RFP_Responses_to_Questions_Amendment_01.pdf

Request for Proposal (RFP)

N63394-25-9-0001

Other Transaction Authority (OTA) Consortium Manager

Maritime Advanced Technology Accelerator Consortium (MATAC)

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme Division

Amendment 01

The RFP is amended to address all questions.

1. Section 2.1 (a), No picture or hyperlinks are allowed: Do “pictures” include screenshots of project management or member management software or will those be allowed? We can recreate these into tables; however, we would like our response to highlight the quality of data that Port Hueneme will have access to through our systems.

Response: Yes, screenshots are allowed however the proposal needs to adhere to the page limitations. An appendix will not count towards the page limitations.

2. Section 2.1 (c), Offerors are required to submit their proposals in separate sections as follows Would you like to receive five separate documents or five sections within one document?

Response: Five sections within one document is preferred but either will be acceptable.

3. Section 2.2 (I), The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, DUNS Number, and Business Size/Organization Type (i.e.: large, non-traditional, academia, etc.) of the Consortium Management Firm and each member of the Consortium. Is an appendix acceptable to show this information for each member of the Consortium? We have over 950 members and will exceed page limitations including this information for each member within this section.

Response: The information (address, email, telephone, DUNs etc.) is required for the CM.

Only require list of members. Yes, an appendix is allowed and will not count towards the page limitations.

4. What is the anticipated size of the Consortium (e.g., number of members) during Year 1 and across the life of the Agreement?

Response: We anticipate the size could be a few dozen or more during Year 1 and increase across the life of the Agreement.

5. Will the Government consider a newly formed Consortium if led by a Consortium Manager with significant DoD experience but no direct past performance as a CM?

Response: Yes. The Government will consider newly formed consortiums in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in the request for submissions.

6. Is it acceptable for the CM to subcontract or partner with a third-party provider to deliver the interactive project tracking platform required in Attachment 2?

Response: The offeror should provide their interpretation on how they will manage all aspects of the consortium, including the project tracking platform. The Government will review submissions in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

7. May the Consortium Membership Agreement (CMA) be refined and evolved post-award based on operational feedback, with Government concurrence?

Response: Reference section 6(f) of draft base OTA agreement: If changes are made to the CMA that substantially alter the relationship of the MATAC (e.g., any restriction of access to prospective prototype project participants (either current or prospective consortium members), the CM shall notify the Agreements Officer prior to a substantial change has occurred and provide a copy of the CMA for review and concurrence. The Agreements Officer has the right to reject substantial changes to CMA.

8. Can the CM propose tiered or differentiated membership categories (e.g., general vs.

contributing members) to optimize scalability and cost sharing?

Response: The offeror should provide an explanation of how they propose to most efficiently structure and manage the consortium membership.

9. Will the Government identify or prioritize specific technology areas from Attachment 1 for prototype solicitations during the first 12–18 months?

Response: The Government is not able to identify or predict the priority of its requirements at this time, but will make an effort to communicate the priority of its requirements to the consortium manager as they become known.

10. Is the CM expected to provide technical validation of prototype white papers, or only administrative facilitation and compliance review?

Response: The Government does not require CMs to provide technical validation of prototype white papers; however, offerors may propose this capability in their proposal, and the Government will consider it in accordance with the evaluation criteria

11. Is consortium-wide technical coverage sufficient to meet the requirements of Factor 5, or must the CM demonstrate internal in-house expertise across all 33 MATAC areas?

Response: As stated within the RFP 2.6, the Offeror shall describe the technical expertise across the Consortium to support all of the planned technology areas.

Additionally, the CM is not required to have internal in-house technical expertise however the CM should describe how the consortium and its members would satisfy the technical expertise of all 33 technology areas.

12. For multi-domain technologies (e.g., C5ISR or JADC2 platforms), should Offerors map experience to multiple applicable MATAC tech areas?

Response: Yes, that will be acceptable

13. What is the expected turnaround time for the CM to post new Government white paper solicitations and disseminate them to members?

Response: The Government has not identified a standard turnaround time; however, offerors may propose a standard turnaround time in their proposal and the Government will consider it in accordance with the evaluation criteria. In some instances, the Government may choose to provide guidance on the turnaround time for particular projects, based on individual project requirements.

14. May the CM define baseline eligibility or compliance thresholds for new member onboarding (e.g., cybersecurity posture, export control compliance)?

Response: The offeror should provide their interpretation of how they will form, onboard, and provide overall management to all aspects of the consortium, including baseline eligibility or compliance thresholds. The Government may issue guidance as to individual project requirements, but does not have baseline requirements for consortium members at this time.

15. Is the CM permitted to recover indirect costs through both membership dues and the fixed management fee model proposed to the Government?

Response: The offeror should provide their interpretation on how they will form, onboard, and provide overall management to all aspects of the consortium.

16. Will the Government issue guidance or templates for white paper formats, evaluation criteria, and member proposal support expectations?

Response: The Government does not presently issue guidance or templates for white paper formats, evaluation criteria, and member proposal support expectations. Offerors are encouraged to discuss the capability to produce such templates in the proposal, and the Government will consider it in accordance with the evaluation criteria. In some instances, the Government may choose to provide guidance on the templates, based on individual project requirements.

17. Are member onboarding services (e.g., portal access, user support, training) expected to be standardized or customizable per member type?

Response: The consortium may propose any structure to onboarding services that it deems most appropriate to serve both its members and the Government.

18. Is an active facility clearance required at the time of proposal submission, or only by the time of Agreement execution?

Response: An active facility clearance is not required at time of proposal submission. As stated within RFP 1.1 The CM shall provide its current status of its facility clearance and level of safeguarding or demonstrate the ability to obtain a facility clearance. NSWC-PHD will sponsor accreditation of a local facility (off base from Naval Base Ventura County) however an established facility clearance outside the local area will also be considered. Each member needs to meet the clearance requirements at the time of individual project agreement award.

19. Will the Government consider limited seed funding or a startup project award to support the initial CM platform and member outreach buildout?

Response: An offeror may request seed funding or startup project award funding in its proposal; however, award of such funding is not guaranteed. The Government will consider all aspects of the proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria. As stated within RFP 2.4: The Offeror shall provide complete details of proposed charges related to operation of the Consortium, including any membership fees, fee rates/amounts to the Government, fee schedules, and structures the CM will charge Consortium members. Fee rates, schedules, and structures proposed will be incorporated into the Agreement, if accepted.

20. Can the required interest-bearing account for disbursing Government funds be established with a commercial financial institution, as long as Treasury notes are not used?

Response: As indicated in RFP 2.4, Section 1.1 Compliance, the disbursement of funds from the Government to the CM will be issued through WAWF. Section 21 of the draft OT agreement (Attachment 2) also provides guidance on invoicing between the CM and the Government. The disbursement of project funds from the CM to each of its members is within the CM's discretion.

21. Is the CM permitted to propose a hybrid pricing structure (e.g., tiered fee based on project volume) in lieu of or in addition to a flat fixed management rate?

Response: As stated within RFP 2.4 The Offeror shall provide complete details of proposed charges related to operation of the Consortium, including any membership fees, fee rates/amounts to the Government, fee schedules, and structures the CM will charge Consortium members. Fee rates, schedules, and structures proposed will be incorporated into the Agreement, if accepted.

22. If the Government modifies or rejects proposed CMA terms after award, may the CM revise corresponding member fee structures or onboarding incentives accordingly?

Response: As stated within draft OTA section 6(f): If changes are made to the CMA that substantially alter the relationship of the MATAC. (e.g., any restriction of access to prospective prototype project participants (either current or prospective consortium members), the CM shall notify the Agreements Officer prior to a substantial change has occurred and provide a copy of the CMA for review and concurrence. The Agreements Officer has the right to reject substantial changes to CMA.

23. Will the Government allow embedded third-party tool integrations within the project tracking platform (e.g., Tableau, AWS GovCloud, Jira)?

Response: The offeror should provide their interpretation on how they will manage all aspects of the consortium, including the project tracking platform. The Government will review submissions in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

24. Are embedded graphics, tables, and process flows acceptable within the page limits, or must all visuals be placed in appendices?

Response: Yes, acceptable within the page limits. An appendix will not count towards the page limitations.

25. Can past performance references involving management of multi-partner DoD projects (e.g., QRTs, JT&E, prime/sub networks) be considered responsive under Factor 4?

Response: Yes

26. Will all Offeror Q&A responses be published in a consolidated amendment, or will responses be shared individually?

Response: Yes, all questions and responses will be added to an attachment to the announcement and posted to sam.gov

27. Is there a preferred method for organizing optional appendices, such as the technology capability matrix or fee structure models?

Response: There is no preferred method

28. Can Offerors propose a brief, no-cost demonstration of the proposed digital dashboard or Section E: Proposal Submission & Evaluation?

Response: No, offerors need to adhere to the requirements as stated within the RFP.

29. CMA workflow post-submission to support evaluation?

30. How will member disputes be resolved?

Response: Please see section 44 of the Draft OTA Base Agreement

31. As CM, have binding authority over project awards, or is this advisory only?

Response: No, the CM is advisory only.

32. Are teaming partners just advisory, or will they hold formal roles in governance or operations?

33. What happens if a partner withdraws or competes for projects against the consortium’s interest?

Response: The MATAC consortium will only compete projects among its members.

34. Who holds liability for mismanagement, fraud, or misrepresentation? Contractor, the consortium, or both?

Response: This would be based on the terms of both the CM award agreement, as well as the terms of membership with the CM.

35. How will member confidentiality and IP rights be protected and enforced?

Response: The Government may negotiate IP rights with the CM and its members.

36. What can be learned from failed consortiums (e.g., poor member engagement, unclear ROI)?

Response: The Government does not have additional information to share about the consortium requirement at this time.

37. What do successful models like XXXX or XXXX do differently—and how will XXXX emulate or improve on them?

Response: The Government does not have additional information to share about the consortium requirement at this time.

38. Is there an “Open Season” for those wanting to join the consortium? Or is the application process open year round?

39. Are there different levels of membership in the Consortium? (voting, non-voting and associated) Are these levels dependent on same levels of interest?

40. Is past performance of technical scoped judged on: TTP development? Source documents?

Response: The past performance factor will be reviewed in accordance with the RFP document.

41. Past performance should be based on a matrix of either interest or current place (industry or theory)?

Response: The past performance factor will be reviewed in accordance with the RFP document.

42. Consortium onboarding? Is onboarding determined by voting, non-voting and association?

Response: The consortium onboarding process will be determined by the consortium management firm in accordance with the base other transaction agreement consortium management firm agreement with the Government.

43. Proposal reviews: Are these delegated out to the different members based on interest, industry and corporate background?

Response: Individual project proposals will be sent out to all consortium members via the CM and they will have the opportunity to review and propose on each of these projects.

44. Security and classification rights? Is the CM providing a template, like a DD254, to ensure proper classification protocols are in place?

Response: The offeror should provide their current status and understanding of their capability to support requirements that may require additional security classification. A DD254 will be provided at time of CM award and all individual projects requiring DD254 one will be issued at time of award.

45. Will the CM provide a Security Classification Guide for whitepapers, discussions and discovery?

Response: This information will be discussed when individual projects when security classification is required.

46. Is it acceptable to submit the data requested in 2.2 Section I: Factor 1 – Management of the Consortium a(I) for “each member of the consortium” as an appendix that does not count toward the page limit?

Response: Yes, an appendix is allowed and will not count towards the page limitations.

47. Can Membership Agreement be supplied as an Attachment/Appendix and be excluded from the page limit in section I: Factor 1?

48. The Data Universal Numbering Systems (DUNS) was replaced by the Unique Entity ID (UEI) for federal government transactions on April 4, 2022. Is it acceptable to submit UEI instead of DUNS to fulfill the requirement in Section 2.2?

Response: Yes - RFP Section 2.2 has been revised

49. Can you provide the projected annual obligations?

Response: This is yet to be determined as the consortium will change and is expected to grow over time as Navy stakeholders improve processes to leverage OTAs over other traditional acquisition vehicles.

50. It is not explicitly stated where the information requested in 1.1 Compliance (WAWF concurrence, SAM.gov concurrence, facility clearance status, and accounting system narrative) should be addressed. Our current intent is to address the WAWF concurrence and accounting system with the information requested in section III, and SAM concurrence Response: Section III is acceptable

51. Can appendixes be used to supply supplemental information? If so, can requested tables and timelines be supplied as Appendices or do they need to be embedded and counted toward page limitations?

52. Presume they may have similar thrust areas but separate funding? (When compared to the NSWCDD NSTIC consortium) Response: NSWC PHD and NSWC DD have similar technical focuses but different funding lines and priorities. NSWC PHD has priorities in rapid fielding, test and evaluation, and sustainment (engineering and logistics).

53. In Reference to Section 2.2a(I) – Would the Government be amendable to the offeror providing an addendum, which would include the Consortium member list and information (and not have it count against the 5-page limit)?

54. What is the anticipated annual funding throughput and number of projects/year?

Response: This is yet to be determined as the consortium will change and is expected to grow

55. Section I: Factor 1 - Management of the Consortium, How will the Government ensure equal evaluation in the undefined requirement, “Description of other possible services proposed to be provided to the Government”?

Response: The Government will evaluate all factors as stated in the request for proposals.

56. Does the Government have an existing pipeline of Prototype projects, white papers, Requests for Information (RFIs) to assign to the Maritime Advanced Technology Accelerator Consortium (MATAC)?

Response: This is yet to be determined as the consortium will change and is expected to grow

57. Can the Maritime Advanced Technology Accelerator Consortium (MATAC) manager also have its own technology under consideration or delivered to the Government?

Response: No, the MATAC CM will not be able to propose on individual projects. Only consortium members may propose on individual projects.

58. Will the Maritime Advanced Technology Accelerator Consortium (MATAC) manager be precluded from providing professional services (technical, engineering, financial, program management, IT, administrative) to other PHD programs?

Response: CMs may be able to provide services to the Government in accordance with applicable rules and regulations regarding organizational conflicts of interest.

59. May the Government specify whether the consortium manager and its staff need to be within a certain geographical area or within a certain distance from Port Hueneme Division (PHD)?

Response: No, however the offeror staff may need to travel to NSWC-PHD to conduct certain meetings i.e. industry days, reverse industry days, etc.

60. Section 1.0 Instructions to Offerors - 1.1 Compliance, Does the consortium manager need to have a possessing Facility Clearance, one that allows for physical possession of classified material?

Response: Yes, as stated within RFP Section 1.1 The CM shall provide its current status of its facility clearance and level of safeguarding or demonstrate the ability to obtain a facility clearance. NSWC-PHD will sponsor accreditation of a local facility (off base from Naval Base Ventura County) however an established facility clearance outside the local area will also be considered.