than one socio-economic status, how do we note that information in the submission? | Yes, you can add multiple entries of socioeconomic status to Column S (Socio Economic Status) of Attachment J.4 and that information will be reconciled prior to contract award. |
| 68 | UEI/DUNS | RFP Section L, 2.1 Pg 42 of 54; Instructions for Attachment J.4 | There are references to provide a company DUNS. Can the offeror assume references to provide DUNS should read UEI, as has been updated elsewhere in the attachments and RFP? | See answer 7 |
| 70 | Maximum Rates | (Ref: RFP, Section B, Pg 2 of 54 | Will subcontractors have to provide indirect pricing for CPFF or Cost-Plus Task Orders to the government? | Not for MAC award at Rolling Admissions. Each Task Order solicitation will detail the information to be provided by Primes and their subcontractors. |
| 71 | Attachment J.3 Pre-Award Accounting System Questionnaire | The DCAA Auditor lookup site provided on Attachment J.3, http://www.dcaa.mil/office_locator.html, is outdated. The site returns an error message that reads, “not found.” The correct site should read https://www.dcaa.mil/Locator/. Will the correction, if forthcoming, appear in the form of an amendment during the pre-award phase, so that offerors can acknowledge the change? | Please utilize the updated site at https://www.dcaa.mil/Locator/ to identify your company's cognizant DCAA Auditor. | |
| 72 | Technical Proposal | 5.4.2, Pg 47 of 54 | Will the government accept experience directly related to the DON mission from the Veteran’s Administration or other related agencies? | Recent and relevant experience in one of the 23 functional areas in Section C that can be shown as directly related to the DON mission will be considered. |
| 73 | Attachment J.4 | Section 5.4.1, page 47 | If an offeror is submitting more than one experience reference in columns AG and AH, should a separate line be used for each entry, with appropriate information filled in across all columns? | Section 5.4.1, page 46 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. |
| 74 | Attachment J.4 | Attachment J.4 | To what does “Debt Subject to Offset (Y/N)” pertain? Can the government provide instructions for this? | Offerors should refer to their System for Award Management (SAM) record and update Attachment J.4 in accordance with SAM. |
| 75 | Attachment J.4 | Attachment J.4 | To what does “Responsibility Certification Checked? (Y/N)” pertain? Can the government provide instructions for this? | See answer 74 and complete Attachment J.2 - SAM Certification accordingly. |
| 76 | Attachment J.4 | Attachment J.4 | Would the government consider replacing the DUNS column with a column requesting the team members’ UEIs? DUNS numbers are no longer used in SAM and are getting difficult to find. | See answer 7 |
| 77 | Attachment J.3 | Attachment J.3 | If the offeror is a mentor-protégé joint venture, how is this form to be filled out? Will the government accept the accounting system approval of just one JV member, or does the JV itself need accounting system approval? | See answer 65 |
| 78 | SOW | 5.4.3 - Page 47 | Please confirm that an offeror may submit supporting evidence as a Prime Contractor, as per SOW 5.4.3, in the capacity of a Consortium Member operating under an OTA (Other Transactional Agreement), issued as a IWRP2 Consortium Base Agreement, in support of the DON. | See answer 72 |
| 79 | Technical Proposal | 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3 | Does our company past performance example have to specifically be with the DoN? Or can it be with other DoD entities (such as Army) and still qualify as experience as long as it fits relevancy to one of the functional areas depicted in 5.4.1? | 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. |
| 80 | Technical Proposal | 5.4.4 | Could you provide more detail on how to submit an individual employee’s Navy experience as qualifying past performance? For example, if an employee has over 10 years of experience supporting the Navy in various roles (that fit functional areas depicted in 5.4.1) within multiple DoN Program Offices, will that employee’s experience qualify the Prime company for an award? | See answer 51 and Amendment 0004 |
| 81 | Attachment J.4 | Attachment J.4 | Can you clarify what the “Responsibility Certification Checked? (Y/N)” column on the company info tab means? Is that a check block in same or the 3 checkbox options on the J.2 form? | Offerors should refer to their System for Award Management (SAM) record and update Attachment J.2 in accordance with SAM. |
| 82 | MPP JV | C.10.2 | Mentor-Protégé JVs have been able to access the SeaPort NxG MAC because the SBA made the affirmative determination that Mentor-Protégé JV entities are not affiliates. Can you please include language under section C.10.2 – One Prime Contract Per Company, Page 15 of 54, similar to the prior SeaPort NxG solicitation amendment that states the following: “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.“ | No additional language will be added. 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 |
| 83 | MPP JV | Does the government intend to distribute a template for vendors to complete in order to comply with the Non-Affiliate Certificate requirement? | Visit the SBA website for information on the MPP program and certificates of non-affiliation. | |
| 84 | MPP JV | Will the government accept the SBA Approval / Welcome Letter as a Non-Affiliate Certificate? | See answer 83 | |
| 85 | Attachment J.1 | RFP section 2.1, page 2 | When submitting proposals in SeaPort, does the government expect the cover letter and signed SF33 to be a part of the same document? Or does the government wish to see the cover letter, signed SF33, and technical proposal to be three separate documents? If the latter is true, can offerors submit the three documents under the “Technical Proposal” category in SeaPort? | These should be 3 separate documents and can be submitted under the Technical Proposal. |
| 86 | Relevant Experience | Section L Paragraph 5.4.4 (Page 48) and Section M, 3.1.7 (Page 54) | As a start-up SBA certified SDVOSB with significant employee Navy and DoD experience, but no government contracts, we want to ensure we are able to propose on this opportunity and remain compliant with the stated requirements. | Offerors must submit evidence of recent and relevant technical experience providing support to the DOD as either a prime Contractor or a Subcontractor shown to be applicable to the DON. Section L.5.4.3 details the evidence to be provided for verification purposes. |
| 87 | Relevant Experience | Section M, 3.1.3 (Page 53) | When using employee experience in lieu of contract experience, can it be assumed that Points of Contact can be used in lieu of EDA, FPDS, and CPARS? Note that attachment J4, Column AJ, states that Government POCs should be provided. How should this requirement be addressed since we have no contracts? | See answer 51 and Amendment 0004 |
| 88 | Size Status | We are a large business in the Seaport NIACS Code 541330. However, when our company information is imported from the Seaport Portal Lookup into SAM.GOV, it pulls in our registration as a SB, WOSB. I believe this is happening because we are a small business in our primary NIACS code which differs from the Seaport NIACS. Can you please advise how we should proceed with an accurate submission since the size status fields are not editable? | Please identify your size status in Attachment J.4 for the single NAICS (541330) utilized by SeaPort and our office will reconcile during evaluation. | |
| 89 | Page 42, Section 2.11 | Is business size under the NAICS code 541330 determined at the time of proposal submission or at contract award? | At the time of proposal submission. | |
| 90 | Page 46 | Will the Government confirm that the Technical Proposal (limited to 5 pages) is the correct section to provide the “Offeror’s description of recent and relevant experience shall reference one (1) but not more than three (3) contracts/subcontracts” | Yes | |
| 91 | Page 45 | Will the Government please provide clarification for what type of documents are required to be submitted in the “Supporting Documentation of Experience” (Company_Name_CAGE_Experience_ Supporting_Docs | See Section L.5.4.3 on page 47 | |
| 92 | Relevant Experience | L.3.10 | Can we partner with a prime contractor or subcontractor that has DOD experience and use their expertise in our proposal? If this clause allows us to propose as a prime contractor with subcontractor experience, please confirm. Otherwise, please suggest other options based on our extensive commercial and sled experience but no direct DOD participation as prime or sub. | See answer 86 and 87 |
| 93 | Relevant Experience | L.5.4.4 | The Government may take into account the experience of individual employees as qualifying experience for a proposed prime Contractor. Can we include the experience of our resource for proposing this contract as a prime? Please enlighten us. | See answer 51 and Amendment 0004 |
| 94 | Technical Proposal | SF33 | Standard Form (SF) 33, we are prepared to follow the guidance of populating Blocks 12 – 18; however, within the SeaPort NXG Submission Portal, the Drop-Down Box for Attachment Category does not list a select for the SF 33. Is this in error, or do we just submit the document without the proper file category and list it in the description only and if so, what file category should we select? | The SF33 should be uploaded as part of the Technical Proposal category. |
| 95 | Proposal Format | L.4.0 | Would you consider accepting the proposal submission in Microsoft Office format OR Adobe format (PDF)? | Yes, a searchable .pdf is an acceptable format. |
| 96 | RFP | Are you planning to "relax" the DON (prime or subcontractor) past performance requirment that has traditionally been part of Seaport? I ask simply because I was told this today that it would be modified to include DOD-related past performance. | See answer 79. | |
| 97 | Size Status | Is the current onboarding only for large business or can all categories of small business also submit proposals? | This current rolling admissions is for both large and small businesses. | |
| 98 | Past Experience | I am interested in the pending on ramp and I was curious if the expected criteria will be proof of past support of the Navy (Sub or Prime) and if there are any requirements to answer any percentage of TO’s that release under SEAPORT or if we can choose only ones where we know we have strong past performance and would be value added. | There is no percentage of work requirement. Section L.5.4.1 discusses technical proposal requirements. | |
| 102 | Size/Teaming | How would a Small Business apply to a Seaport solicitation? Is teaming with a big allowed? | Eligible small businesses MAC holders may submit proposals in response to Task Order solicitations. Yes, teaming with a large business MAC awardee is allowed. | |
| 103 | Proposal Format | It states that all document have to be in “Microsoft office only”. Because Adobe Acrobat comes with my companies Microsoft 365 and documents are saved through this, will that be an acceptable submission of signed documents i.e. J3, SF 33, are Technical Proposal Response in Adobe Acrobat | See answer 95 | |
| 104 | PROPOSAL FORMAT | Pg. 44, Paragraph ID: 4.2 | Will the Government allow a Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Acronym Table for the Technical Proposal and Supporting documentation, not counting against page count? | Title page, table of contents, list of tables, and list of figures are excluded from the page limits. |
| 105 | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL | Pg. 48, Paragraph ID: 5.4.3 | For work performed as a subcontractor, does the Government want the Prime Contractor Points of Contact instead of the Government's? | Both can be provided. |
| 106 | TECHNICAL PROPOSAL | Pg. 48, Paragraph ID: 5.4.3 | How many piece of supporting documentation would the Government like included for subcontractor work? | See answer 104 |
| 107 | NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATION CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST | Pg. 51, Paragraph ID: 6.5 | Where would the Government like us to include the statement that an OCI does not exist, as described in 6.5? | A statement can be included in the Cover letter as per Section 6.6 (see Amendment 0004). |
| 108 | COVER LETTER | Pg. 46, Paragraph ID: 5.2 | Will the Government please explain under what circumstances an offeror needs to provide a certificate of non-affiliation? | This would only be applicable for an offeror that may be affiliated with a current Seaport NxG MAC holder. |
| 109 | COVER LETTER | Pg. 46, Paragraph ID: 5.2 | Will the Government please provide a form for the certificate of non-affliliation? | Visit the SBA website for information on the MPP program and certificates of non-affiliation. |
| 110 | Proposal Format | In reference to solicitation number N0017824R7000: Amendment 0003. Page 5, Section 4.2 it states that all information contained in the offeror's proposal shall be developed utilizing Microsoft Office Products only. In various documents throughout the proposal a signature is required from the offeror, supporting experience contract documents are requested, and a completed and signed SF33 is requested. In these cases, a Adobe PDF document is the normal document format (for instance the SF33 provided in this solicitation is a PDF document). Does the government require the offer to convert the PDF to pictures and then insert the picture into a Microsoft Word document or is the native format of a PDF acceptable? The offeror respectfully requests that the government considers updating Page 5, Section 4.2 to allow Microsoft Office Products or PDF format. Is this possible? Please advise. Thank you | See answer 95 | |
| 111 | Attachments | We are currently completing our registration on https://vendornxg.seaport.navy.mil/RollingAdmissions/Default.aspx and there is a section that is labeled Manage Attachments. We were wondering what we need to add to this area? If there is something to add , are there templates available? | Please refer to Section 2.4 of the Registration Instructions and Section L.4.3 of the solicitation for a list of the attachments to be submitted. | |
| 112 | Joint Venture | Could you please offer more details about Paragraph 3.11 in Section L of the solicitation? Specifically, I'm seeking clarification on how a SeaPort NxG prime contract holder, who is part of a Joint Venture (JV), can submit a response to a task order solicitation on behalf of the JV. For instance, if one member of a JV is the protégé in an SBA-approved mentor/protégé JV and holds a SeaPort NxG prime contract, are they allowed to respond to a task order solicitation on behalf of the JV itself? | 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. Please note that if a Task Order is set-aside for a small business or socio-economic designation, the Prime MAC holder must hold the size status matching the set-aside restriction. | |
| 113 | Can we submit PDFs? We typically use PDFs for signed documents. Our evidence is in PDF formats. |
| See answer 95 | |||
| 114 | Should we submit entire documents as evidence or just a page? Our PWS and Subcontracts are long documents and are in PDF format. We are not sure they fit properly as an embedded Word document to be compliant as a "Microsoft Office Product only" | Please adhere to the page limitations established in Section L.4.3. | |
| 115 | Reference Section C.10.1, Page 15 of 54, Amendment 001, | Reference Section C.10.1, Page 15 of 54, Amendment 001, The solicitation has removed “this also includes Joint Ventures” from the definition of “Company”. Does the definition of “Company” no longer include a Joint Venture? |
| Amendment 0001 corrected dates only, no language was removed from C.10.1 or C.10.2 of the solicitation. JVs are discussed in Section C.10.3 | ||||||
| 116 | Reference Section C.10.2, Page 15 of 54, Amendment 001, The solicitation appears to have removed the current SeaPort-NxG contract language regarding an exemption from the One Contract Rule. The language 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.” Since this language has been removed, are MPP JV’s no longer welcome or eligible to submit a proposal if each JV member has their own Seaport-NxG Prime MAC contract? | |||||
| JVs are discussed in Section C.10.3. 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. | ||||||
| 117 | For task order solicitations under the current SeaPort-NxG, in a situation where two MPP JV partners are each Prime MAC holders, can the MPP JV still submit a proposal using the Protégés Prime MAC? | Correct. If two MAC holders form an MPP JV, whichever of the MAC holders holds the same size status as any set aside restrictions is who would submit the proposal for the Task Order solicitation. | ||||
| 118 | RFP | Section L, 5.4 | Technical Proposal | 46-48 | ||
| RFP | Section L, 5.4 | Technical Proposal | 46-48 | The RFP does not explicitly address the utilization of affiliate Past Performance / PWS (Performance Work Statements). Given the unique structure of Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), which allows them to own multiple subsidiaries and leverage their collective experience, would it be acceptable for an ANC to include Past Performance from its affiliate companies in its proposal? | ||
| As stated in Section L.5.4.6 Past performance is NOT required or desired. | ||||||
| 119 | ||||||
| RFP | Section L, 5.4.3 | Technical Proposal | 48 |
| RFP | Section L, 5.4.3 | Technical Proposal | 48 | The RFP states that, in cases where a Prime contract (such as for Classified scope or a subcontract) is not available, supporting documentation “shall be submitted in order to verify work was performed.” Is it correct to infer that supporting documentation is not needed for prime contracts that don’t fall within those parameters? | No, it is not. Section L.5.4.3 provides a list of information offerors shall provide to demonstrate supporting documentation. | |
| 120 | RFP | Section L, 5.4.3 | Technical Proposal | 48 | ||
| RFP | Section L, 5.4.3 | Technical Proposal | 48 | Will the Government consider Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Work (SOW) documentation for each Past Performance reference as sufficient to meet the “verification work was performed” criteria? | ||
| Section L.5.4.3 provides the list of supporting documentation offerors shall provide to demonstrate relevant experience to the Government. | ||||||
| 121 | Section 4.0 P. 5 | Will the Government please confirm whether a Cover Page needs to be included as part of the Technical Proposal submission? | ||||
| Please follow the Naming Convention established in Section L.4.3. | ||||||
| 122 | Section 4.0 P. 5 | Will the Government please confirm whether a Table of Contents is required within the Technical Proposal submission? | ||||
| Not required | ||||||
| 123 | We have a question regarding the N0017824R7000 Seaport NxG Rolling Admissions Contract. We have identified the category of Program Management Support Services - Quality Assurance (QA) Support under Section 5.4.1 on page 47 of the RFP as the category under which we would like to submit our past performance. |
Can you please provide a little bit more information about the specific subcategory “Quality Assurance (QA) Support” so that we can make sure our past performance is highlighted accordingly?
| Section C.3.2 provides a general description of Program Management Services. It is incumbent upon Offerors to demonstrate how their past experience supports one of the functional area categories described within. | ||
| 124 | Page 16 of 54 | Section C. 10.3 of the conformed RFP on page 16 states, “A Joint Venture and individual partners in the Joint Venture can only hold one SeaPort NxG MAC. If one partner of the Joint Venture holds a Prime MAC contract, then the Joint Venture entity cannot also hold a subsequent Prime MAC contract. Members of the Joint Venture must decide which – the Joint Venture or the individual partner - would be the Prime MAC holder.” However, Section C.10.3 in the Mass Modification dated 4 January 2023 to the existing Seaport NxG contract states, “A Joint Venture (other than MPP JVs) may not hold a SeaPort NxG MAC if a partner within the Joint Venture entity also holds a Prime MAC. In other words, if one partner of the Joint Venture holds a Prime MAC contract, then the Joint Venture entity cannot also hold a subsequent Prime MAC contract. Members of the Joint Venture must decide which – the Joint Venture or the individual partner - would be the Prime MAC holder. Nothing in this paragraph prevents more than one partner within a Joint Venture entity from each holding a Prime MAC contract where such arrangement is otherwise permitted under C.10.2 of this section.” Additionally, Section C.10.2 in the Mass Modification dated 4 January 2023 to the existing Seaport NxG contract 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.” |
Would the Government please confirm that a mentor, protégé and JV can each hold a MAC within the Seaport program? Additionally, would the Government please confirm that 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?
| 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. | ||||||||
| 125 | Section C.10.3 and Section L’s 3.11 of the solicitation includes the limitation of “Only One Prime Contract Per Company,” inclusive of affiliates, business units, and Joint Ventures. No exception is made for Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures. As a current SeaPort NxG Prime contract holder, however, we received a contract modification, dated 4 January 2024, the following language was added: “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.” Question: Does the Rolling Admission solicitation prohibition on multiple prime contracts supersede the MPP JV exception included in our current contract? | The SeaPort NxG MAC language in Section C.10.3 matches that of the Rolling Admissions RFP as of mass mod dated 2 May 2024. 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. | ||||||
| 126 | Section L’s 3.11 of the solicitation states: “This does not prevent the affiliated company from being able to participate in SeaPort NxG. Any proposal submitted in response to a task order solicitation must be submitted in the portal through the account of the Prime contract holder and, if an affiliate will be performing the work, the proposal should clearly identify the affiliate as the prime.” Question: If a SeaPort NxG prime contract holder formed a Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture (MPP JV), would that MPP JV entity be considered an eligible affiliate that would be allowed to bid and be awarded a SeaPort NxG task order contract through the Prime contract holder’s account? | 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. | ||||||
| 127 | We are a current SeaPort NxG Prime contract holder and a small business. We recently formed an SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture with a large business. Our current contract includes a modification dated 4 January 2024, that includes an exception to affiliation for Mentor-Protégé Program Joint Ventures (MPP JVs). The rolling admission solicitation does not include this exception but provides affiliate bidding rules under Section L’s 3.11. Question: To bid on SeaPort NxG task orders where our MPP JV will be performing the work, should we a) submit through the portal of our current prime contract holder account and clearly mark the proposal to identify the MPP JV as the Prime, or b) submit a new SeaPort NxG proposal as the MPP JV under the rolling admission period to establish new prime contract for that entity? | 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. | ||||||
| 128 | As a current Seaport NxG Prime MAC contract holder, we received a contract modification dated 4 January 2024 in which the following language was added: “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.” We plan on submitting a Seaport NxG Rolling Admission proposal for our Mentor Protégé JV. How should we complete the certificate of non-affiliation referenced in 5.2 of Section L for our Mentor Protégé JV proposal? | See answer 109 | ||||||
| 129 | Section L’s Instructions go from 5.4.7 to 5.6. Was section 5.5 intentionally left out? | Yes. | ||||||
| 130 | In section 3.13 (page 44), if we've met all DCAA-compliant accounting system requirements but are awaiting the DCAA audit, can we still win a task order? | Yes | ||||||
| 131 | In section 5.4.1 (page 46), could the government provide more detail or examples for work under each functional area subcategory? This would help us ensure we bid in the correct category. | See answer 123 | ||||||
| 132 | In section 5.4.1 (page 46), would a US Air Force sub-contract qualify as a valid past performance if the work done ties back to one of the functional area subcategories? | See answer 79 | ||||||
| 133 | In section 5.4.1 (page 46), is there a minimum length of performance on an applicable contract to qualify as a reference? | No | ||||||
| 134 | In the Accounting System Questionnaire (page 1), if we choose Option B but cannot get our accounting system compliant in time for the post-award audit, or if we do not decide to pursue cost-type contracts, can we modify our proposal and still be awarded for non-cost-type task orders? | SeaPort MAC Awardees are allowed to bid on Fixed Price Task Orders only without a DCAA Approved Accounting system.; | ||||||
| 135 | In the Accounting System Questionnaire (page 1), if we choose Option C and state that we do not intend to propose Cost-Type task orders, can we request a DCAA audit and then propose Cost-Type task orders if we decide to change course in the future? | See answer 134 | ||||||
| 136 | In the Contractor Information spreadsheet, what is being requested for the "Responsibility Certification Checked" for the Sam.Gov certification section? | See answers 74 and 75 | ||||||
| 137 | page 50 | 5.9.2 | ||||||
| Attachment J.4 - Section L instructions in the solicitation request to provide DUNS. Can the Government please confirm that DUNS should be replaced with Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), as listed in column J? | ||||||||
| " | See answer 7 | |||||||
| 138 | page 50 6.0 | Will the Government please confirm that the existence of OCI is at the task order level and 6.2-6.4 will be appropriately updated? " | Offerors only need to identify if an OCI exists at the MAC level at this time. Specific Task Order OCIs will be evaluated in accordance with the Task Order solicitations. | |||||
| 139 | page 45 and 46 4.3 and 5.3/SF 33 and SF30s | Will the Government please confirm that all the completed and signed SF30's are to be submitted (along with the SF33) as a part of the Technical Proposal at time of proposal submission, and as such the naming convention table will be updated to allow for the additional pages? | See block 14 of the SF33 for acceptance of all amendments. If you have already submitted your proposal, you will not be able to edit your submission to acknowledge all Amendments. We will not exclude anyone for that reason. Amendments that change award requirements must be acknowledged. These RFP amendments have been administrative only. | |||||
| 140 | Page 44 4.2 | Will the Government please confirm that Offerors may submit PDF versions of all documents in lieu of MS Office files? | See answer 95 | |||||
| 141 | Registration | We’re attempting to complete our registration to access the website, however when we click the ‘submit’ button to complete the registration we receive a message stating “you must upload an attachment” for each category. I’m not sure what’s required as all the fields are completed. We have our registration number. Can you advise? Screenshot is attached. Thank you. | See answer 111 | |||||
| 142 | Page 44 | Section L, 4.0 Proposal Format, subsection 4.2 | The requirement states that all information in the offeror’s proposal shall be developed using Microsoft Office Products only. As Microsoft doesn’t natively edit PDF, will the Government include Adobe for signed documents including PDF documents the Government has provided? | |||||
| See answer 95 | ||||||||
| 143 | Page 44-45 Section L, 4.3 Naming Convention, table | The table entries for SAM certs, Cover Letter, and Supporting Documents include a space character within their filename. Is this the Government’s intent for bidders to include this space character? | Yes. | |||||
| 144 | Page 45 Section L, 1.0 Introduction, subsection 1.1 and Section L, 5.2 Cover Letter | Section 1.1 states that “Proposals submitted shall be valid for 365 days from the closing date of the RFP.” And Section 5.2 requires the Cover Letter to state that Proposal Validity is 365 days after issuance date of the RFP. Will the Government clarify these conflicting statements? | Proposals submitted shall be valid for 365 days after issuance date of the RFP (See Amendment 0004) | |||||
| 145 | Page 48 Section L, 5.5 | Section 5.5 is missing. Will the Government clarify its intent for this section? | See answer 129 | |||||
| 146 | Page 9-10 Section C.7.1 General | On SAM.gov we reflect that we are a Small Business specifically only for NAICS 541715. In registering within the SeaPort portal the auto-populated data pulled from SAM indicates we are a Small Business for SeaPort, NAICS 541330 exception $47.5M, which we are not. We are bidding as Unrestricted. Will the Government confirm that the auto-populated information will not cause a solicitation evaluation issue? | Yes, see answer 88. | |||||
| 147 | On page 45 Section 5.0 “Technical Proposal Content,” does the Government wish to provide a template for the Technical Proposal? | |||||||
| The Government will not be providing a template. | ||||||||
| 148 | On page 45 Section 5.0 “Technical Proposal Content,” will a glossary count toward the technical page limit of 5 pages? | Yes. | ||||||
| 149 | On page 46 Section 5.4.1, will the Government please provide a description and/or a definition of each of the 23 functional area subcategories? | See answer 123 | ||||||
| 150 | On page 47 Section 5.4.3, how does the Government define Classified scope of work? May the Government please confirm that if the Contractor’s referenced experience is an “Unclassified” Prime Contract it does not require supporting documentation. | The standard definition of "Classified" applies as stated in the DoDM 5200.01. Supporting documentation is required as stated in Section L.5.4. | ||||||
| 151 | 1 | L.5.4.3 | 47-48 of 54 | Section L.5.4.3 requires a Government Point of Contact to be provided for relevant experience. Since “recent” is defined as within the last 10 years, and Government Points of Contact may no longer be in the same role or even at the same agency, please confirm that Offerors will not be penalized if the Government cannot get in touch with the provided Government Points of Contact. | Yes, that is correct. | |||
| 152 | L.6.5 | 51 of 54 | Section L.6.5 states: “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.” Please confirm that this statement should be added to the Cover Letter. | |||||
| Yes. | ||||||||
| 153 | Amendment 0002 | 2.0 Instructions for Submission of Offers | 2.5 | 3 | Please confirm that the second stage of completing registration is the uploading of submission documents. | Yes, that is correct. | ||
| 154 | Amendment 0002 | 5.0 Technical Proposal Content | 5.4 Technical Proposal | 8 | ||||
| In addition to the specified contract experience requirements: |
· Contract Number & Name of DoD or DoN activity supported &
- Government Point of Contact
· Description of tasking performed
· Period of Performance Dates bullets, Does the Government expect the "description of tasking performed" to describe applicability to DON purposes?
| Yes | ||||
| 155 | I see in the solicitation that there are subcontracting plan percentages that are required. Are we supposed to propose using the ceiling of the IDIQ for against the percentages or is there a different amount we should be using? | An offeror’s subcontracting goals should be based on what an offeror anticipates as their “total planned subcontract dollars” as stated in 5.8.1. Reporting of the proposed goals is based on actual total obligated dollars of the contract (not per task order). | ||
| 156 | In reference to the RFP, Section 5.3 Technical Proposal (Page 45 of 51), does the cover page count towards the 5-page limit of the Technical Proposal? | Please refer to the Naming Convention in L.4.3. | ||
| 157 | REF: 10.2 (page 15 of 54) and 10.3 (page 16 of 54) | Will the Government update Sections 10.2 and 10.3 of the SeaPort NxG IDIQ MAC Rolling Admissions II Solicitation to align with the most recent mass mod (P00013) of the current Seaport NxG contract? | Section 10.2 and 10.3 of the SeaPort MAC align with those sections in the Rolling Admissions solicitation. | |
| 158 | Section 3.10 | Page 43 | ||
| Will the Government allow an awardee of the SeaPort NxG MAC to propose in any of the functional area’s subcategories? | Yes | |||
| 159 | Section 5.4.1 Page 46 | Can the Government expand on the following. Under Program Management Services category, what kind of work is accepted under the logistics sub-category? | See answer 123 | |
| 160 | Section 5.4.2 Page 47 | As a Small Business with a significant track record of Past Performance in Engineering Support Services across multiple Federal agencies specified in the RFP, can we leverage this experience to demonstrate our capacity to contribute to the SeaPort NxG Program? | Yes | |
| 161 | Section 5.4.2 Page 47 | Can a Small Business use non-DoD contract to complement their current DoD/DoN Past Performance? | No | |
| 162 | Section 5.4.4 Page 48 | Can the Government expand on the criteria required for a Small Business to use an employee’s experience with DoD/DoN as Past Performance? | It is incumbent on the offeror to demonstrate experience as applicable to one of the 23 SeaPort functional areas. | |
| 163 | Reference Section 4.3 Naming Convention, Page 45 Non-Affiliate Certificate Please provide more information on the submittal requirements for this volume. | See answer 83 | ||
| 164 | Reference Section 6.0 NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ORGANIZATION CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST, Page 51 |
6.5. 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.
| Please guide us in which part of the proposal are we supposed to include this statement, cover letter, technical proposal or the non affiliate certificate? | See answer 107 | |
| 165 | Reference Section 5.2, Cover letter requirements: |
Business Size (for NAICS 541330 w/$47M exception for military and aerospace equipment and military weapons)
| Should we identify as Small or Large business (as provided in the Contractor Information Spreadsheet) or should we put in the dollar range for the applicable NAICS code? | See Section L.2.11 | ||
| 166 | Reference Section 5.9 ATTACHMENT J.4 – CONTRACTOR INFORMATION SPREADSHEET, Page 50 | ||
| Is it mandatory to identify the teaming partners, if we have provided their information at the time of registration on the Seaport Portal? | Teaming Partners can be included at registration or after MAC award through the established submission process. | ||
| 167 | Can we provide cover page and Table of contents for the following volumes: | ||
| • | Cover Letter | ||
| • | Experience Supporting Documentation | ||
| • | Non-affiliate certificate | ||
| • | Technical Proposal | Yes; See answer 104 | |
| 168 | Page 48: Paragraph 5.4.3 |
Will the Government allow uncounted pages (i.e. Cover Page, Table of Contents, Acronym List) for the Technical Proposal?
| See answer 104 | |||
| 169 | Page 44: 4.0 Proposal Format, Paragraph 4.2 | ||
| Many supporting documents (e.g., SOW, subcontract agreements, etc.) are PDF documents. Will the Government allow SOWs, subcontract agreements, and other supporting documents in their original PDF format rather than converting each document to a Microsoft Office format? | See answer 95 (See Amendment 0004) | ||
| 170 | On Page 46 Section 5.4 since there is a limitation of 5 pages for the Technical Proposal would the cover and table of contents pages count towards the total pages? | ||
| See answer 104 | |||
| 171 | On Page 48 Section 5.4.6 states “Past performance references are not required or desired.” Can you please confirm that this also includes past performance evaluations from the CORs? | Yes | |
| 172 | On Page 49 Section 5.7.3 would the Government consider a 3rd Party audit for the DCAA audit process? | No | |
| 173 | KIHOMAC respectfully requests a change to the current RFP (SOLICITATION No. N0017824R7000) for the SeaPort NxG MAC on-ramp. |
The current RFP states that each company can only hold one SeaPort NxG MAC (C.10.2). Also, it mentions that Joint Ventures (JVs) can only hold one SeaPort NxG MAC collectively (C.10.3).
However, we are part of SBA Approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture and already have a SeaPort NxG contract under this setup. We have had an exception (Modification 7) added to our current contract, allowing partners within the Mentor Protege JV to have more than one MAC under the SeaPort program, provided these additional relationships are as SBA approved Mentor Protege JV's and do not compete for specific task orders. This exception allows:
“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.”
We request this SBA Mentor Protege exception to C.10.2 and C.10.3 be included in the current RFP for the SeaPort NxG MAC on-ramp.
Attached is the Summary of Changes for Modification 7 to our current SeaPort NxG contract for your reference.
| 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 | |||||||
| 174 | On page 41, Section L. the RFP states 2.1 Offerors must be registered into the SeaPort NxG portal using the instructions provided in Attachment J.1 – SeaPort NxG Registration Instructions. These instructions provide all information offerors will need to complete the process for registration. However, Attachment J1 says that offerors must receive an award to register for the SeaPort NXG portal. Can you clarify what is required and how to register without receiving a link and registration code from the Navy? | Attachment J.1, paragraph 3 contains the link to register. | |||||
| 175 | Can the government please clarify the due date of the requirement? It states 12AM in one place and 12PM in another. | Amendment 0003 states offers are due 12:00 p.m. on 18 Jun 2024. | |||||
| 176 | • | What Task Areas within Program Management Services would Acquisition Support Services fall into? | |||||
| • | Will a proposal that includes more than 1 DoD past performances be looked at more favorably than a proposal with only 1 DoD past performance? | ||||||
| • | What is the intent of opening SeaPort NxG to vendors with DoD experience outside of Navy? | ||||||
| • | Can you confirm the time of day proposals are due? The new SF33 form says proposals are due at 12AM while SAM.gov and the old SF33 say 12PM. | ||||||
| 1. Offerors must demonstrate how their experience relates to one of the 23 functional areas. 2. No 3. The intent is to allow offerors with DoD to demonstrate how they can support the DoN and increase the DoN potential vendor base. 4. See Amendment 0003 - 12:00 p.m. on 18 Jun 2024. | |||||||
| 177 | 1 | section 5.3 | Can the government confirm that completing box 14 of the SF33 satisfies the requirement to accept all modifications and that signed copies of amendment SF30s are not required as part of the submission? | ||||
| 2 | "page 41, section L 1.1 | ||||||
| page 45, section 5.2" | RFP Section L 1.1 Introduction states, "Proposals submitted shall be valid for 365 days from the closing date of the RFP." Section 5.2 Cover Letter states, "Proposal validity for 365 days after issuance date of the RFP." Will the government please clarify which is the correct requirement? | ||||||
| 3 | page 44-54, Section 4.3 | Is it permissible to use the company name abbreviation identified in the registion fields in the naming convention for proposal submission documents? | |||||
| 1. Yes 2. See answer 144 3. Yes | |||||||
| 178 | 5.4.3 (pg. 47) | Technical Proposal | The government references “For the purposes of the Technical Proposal, “recent” is defined as within the last ten years.” What is the date used to determine the ten year period? This offeror proposes the initial date of RFP release (4/9/2024) so as not to present a rolling target if this solicitation due date were to continue to be moved out. | "Recent" experience shall be within 10 years of the initial date of RFP release. | |||
| 179 | 5.4.3 (pg. 48) Technical Proposal The government states that if the offeror’s experience is either classified or performed as a subcontractor and a prime contract is not available, supporting documentation should be provided to the extent it can be obtained, to include SOW, subcontract, etc. Ine the case where the offeror is using previous experience of one of its current employees while working for another employer, what would suffice for proof of past experience for that current offeror’s employee? | Yes | |||||
| 180 | 5.4.4 (pg. 48) Technical Proposal On page 48, section 5.4.4 it states: “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 by the offeror in the past 10 years, the offeror can use the experience of a senior project manager that has provided contract support in one of the designated functional area subcategories? Would this also be true for the same level of support one of the offeror’s employees performed while active duty with the Department of the Navy or the U.S. Marine Corps? | Yes | |||||
| 181 | L.4.3, Pg. 44 |
1. The Company_Name_CAGE_Technical_Proposal document is limited to 5 pages and the RFP does not state if the title page, table of contents, list of tables, and list of figures are excluded from the page limits. Recommend these pages be omitted from the 5 page limit for the Company_Name_CAGE_Technical_Proposal file.
| See answer 104 | ||||
| 182 | L.5.4.2, Pg. 47 | For work performed under an IDIQ, can offerors provide details on the IDIQ contract and associated task orders and will this be counted as one (1) contract reference in the Company_Name_CAGE_Technical_Proposal? | Each task order under one IDIQ can represent a seperate contract reference. | |
| 183 | L.6.5, Pg. 51 | l.6.5 requires a statement in the proposal if there are no OCIs to disclose, but does not specify where this belongs. Where should the OCI statement go in the proposal?" | See answer 107 | |
| 184 | M.3.0.3, Pg. 53 | Within M.3.0.3 for subcontracting plan, L.5.4 is referenced, however it should instead reference L.5.8 | This is an administrative error. | |
| 185 | Section L.3.13 | Please confirm that if a company is already DCAA audited that we are only required to submit Part A of the Pre-Award Accounting System Questionnaire (Attachment J.3). | ||
| Correct, only submit Part A | ||||
| 186 | Section L.3.13 | Please clarify if a DCAA audit report should be submitted if we are confirming that our company is already DCAA audited. | ||
| A copy of recent audit report is not required. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .