NST_QA2.pdf

Number Question Answer 1 Does the Government market research support that this could not be achieved by a small business via a set aside? Market research supported soliciting this effort under full and open competition.

Offerors will not be providing pricing within their Proposals. Should offerors in submitting their Small Business Participation Plan and SB Subcontracting Plans utilize the solicitation ceiling value of $246,761,679.00 to represent the “whole dollars” in their submission of the SB plans? Yes, please utilize the total ceiling value.

Is it the Government’s intent that the Offeror submit four (4) separate Volumes: Factor I – Corporate Experience; Factor II – Technical: Staffing Plan and Scenario Solution; Factor III – Technical: Small Business Participation Plan; and Small Business Subcontracting Plan, comprising four separate Word documents? Please see Amendment 1. Offerors may submit as one (1) volume comprising of the entire proposal.

Will the Government allow Offerors to submit the Small Business Participation Plan and associated Small Business Subcontracting Plan in a single volume as the documents are related and should be evaluated together? Please see Question 3.

Will the Government clarify whether the Period of Performance is the Period of Performance reflected on page.5 under Delivery Information, or the anticipated Award date set forth in the Duration of Contract Period, paragraph (a)?

Please see Amendment 1 which corrects the Duration of the Contract Period.

If the Offeror has on-going and recent transformations that will meet the “completed work” requirement past performance by award date, will the government allow offerors to submit Corporate Experience strategic transformation qualifications that exceed the stated completed work threshold ($25M) by the award date? The only recency criterion is that the work was performed within five (5) years of the RFP closing.

Will an effort that is listed in more than one (1) subject area, while fulfilling the requirements of each subject area, be counted as multiple efforts (1 per subject area), or would it be counted as a single effort? Please clarify.

As stated in the RFP, "Please note that one (1) reference may fulfill the requirements of more than one (1) subject area."

Given that the Government has not requested Pricing volumes, rate cards or labor categories for this MAC RFP, does the government expect offerors to provide PROPOSED LCATS for the scenario, or will the government be amending its RFP to either include LCATS to propose against, or remove this requirement?

Yes, the Government is requesting the offeror's identification of personnel (by labor category) required to complete the task. The Government will not be revising the RFP to provide labor categories or remove the requirement.

Is the gov't able to support a 2 week extension on the proposal submission deadline from 06 APR to 20 APR to allow for additional time to confer and confirm confidentiality disclosure requirements with commercial clients being referenced as part of the Corporate Past Performance ? Please see Amendment 1.

Can NAVSUP further expound upon the definition of an “End to End Supply Chain Integration. Does the integration start at the deployed (disconnected) ship/submarine level or some point after that? Does the E2E integration integrate into an OEM's supply chain system?

End to End is a broad term that includes the program office, upstream industry partners, and all other participating supply chain entities all the way down to the Last Tactical Mile (LTM). The LTM represents the last steps to physically getting a part or service to its final destination/point of need.

Can NAVSUP further define what is meant by the Last Tactical Mile. Are we to assume (LTM) include commands, units or does it cover platforms, Ships, aircraft, submarines, and mobile special ops units operating at FOBs?

Please see Question 10. With this definition of LTM, it could include all of the examples provided in the question.

12 Is there an incumbent/how many incumbents? This is a new requirement.

13 If there are incumbents, how many contracts was awarded in previous RFP? See Question 12.

Is the government going to award multiple contracts for N0018921R0016?

Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, "The Government intends to award to each and all Technically Acceptable Offerors for NAVSUP Strategic Transformation (NST) with a five (5) year ordering period. The Government reserves the right to make some or no awards at all."

Can the Government confirm if offerors should submit completed representations and certifications with proposals? If so, could the Government confirm which volume offerors should provide them in? Please see Amendment 1. Please see question 3 regarding volumes.

In the Evaluation Criteria on page 13 of the RFTOP, Sub-factor III: Small Business Participation Plan states the Contracting Officer will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan as follows: The extent of commitment to use small business concerns (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones). If a bidders has a signed teaming agreement with a small business subcontractor, would that be considered an ‘enforceable commitment’ and therefore weighted more heavily in the evaluation process? Please see Amendment 1 which removes that enforceable commitments will be weighed more heavily.

In the Evaluation Criteria on page 13 of the RFTOP, Sub-factor III: Small Business Participation Plan states the Contracting Officer will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan as follows: The extent of commitment to use small business concerns (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones). Is it possible that a bidder could be deemed Unacceptable if they don’t provide evidence of ‘enforceable commitments’ with small business subcontractors?

Please see question 16.

Sub-Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan (Page 13) states “The Contracting Officer will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan as follows: The extent of commitment to use small business concerns (for example, enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones)”. Can the Government please provide examples of “enforceable and non-enforceable” commitments? Is a Letter of Commitment considered an enforceable commitment? Please see question 16.

Section 7.0, Security: (Page 50). The RFP does not indicate a Security Clearance is required for personnel on this contract. Is a Security Clearance required for work on this contract? If so, what type? Is an Interim clearance acceptable? Is there any requirement for security clearances upon IDIQ award? Security clearance is not required.

RFP, 1 GENERAL (page 72) states “the proposal shall consist of the following separate factors”. Factor II Technical lists “Sub- Factor III: Small Business Participation Plan”. Also listed separately is “Small Business Subcontracting Plan”. Are these separate sections that should be written to separately? Please provide an explanation of what is expected to be addressed in each section.

Subfactor III will be evaluated IAW the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 while the small business subcontracing plan will be reviewed IAW FAR 19.704 to ensure that all apparently successful offerors have an acceptable plan.

Page 75 indicates the Government intends to contact identified POCs and states “The Government will not ask proprietary questions. This is a reference check only”. Private sector clients, frequently, do not want individual’s names divulged. To assuage potential concerns by private sector clients, can the Government please indicate the types of questions to be asked as part of the reference check?

Questions will be asked in reference to the quality of performance and validation of performance. In accordance with FAR 15.505(e), the names of individuals providing reference information will not be divulged.

Technical Approach, Sub-Factor I Staffing Plan (Page 75) states “Offerors shall provide its turnover rate for professional services and demonstrate its plan for maintaining a turnover rate at or below 20% as required in the NAVSUP Strategic Transformation PWS” Can the Government please provide more detail on the 20% turnover metric (e.g. for the life of the IDIQ, annually, etc.)? The 20% turnover rate will be determined based on the task orders that the contractor receives.

Small Business Contracting Plan (Page 76) requires large prime contractors to include in the Small Business Contracting Plan, “small business contracting goals expressed in term of whole dollars and percentage based on total planned subcontracting dollars. Of the total planned subcontracting dollars, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall include goals for Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Woman-Owned Small Businesses, HubZone Small Businesses, Veteran Owned Small Businesses and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business”. At Proposal Submission, offerors do not know the value of Task Orders (total whole dollars) the offeror will win, offerors are not able to provide either the “small business contracting goals expressed in term of whole dollars” nor “total planned subcontracting dollar goals for Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Woman-Owned Small Businesses, HubZone Small Businesses, Veteran Owned Small Businesses and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business”. Also, the percentage of subcontracting by socio-economic category depends on the Task Order requirements and the specific capabilities of each small business.Consequently, will the Government consider

(1) eliminating the requirement for small business subcontracting goals expressed in terms of whole dollars and (2) eliminate the total planned subcontracting dollars by socio-economic category; instead, accepting the target percentage of work to be performed by small business and requiring awardees to report the “percent of total work planned for subcontracting to small business by socio-economic category”? Please see question 2.

Has the steering committee referenced in 2.1 of the solicitation been formed? If so, what are the titles / positions of these members?

"The NSS-Supply will be governed by a steering committee co-chaired by the VCNO. It will bring together all key supply chain leaders in order to elevate strategic supply chain decision making" This information is not available at this time.

Is there equivalent focus on each of the 6 pillars of the NSS-Supply?

" 1) Achieve E2E integration, 2) Establish demand management, 3) Optimize Working Capital Fund Allocations, 4) Shape Industrial Base, 5) Expand Organic Repair and 6) Increase E2E velocity." Yes, the focus is equal between the pillars.

Can the government provide any pre-defined metrics for the 6 pillars of the NSS-Supply in addition to those referenced below:

"NAVSUP is constantly looking to reduce Average Customer Wait Time (ACWT) and Logistics Response Time (LRT) with a specific focus on optimizing forward positioning of material and reducing Last Tactical Mile (LTM) time segment to improve supply chain responsiveness in support of readiness objectives."

NSS-Supply has established some standardized metrics, but is willing and interested to consider other metrics that achieve the desired goals.

Bidding an SBA Approved 8(a) or SDVOSB Mentor Protégé JV. As we review the NAVSUP NST PWS, it appears NAVSUP is limiting the use of SBA approved Mentor Protégé Joint Ventures. Can NAVSUP confirm if SBA approved 8(a) or SDVOSB Joint ventures may bid on this solicitation? Can NAVSUP further confirm that if an approved 8(a) or SDVOSB Joint Venture is proposing, the Corporate Experience of either of the members of a joint venture in a mentor protege joint venture, including work that was performed BEFORE the Joint Venture was formed will be evaluated? Below are a few rulings related to the Mentor Protege JVs:

Under SBA rules, small businesses can pair up with larger businesses in a mentor-protege joint venture (MPJV). Congress amended the Small Business Act at 15 USC § 644 (q) (1) to require procuring agencies to consider the past performance and capabilities of the individual members of the MPJV when the MPJV as a whole did not demonstrate sufficient capabilities or past performance experience to be considered for award. The Small Business Administration (SBA) promulgated regulations implementing the change at 13 C.F.R. § 125.8 (e) which establishes that a procuring activity must consider work done individually by each partner to the MPJV as well as work done by the joint venture itself previously.

This procurement is not “set aside or reserved for small businesses” as described in 13 CFR 125.8(e). Thus, per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, "If a Joint Venture is proposing, the Corporate Experience will need to be experience performed as the Joint Venture to be evaluated. Work that was performed BEFORE the Joint Venture was formed will not be evaluated."

This section notes that small businesses are not required to submit a subcontracting plan but are required to submit a small business participation plan. Earlier in the paragraph the solicitation defines the small business participation plan as addressing both the extent of commitment to use small business concerns and past performance regarding compliance with FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9, which specifically is a reference to the use of small business subcontracting plans. Can NAVSUP please clarify what it expects for contents within the small business participation plan for small business offerors?

Small businesses are required to submit a participation plan which includes the extent of commitment ot use small business concerns and past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8.

29 Is there a maximum Task Order size for this solicitation? The maximum is $246,761,679.00.

Can government confirm that the fastest it will seek to staff a project is five days from contract award?

At this time the Government is unable to confirm that the fastest it will seek to staff a project is five days from award.

Is the 20% turnover rate reference a yearly turnover rate? If not, what is the period of time referred to for the turnover rate? Please see question 22.

Does the government have specific priorities or focus areas for the transformation tasks that fall under other ancillary services? There are no specific priorities for the ancillary services and are considered equally important.

33 Does the government plan to designate any personnel as "Key" at the IDIQ level? No.

Will the government accept representative resumes that do not count against the page-limit of individuals who may be designated as Key at the Task Order level? This is not a submission requirement and unless it falls under an evaluation factor, will not be evaluated.

What portion of the response should offerors include their completed SF1449, Contract Clauses, and Representations and Certifications? Please see Amendment 1.

The SF1449 Continuation Sheets appear to require pricing. Please confirm that no pricing is required for this IDIQ submittal. Offerors are not to submit any pricing.

We believe the Government should provide a separate CLIN for Travel/ODCs that would be Cost Reimbursable at the IDIQ level to be able to include these CLINs at a Task Order level. The Government will not be including a separate travel CLIN.

38 Are offerors required to submit a Key Executive Contact List at the IDIQ level? Offerors will provide this list upon award.

Page 55 – 9.1 Key Personnel - The Government shall not be billed for key personnel positions left vacant over 10 calendar days unless the vacancy is due to Government delay and otherwise approved by the CO. We request that the Government remove this requirement/stipulation since this IDIQ will have FFP Task Orders as it puts an unnecessary administrative burden on the Government and Contractors to comply. The Government will not be removing this requirement.

Please confirm the IDIQ Kick-off meeting/agenda will be conducted either 10 days after award announcement or effective date of the IDIQ Award.

Upon award of the IDIQ, the government will schedule and coordinate an IDIQ kick-off meeting no later than (NLT) ten (10) calendar days after the initial award.

Please clarify agenda items for the initial IDIQ Kick-off meeting. The current agenda includes items that would be addressed at a Task Order level consistent with 9.10.1. The items listed in 9.9.1 is correct.

42 Please confirm that offerors are not required to submit a Quality Control Plan for the IDIQ level. In accordance with 9.9.1 of the PWS, the QCP is an agenda item for the kick-off meeting.

Can NAVSUP provide their definition for the three (3) acronyms used in the scenario? (pg. 76) 1. Average Customer Wait Time (ACWT)? 2. Logistics Response Time (LRT)? 3. Last Tactical Mile (LTM)?

ACWT - Average Customer Wait Time - The average time elapsed between generation of a parts requirement until the delivery of part to the requestor.

LRT - Logistics Response Time - Is a subset of ACWT metrics removing some of the admin wait time on both the ordering and receiving side.

LTM - Last tactical mile - last steps to physically to getting a part or service to its final destination/point of need.

Can NAVSUP provide clarity on, “inventory positioning re-baseline approach”? Is there a current baseline and are there any current metrics? What are the perceived shortcomings of the systems being used?

The Navy has no published baseline and is interested in understanding different approaches that reduce ACWT and LRT.

In order to achieve the highest benefit and lowest risk outcomes through transformation, we recommend that NAVSUP consider a requirement for the following key personnel and experts to be presented as part of Offerors' Staffing Plans. Corresponding CVs/bios could be presented as part of an appendix that does not count against page allocations. (a) 2 overall account executives to be single point of accountability (key personnel) (b) Individuals with experience leading transformations in Fortune 100 companies (c) Individuals with experience leading transformations in the DOD/National Security domain (d) Individuals with experience bringing private sector best practices to federal agencies (e) 1-2 supply chain transformation experts (f) 1-2 organizational and change management experts (g) 1-2 supply chain IT / digital solution experts (h) 1-2 Senior industry advisors The Government will not be including this requirement at the IDIQ level.

Many Offerors utilize tools and other pre-existing intellectual property to enhance the quality of support provided to their clients. As the commercial licenses associated with each tool may differ based on the tool used, please confirm that the Government will negotiate appropriate data rights and licensing terms at the Task Order level, when applicable. Data rights will be defined and detailed at the task order level.

For this contract, does the Navy have an overall target for the % of spend directed to small businesses?

The Government is not establishing goals, but all acceptable offerors will be required to have an acceptable subcontracting plan prior to award.

For this contract, does the Navy have a target for the mix of spend directed to sub-categories of small businesses (WOSB, VOSB, etc.)? Please see question 47.

49 In which volume should the offeror submit their representations and certifications? Please see question 15.

50 In the Scenario Solution, is the Navy looking to use forward positioning of materials to reduce ACWT and LRT for both CONUS and OCONUS requisitions? Or should the offeror’s technical approach focus on OCONUS requisitions only?

The sample task does not specifically focus on either CONUS and OCONUS on purpose. NAVSUP is interested to understand how either one or both of those scenarios can be improved.

Requirements for Proposal Content, Factor I: Corporate Experience, pages 74 and 75, Table: Corporate Experience Minimums and Maximums states: “Private sector strategic transformation (Fortune 1-100) (shall reflect a value of $25M of completed work per reference)” QUESTION: The requirements of Fortune 100 experience combined with revenues exceeding $25M with no price evaluation provides vendors executing existing NSS contracts and J&As a significant competitive advantage. Will the government consider changing the corporate experience requirements and evaluating price at the IDIQ level to ensure competition and best value.

The Government will not be evaluating price at the IDIQ level in accordance with Section 825 of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

52 QUESTION: As stated and required on page 72 of the solicitation, there is no offeror response requirement for pricing or the opportunity for the offeror to provide a basis of estimate to substantiate the government prescribed ceiling of $246M. Lacking any cost data at the initial contract level, how will the government ensure competition and without pricing at the IDIQ level, evaluate for best value?

Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, "There are no tradeoffs for this source selection. Offerors are either Acceptable or Unacceptable when reaching contract award decision. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror(s) that give(s) the Navy confidence that it will meet the requirements. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall select the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) are Acceptable in accordance with the established criteria in this Source Selection (described below)." The Government will not be evaluating price at the IDIQ level in accordance with Section 825 of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

QUESTION: May a cover letter be excluded from page count?

Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, the following are not included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, list of acronyms, compliance matrix, and table of contents.

QUESTION: Please confirm that the required contract documentation for Factor I, may be included as separate files in the final submission. Please see question 3.

55 QUESTION: Please confirm that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is part of the Volume II – Cost/Price proposal. Please see question 3.

RFP pg 12 of 76 Subfactor #2 – RFP states the Scenario Solutions will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable. Below the table is the definitions of Strengths, weaknesses, significant weakness, deficiency and risk. These rating elements have been used on previous RFPs to be gradated between multiple proposal where a single winner is selected. In this case where all technically acceptable proposals will be accepted, what is this rating scale being used to evaluate and how will it be used to determine the acceptable / unacceptable rating?

The rating tables have been tailored for this requirement and incorporate the use of strengths, weaknesses, etc.

Thus, evaluation will be in accordance with the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 and the rating tables therein.

57 Will the government require offerors to submit any pricing volume at the IDIQ level? No.

Topic 1: Factor I - Corporate Experience requires the Prime Offeror to provide recent efforts of work performed to demonstrate experience regarding recent performance on transformational efforts in terms of four (4) subject areas within a complex, global-scale organization. All four (4) areas require contracts that reflect a value of $25M of completed work per reference. However, a contract dollar value (e.g. $25M) does not indicate a firm’s ability to successfully executing a complex transformational effort.

Question 1: Would the government consider modifying the solicitation to eliminate the dollar threshold for all 4 Corporate Experiences in the Table on PWS pages 74-75?

Due to the complexity and breadth of the requirement, the Government will not be revising the dollar threshold for Corporate Experience efforts.

Topic 2: Major Effort 3 “Private or federal sector supply chain transformation (Fortune 1-500 or federal)” in the Table on PWS pages 74-75 reads “The Government is allowing for greater flexibility for this effort as it is more specific”. Question 2: Can you please provide more detail on what “greater flexibility” specifically means? The greater flexibility is allowing for submissions for Fortune 1-500 for suply chain transformation as opposed to the other efforts that must be for Fortune 1-100 companies.

With the requirement in Factor I: Corporate experience of 8 past performances with Fortune 100/500 companies with a value of $25M or greater, no small business can bid on this effort at this would exceed the NAICS 541611 small business size standard of $16.5M. Would the Government consider removal of the Fortune 100/500 requirement and lower the value to $5M?

Due to the complexity and breadth of the requirement, the Government will not be revising the Fortune 1-100 requirement for Corporate Experience efforts.

With the requirement in Factor I: Corporate experience of 8 past performances with Fortune 100/500 companies with a value of $25M or greater, no small business can bid on this effort at this would exceed the NAICS 541611 small business size standard of $16.5M. Would the Government consider a small business participation requirement of 25%+ to guarantee small business participation?

Large business offerors must submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan(s) that must be acceptable prior to award(s).

Offerors have extensive experience supporting broad transformations with companies listed on the Fortune Global 100 and 500.

These companies are not included in the linked list in the RFP (“Americas Largest Companies”). In many cases these global companies are larger than many US-based companies and have revenues from the US that exceed many of the US companies listed. Can Offerors use Corporate Experience from Fortune Global 100 and 500 companies?

The Government will not be openning up to global companies.

If a company that is being referenced as part of Corporate Past Performance is not explicitly listed in the current list of Fortune 1- 100 companies however their size, scope, market capital and revenue are equivalent to that of a Fortune 1-100 company would that be acceptable for referencing? Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, references shall be efforts performed for Fortune 1-100 companies.

Factor I: Corporate Experience (Page 74) states “for each contract submitted, offerors shall include relevant documentation (e.g. Performance Work Statement (PWS)) substantiating the work performed. If an offeror submits an IDIQ type contract, the offeror shall also submit Task Orders performed under the IDIQ with the Task Order PWS”. Private sector clients frequently preclude contractual documents from being shared. What is an acceptable substitute for the PWS and Task Orders if a Private sector client will not allow an offeror to share contractual documents with the scope of work performed (e.g. PWS or Task Order)?

Please see Amendment 2 which removes the requirement to submit classified or confidental PWSs as long as the Government has a means of validating the performance on these efforts.

Can the government provide the platforms for the existing Enterprise Information Technology systems used to directly support the Navy's supply chain?

If relevant, this information would be provided at the task order level but the Government does not intend to provide this information at this time.

Based on the clause, “and/or an organization/enterprise with a similar size/structure,” are experience references acceptable from non-US public companies that have a similar size and complexity to a Fortune100 company, but do not appear on the Fortune100? Please see question 62.

Based on the clause, “and/or an organization/enterprise with a similar size/structure,” are experience references acceptable from a US subsidiary of an international company that has a similar size and complexity to a Fortune100 company, but does not appear on the Fortune100? Please see question 62.

For private sector examples, detailed Government-style Performance Work Statements (PWS) and Statements of Work (SoW) may not exist though scope/size/duration/results all meet the markers expected of a large-scale transformation effort. In other cases, confidentiality obligations prohibit the sharing of these materials. Would the Government please revise instructions to state that a PWS is not required for private sector references as part of Corporate Experience, so long as writeups can be verified through references? Please see question 64.

Will the Government allow Offerors to submit as part of their demonstration of Corporate Experience, non-US-based corporations whose annual revenue would place them in the US Fortune 500? https://fortune.com/global500/ Please see question 62.

For reference case examples that span multiple consecutive contracts, it is common for there to be a mix of circumstances where an Offeror acted in both prime and subcontractor roles. Will the Government allow for Offerors to demonstrate Corporate Experience through such scenarios that included both prime and subcontractor roles? For example, the Government may procure the services of an Offeror for a phase I diagnostic through a subcontracting arrangement and with the same Offeror as a prime contractor for a more expansive professional services engagement in Phase II. Both circumstances are important in demonstrating delivery of a transformative program.

Please see Amendment 2 which allows for the submission of efforts performed as a subcontractor so long as the subcontract meets the dollar thresholds established.

Would the Government consider allowing the Offeror to use as reference cases examples where Offeror was a subcontractor but the value of the Offeror's work exceeded $25M? Please see question 70.

We respectfully request that the Government consider amending instructions to state that examples wherein the value of Offeror's work performed as both a prime contractor and a subcontractor on efforts for a single client taken together exceeded $25M are eligible corporate experience efforts. E.g., the Offeror was subcontracted for a $5M effort, and then was the prime for a follow-on $20M effort. Please see question 70.

Should the Government find it acceptable for Offerors to submit reference efforts where they were a subcontractor, but their contract value exceeded $25M, will the Government consider the total contract value the total fees paid (sub + prime) or just the fees paid to the Offeror (acting as subcontractor)? E.g., in a $30M contract, $23M went to the subcontractor, who would like to use this example for this NAVSUP RFP. Please see question 70.

Will the Government confirm that the $25M of completed work per reference refers to the total dollar value of work completed on behalf of the client, such that the value of multiple task orders on an IDIQ type contract or multiple consecutive contracts (e.g., a $5M diagnostic plus $20M implementation) may be taken together to reflect a value of $25M?

The Government will accept multiple task orders under different contracts if the offeror clearly demonstrates that the efforts are correlated (same project and customer) and this can be verified by the Government.

Will the Government please confirm that global public sector defense organizations (e.g., UK, Canada, Australia MoDs) are acceptable as Corporate Experience references? Please see Amendment 2 which removes the public sector experience.

Requirements for Proposal Content, Factor I: Corporate Experience, pages 74 and 75, Table: Corporate Experience Minimums and Maximums states: “Shall reflect a value of $25M of completed work per reference” QUESTION: The Corporate Experience Minimums and Maximums table states minimum and maximum requirements for each “Type of Effort” and requires that each Past Performance reference shall reflect a value of $25M of completed work per reference. To increase competition would the government consider removing this requirement, as the value spent does not correlate to savings achieved?. Please see question 58.

Requirements for Proposal Content, Factor I: Corporate Experience, pages 74 and 75, Table: Corporate Experience Minimums and Maximums states: “Shall reflect a value of $25M of completed work per reference” QUESTION: Contracts of similar scope and complexity within the commercial sector are often successfully executed as lower dollar (under $25M) thresholds due to the more rapid, short term nature of consulting. This also holds true for many existing contracts across NAVSUP. Without any insight of the size of future task orders, would the government consider removing the $25M of completed work requirement for past performance of similar scope and complexity? Please see question 58.

Requirements for Proposal Content. Factor I: Corporate Experience, page 74 states: “For the purpose of this requirement, Teaming Arrangements are permitted; however, a Prime Offeror shall be identified in the arrangement and upon award shall perform at least 50% of the work on all awarded task orders. The Prime Offerors Corporate Experience will be the only experience evaluated. If a Joint Venture is proposing, the Corporate Experience will need to be experience performed as the Joint Venture to be evaluated. Work that was performed BEFORE the Joint Venture was formed will not be evaluated. Additionally, prime offerors on the instant requirement shall not submit experience in which they were a subcontractor. Only work performed by the prime, as the prime contractor on the effort, will be evaluated. Any Corporate Experience submitted that does not meet this criteria will not be evaluated.” QUESTION: Industry regularly and successfully performs as a team for efforts of similar size, scope, and complexity, bringing the best of each company on the team. Therefore, would the government consider including past performance of team members and not just the prime?

Please see Amendment 2. Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, only work perforemd by the prime offeror will be evaluated.

Requirements for Proposal Content, Factor I: Corporate Experience, pages 74 states: “Corporate Experience is defined as successfully performing studies, research and analysis and developing transformational strategies for Fortune 1-100 companies (Fortune 1-500 for Supply Chain Transformation) and experience advising C-suite executives and large organizations through highly complex, undefined, and unstructured problems in addition to corporate experience successfully supporting the Navy (or other federal entity of similar scope and complexity) by advising senior leaders through developing transformational strategies;

reforming supply chains, translating and incorporating commercial best practices through highly complex, undefined, and unstructured problems.” QUESTION: Factor I Corporate Experience is defined as successfully performing studies, research and analysis and developing transformational strategies for Fortune 1-100 companies. To ensure adequate competition, would the government consider changing this to the Global 1 – 300? A Fortune 300 company conducts over $10.4B in Revenue, representing a sizeable, complex organization where successful execution of strategic transformation work would appear to still be relevant to these requirements. Additionally, within the Air Force, a recent, similar competition for Air Force Strategic Transformation Services required Fortune 1-300 experience, which is less restrictive and created a more competitive acquisition. Please see question 63.

RFP pg 74 of 76, Factor I: Corporate Experience, Corporate Experience Minimums and Maximums - By setting an acceptable/unacceptable threshold of $25M for experience references, firms that operate at more efficient and competitive price levels will be disadvantaged compared to firms that are typically higher priced compared to the competitive market. Will the Government please clarify the basis for the $25M threshold especially since it appears to only allow higher priced firms to participate?

As the Navy is looking to transform the Department as a whole, it is anticipated t hat the transformation efforts will be highly robust. Thus, the Navy is seeking firms with the highest level of expertise so as not to jepordize mission readiness during and after the transformation efforts.

RFP pg 74 of 76, Factor I: Corporate Experience - Please clarify the basis for restricting experience to only firms in the Fortune 100 or 500 list. It is not clear what year should be used or why support to #100 would be acceptable, but support to #101 would not. Many firms outside of these lists have large complex, undefined and unstructured problems and are also operating on a global scale. This appears to be an unnecessary restriction to competition. Please clarify if the requirement is for Fortune 100 only, or can it be extended to Fortune 500 companies.

Please see question 63.

RFP pg 74 of 76, Factor I: Corporate Experience – Please clarify the basis for restricting experience references to only work performed by the prime as a prime contractor. Will the Government accept subcontract work where the subcontractor performed 100% of work that is of a similar scope to the work in this solicitation? This requirement appears to be an unnecessary restriction to competition because it precludes legitimate work that demonstrates a firm’s experience.

Please see question 70.

RFP pg 74 of 76, Factor I: Corporate Experience – Please clarify if an offeror can submit multiple task orders under an IDIQ contract to meet the $25M threshold requirement (e.g., where multiple task orders are part of the same transformation program).

Please see question 74.

RFP pg 74 of 76, Factor I: Corporate Experience – Please clarify what is meant by “application within a complex, global-scale organization” with respect to experience references and whether this includes work in support of foreign governments. If work in support of foreign governments can be included request the Table be revised to allow this category of support. Please see question 75.

RFP pg 74 of 76, Factor I: Corporate Experience - Will the Government allow multiple task orders awarded under different contracts if the work demonstrates experience working to execute transformational activities (e.g., where multiple task orders, across different contract vehicles, are part of the same transformation program)?

The Government will accept multiple task orders under different contracts if the offeror clearly demonstrates that the efforts are correlated (same project and customer) and this can be verified by the Government.

RFP pg 74 of 76, Factor I: Corporate Experience - Please clarify if unique groups of task orders where the unique groups of task orders exceed the $25M threshold, but that fall under the same contact vehicle, e.g. a single IDIQ, can be submitted. Many of the larger contract vehicles in DoD will cover different scopes of work, performed for different sponsors Please see question 74.

Page 74 of 76 Factor 1: Corporate Experience – what does “instant requirement” mean in the following sentence…“Additionally, prime offerors on the instant requirement shall not submit experience in which they are a subcontractor.”? Instant requirement refers to the NST IDIQ vehicle.

RFP Section II, Requirements for Proposal Content, Factor I Corporate Experience, Table: Corporate Experience Minimums and Maximums - This table includes a requirement that each effort proposed, “shall reflect a value of $25M of completed work per reference.” The threshold effectively prequalifies firms based on past contract dollar values without regard to the actual capabilities or qualifications of the company. Because Corporate Experience is being evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, a company will be prohibited from participating or its proposal will be disqualified solely because of past contract dollar values without any review or consideration of the company’s technical proposal or actual qualifications.

This approach limits sources to only companies with past contracts greater than $25M and is not limiting sources because of unique capabilities of firms as required by FAR 6.302-1(b)(1)(ii). The dollar value of past contracts is not an indicator of a firm’s unique capabilities. Thereforing the best of each company on the team. Therefore, would the government consider including past performance of team members and not just the prime?on of strategic transformation work would appear to still be relevant to these requirements. Additionally, within the Air Force, a recent, similar competition for Air Force Strategic Transformation Services required Fortune 1-300 experience, which is less

Please see question 58.

Corporate Experience Factor I Page 74 – The first paragraph requires experience with corporations and Government performing strategic transformation and supply chain transformation. The Table provided in this section maps to those requirements, but also includes a $25M threshold for each completed work reference. The required dollar value threshold does not represent anticipated work, is not a valid measure of corporate capability for this type of work, and will severely and unnecessarily restrict competition only to the largest firms with the highest prices, denying the Navy’s ability to access highly capable, efficient and competitively priced firms that meet all other RFP experience requirements except for the $25M threshold. Question: For the reasons cited below, will the Government please remove the $25M threshold allowing offerors to demonstrate the required experience based on the actual merits of their experience when measured against the other RFP Factor 1 experience requirements, rather than an apparently arbitrary and restrictive dollar value? - The types of experience identified in this section such as studies, research, analysis, and advising customers is typically short duration and project based and rarely rises to a $25M level except in long term contracts that include multiple projects over multiple years. - The dollar value of a transformation project is determined by many factors including the scope of the project, project or contract length, the need for senior (higher priced) support, rate structures, price competition, and other market forces. Because of these factors, dollar value is an extremely poor indicator of a firm’s ability to perform and deliver the work described in the RFP. - It is unclear what the scope and magnitude of orders will be under the eventual contract to justify a $25m threshold for participation in this procurement. Therefore, the dollar value appears arbitrary and unsupported by the RFP requirements. - The dollar value threshold will severely and unnecessarily restrict competition to only the largest firms with extremely large contracts with scope that goes beyond transformation requirements and is priced at the highest rates available in the market. - Only the most expensive firms are likely to meet the dollar value threshold.

- The difficulties in clearly attributing dollar value to specific transformation work will add significant complexity and risk to the Government’s evaluation process opening the possibility for disputes over the process.

Please see question 58.

Corporate Experience Factor I Page 74 – The first paragraph requires experience with corporations and Government performing strategic transformation and supply chain transformation. The Table provided in this section maps to those requirements, but also includes a $25M threshold for each completed work reference. It is not clear if the $25M value reflects total contract value, the portion of the contract that is related to transformation work, the value of a single task order or a combination of task orders, or some other measure. Please clarify how offerors are to determine the value of a particular reference for purposes of meeting this requirement. Please note that in some cases transformation work, as it is described in the RFP, may be part of a larger development or support contract and may not be separately identifiable from a contract value perspective. The dollar threshold relates to the total contract value.

Will the Government confirm that the requirement to provide contracts in support of the Offerors’ past performance include only those contracts that are publicly available, and NOT commercial contracts which are bound by confidentiality statements? Please see question 64.

Will a prime IDIQ MAC awardee be able to add a subcontractor to a TO proposal, if not specified as a subcontractor in the original IDIQ MAC proposal? If so, under what conditions and through what means? Yes, the Government will only be monitoring adherence to subcontracting goals.

Are prime IDIQ MAC Offerors under RFP N0018921R0016 required to designate all subcontractors that it intends to use is executing any subsequent TO, whether or not qualifying as a small businesses under NAICS Code 541611? No, the Government will not be requesting subcontracting plans at the task order level.

Does the Government have a preference on whether large or small subcontractors under this IDIQ MAC contract have exclusive or nonexclusive teaming arrangements with their prime Offerors? The Government will not provide any preference.

The past performance requirement as stated within Factor 1 (Page 11) is very stringent and precludes us from competing for this opportunity. Will the government change the Factor 1 to allow the prime bidder to submit a Federal Sub-contracting experience rather than Prime only Federal past performance/corporate experience? Please see question 70.

The Government on Page 13 in section 52.212-3 OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS-- COMMERCIAL ITEMS (NOV 2020) ALTERNATE I (OCT 2014) asks the bidder to complete the Reps & Certs but does not mention the Volume where the completed Reps & Certs should be included. Please see question 15.

On Page 12 in the section Sub-Factor II: Scenario Solution it states "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s scenario solution to ensure it is tailored for Navy senior executives". Does the government expect the bidder to have the knowledge of Navy Senior Executives? WIll the government consider removing this requirement

Yes, offerors should have knowledge of the chain of command of the Navy and its senior leaders. The Government will not be removing this requirement.

The $25M minimum past performance requirement could preclude us from demonstrating very applicable experience examples, is there flexibility with this value? Please see question 58.

Will the Government require Offerors receiving IDIQ contracts to have DCMA/DCAA Approved Accounting Systems at the Task Order (TO) level? No.

Will the Government require Offerors receiving IDIQ contracts to have DCMA/DCAA Approved Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) at the Task Order (TO) level? No.

What procedures/processes has the Government taken to assure Offerors that the exceptionally confidential information to be provided regarding Private Sector Strategic Transformation (Commercial contract) documents will not be disclosed to non- Government personnel (support contractors) during evaluation of Proposals?

Proposals will only be reviewed by those involved in the source selection decisions and will have signed non-disclosure agreements.

Will the Government entertain pre-Proposal discussions regarding Offerors’ inability to provide Private Sector Strategic Transformation (Commercial contract) contract and task order documentation based upon the exceptionally restrictive non-disclosure requirements of Offerors’ Commercial clientele No, the Government will not holding pre-proposal discussions.

Will the Government accept documents supporting an Offeror’s Past Performance of Private Sector Strategic Transformation (Commercial contract) that have been redacted to protect Commercial client business sensitive information? Please see question 64.

Will the business sensitive information and documents provided to the Government in support an Offeror’s Past Performance of Commercial contracts be subject to disclosure resulting from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests? This type of information is not subject to disclosure under FOIA.

Based on the clause, “and/or an organization/enterprise with a similar size/structure,” are experience references acceptable from non-US public companies that have a similar size and complexity to a Fortune100 company, but do not appear on the Fortune100? Please see question 63.