About this file

This is a Questions and Answers document issued by NAVFAC addressing clarifications to a federal contract opportunity for marine resource services.

The document addresses seven key areas of clarification. For two-company team submissions, narratives must clearly designate which company performs which tasks and has relevant experience, with coordinated language, tone, and format across both entities. Regarding staffing qualifications, the terms "Project Director" and "Principal Investigator" should be revised to "Principal" and "Project Manager (Biological)" respectively in official documentation. An accidental duplicate in the Specific Marine Resource Tasks list—items (15) and (16) both labeled "Ecological Analysis"—should be corrected by removing item (16). Contractors require capability and access to SAM.gov and PIEE (Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment) for automated work reception and tracking, with no associated costs for vendors. The Information Summary Matrix Box 5 should request projected revenue for Calendar Years 2026 and 2027 rather than 2024 and 2025, as the original dates were an error from the prior year's draft. For SBA-approved, unpopulated Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, in-house workforce numbers should reflect only those persons directly employed by the JV entity itself, not combined JV member employees. For Line of Credit reporting, unpopulated Joint Ventures without independent credit lines should provide the Lines of Credit for the individual prime contractor(s) instead.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
3-3_Min_Professional_Quals.docx DOCX document
3-1_Info_Summary_Matrix.docx DOCX document
3-2_Sources_Sought_2-_Questionnaire.docx DOCX document

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

Questions:

1) For the submission of qualifications and experience for a two-company team, should the narrative focus on the combined experience of the team members, or should it clearly designate which company would perform which tasks, particularly when describing relevant project examples?

a) NAVFAC RESPONSE: The narrative should focus on which company performs which tasks and which company has what relevant experience. The narrative also should ensure that both companies will coordinate on tasks and deliverables to be clear and concise. Both companies should use the same language, tone, format, communications plan, etc.

2) For Question #1 in the provided Potential Offerors Questionnaire document (Attachment 2):

a) Is NAVFAC’s intent to understand the number of marine biologists and scientific divers we staff who also meet the requirements for Project Director and/or Principal Investigator?

i) NAVFAC RESPONSE: The intent is to understand how many qualified marine biologists and scientific divers are on staff, and how many of those would also meet the requirements for Project Director and/or Principal Investigator. Also, it would benefit knowing who is accomplishing which requirements. For example, if a Principal is also a Scientific Diver, the Government would like to know if each person plans to perform both or just one role.

b) Do the terms "Project Director” and “Principal Investigator” refer to “Project Manager (Biological)” and “Principal,” respectively, in the provided Minimum Professional Qualifications document (Attachment 3)?

i) NAVFAC RESPONSE: Correct. This was a mistake, and the term “Project Director” should be revised to “Principal”. The term “Principal Investigator” should be revised to “Project Manager (Biological).”

3) In the list of Specific Marine Resource Tasks, item (15) and item (16) are both identified as “Ecological Analysis.” Can the Government please clarify whether this duplication is intentional? If not, should item (16) be replaced with a different task area, and if so, what is the correct task description?

a) NAVFAC RESPONSE: This is an accidental duplicate, and item (16) should be removed.

4) Can NAVFAC provide additional information regarding the Government’s automated work reception and tracking system referenced in Question #7 in the provided Potential Offerors Questionnaire document (Attachment 2; e.g., platform type, cybersecurity requirements, data compatibility standards)?

a) NAVFAC RESPONSE: Contractors should have capability and access to SAM.gov and

PIEE (Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment).

b) Is there a cost associated with respondent access and use of this system, and if so, how does NAVFAC anticipate that cost being managed?

i) NAVFAC RESPONSE: There is no cost for contractors to get or maintain access to either SAM.gov or PIEE. Both are official U.S. Government systems that are free for vendors to use.

5) In the Information Summary Matrix (Attachment 1), Box 5 requests projected revenue for Calendar Year 2024 and Calendar Year 2025. Given the current calendar year, can

NAVFAC confirm whether this is intentional, or if projected revenue for Calendar Years 2026 and 2027 was intended?

a) NAVFAC RESPONSE: This was an error as the matrix was drafted last year. Please use

2026 and 2027.

6) In the Information Summary Matrix (Attachment 1), Boxes 4a–4c request “Total in-house workforce.” If a potential offeror is an SBA-approved, unpopulated Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture, should the workforce numbers reflect the combined employees of the JV members, or only those directly employed by the JV entity?

a) NAVFAC RESPONSE: Preference is to reflect those persons directly employed by the

JV entity.

7) In the Information Summary Matrix (Attachment 1), Box 6 requests the current and maximum Line of Credit. If a potential offeror is an unpopulated SBA-approved Mentor- Protégé Joint Venture and does not maintain an independent Line of Credit, should respondents provide the Lines of Credit of the individual JV members?

a) NAVFAC RESPONSE: Yes, please provide the Line of Credit for the prime contractor(s).

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .