8(a) Incubator N65236-17-R-0002 Pre-Solicitation Q&As dtd 3 Dec 2018.pdf

8(a) Incubator Multiple Award Contract

Question & Answers

1. Will the contracting officer allow for the DCAA approved accounting system of either member of the Joint Venture or must the JV itself have its own DCAA approved accounting system?

ANSWER: Joint ventures (JVs) are recognized under FAR Subpart 9.6—Contractor

Team Arrangements, as a form of contractor teaming arrangement (CTA). JVs are owned and operated by all parties with a particular percentage of ownership as well as a share of risks and combined property, resources, capability and expertise. The accounting considerations of a joint venture should have proposed and established as a separate business entity forming one business, and have its own set of books and supporting documentation sufficient for an audit trail. Transactions should be recorded consistent with the JV agreement, and specific guidelines in the agreement must be taken to ensure that the joint venture bears its equitable share of the costs. All costs in the joint venture must be separate from the companies forming the joint venture. You will have to get the

DCAA to approve the JV’s accounting system.

2. Since a JV is unpopulated, would the accounting system of each member be evaluated?

ANSWER: The Government will not evaluate discrete accounting systems of individual firms within the JV as the JV is a separate legal entity. The JV must possess and identify a singular, JV proposed accounting system that the JV shall utilize as the JV’s accounting system and that JV selected accounting system must be a DCAA approved accounting system in order for the JV to bid and perform cost type task orders.

3. In the event one member has not been audited the 8a, would a pre-award audit be requested by SPAWAR if the JV were considered for award?

ANSWER: As identified in the response to question 2 above, the JV is a separate legal entity. The necessity to request a pre-award audit of the JV will be determined during proposal evaluations.

4. Regarding Facility Clearance – Similar to above, would SPAWAR make award to a

JV without an FCL (will SPAWAR sponsor an awardee for an FCL?)

ANSWER: A Facility Clearance is not required for award. If a task order requires a facility clearance, SPAWAR would sponsor the awardee at that time.

5. Is this a new requirement or is there an incumbent vendor?

Answer: This is not a new requirement. It is a follow-on Multiple Award Contract (MAC).

6. Can you please send along the incumbent contract number?

Answer: Below is a list of the incumbents and their contract numbers:

N65236-15-D-8000 - Arctic Slope Mission Systems

N65236-15-D-8000 - Arctic Slope Technology Services

N65236-15-D-8002 - Averalink Information Systems, LLC

N65236-15-D-8003 - Ocean Bay Information and Systems Management

N65236-15-D-8004 - Bennett Aerospace, Inc.

N65236-15-D-8005 - Bowhead Professional Solutions LLC

N65236-15-D-8006 - BroadReach Venture Partners, LLC

N65236-15-D-8007 - Chugach Information Technology, Inc.

N65236-15-D-8008 -Envision Innovative Solutions, Inc.

N65236-15-D-8009 - EXP&H2 Joint Venture, LLC

N65236-15-D-8010 - Global KAYA Support Services Joint Venture

N65236-15-D-8011 - Konark Software Solutions, LLC

N65236-15-D-8012 - LRA-ISI Joint Venture, Corp

N65236-15-D-8013 - Lukos LLC

N65236-15-D-8014 - Lynxnet LLC

N65236-15-D-8015 - M2 Consulting Corporation

N65236-15-D-8016 - NexGen Data Systems, Inc.

N65236-15-D-8017 - Northtide Group LLC

N65236-15-D-8018 - OPSTech LLC

N65236-15-D-8019 - Pergrine Technical Solutions LLC

N65236-15-D-8020 -TandT Consulting Services, Inc.

N65236-15-D-8021 - TMGE LLC

7. With regard to Factor C: Past Performance, the evaluation language may be read to infer that work performed by the Prime offeror must support C5ISR specific requirements, and/or programs to be considered relevant. If a Prime Offeror provides past performance in at least 1 of the 20 technical areas that does not specifically support C5ISR, is the past performance eligible to be considered relevant?

Answer: As identified in the draft solicitation documents, “Past Performance will be considered relevant if it is for work performed in at least one (1) of the twenty (20) C5ISR relevant technical areas identified under Factor A. If the past performance data provided does not meet this criteria, it would not be relevant.

8. The existing 8(a) Incubator contract has obligated less than 50% of its ceiling. Why is this? Were there fewer requirements needed than anticipated? Did the pool of available

8(a) contractors lack the capability to perform the work that was needed?

Answer: The percentage identified is the submitted question is not accurate. The

Government has expended over 90% of the ceiling to date and will have expended the entire ceiling by the end of the contract.

9. Section M of the Draft Sections L&M states that Management Plans will be evaluated as Outstanding if the offeror “indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.” What measurable criteria will the government use to determine that an approach is “exceptional”?

Answer: Evaluation of this factor will be based upon the assessed strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined in the DoD Source Selection

Procedures as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf) identified in the offeror’s proposal. The Government cannot pre-determine what proposal content will result in a specific rating.

10. What measurable criteria will the government use to determine that attributes of a management approach are “strengths”?

Answer: Evaluations will be based upon the assessed strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf). As a reference point, the DoD guide defines a strength as “an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf

11. What measurable criteria will the government use to assess that there is “low risk” of unsuccessful performance?

Answer: See response to Questions 10 and 11 above.

12. Section L addresses Prime past performance submission requirements but does not mention subcontractor past performance. Is it acceptable or desired for Teams to include subcontractor past performance?

Answer: As stated in Factor C – Past Performance of the draft solicitation L&M documents, Prime offerors are to provide past performance information. Subcontractors past performance information is not required and will not be evaluated.

13. Section L requires offerors to provide a copy of the firms 8(a) approval letter signed by and SBA senior administrator. However, our firm was recently certified using the

SBA’s new Certyify.SBA.gov website exclusively. All messaging was accomplished through the site including notification of our certification. The SBA never created an approval letter. Please advise as to how we might meet this requirement. Is there any reason proper indication of 8(a) certification in SAM couldn’t be used to meet this requirement? It is not possible for a firm to self-certify as 8(a) and the SAM status can only be changed by the

SBA directly.

Answer: The Government will determine what constitutes acceptable certification proof/verification to be submitted in the final solicitation.

14. Section L provides a list of 20 relevant C5ISR Technical areas within which the offeror must show relevant understanding and capability of performing tasks. Would the government please provide a definition of these relevant areas so that the offeror can correctly align task performance against the appropriate technical area?

Answer: The twenty (20) relevant C5ISR technical areas are broadly identified and self-explanatory in nature. There are no discrete definitions for the 20 technical areas.

15. Offerors are required to demonstrate the capability to successfully perform tasks in at least one PWS 3.0 task area. Should an offeror be awarded a contract will they be limited in performance of Task Orders to those Task Areas that they demonstrated capability in their proposal or will they have the opportunity to compete for work across the full range of task areas? In other words, will the Tasks included in the proposal in any way have a limiting effect on the offeror?

Answer: No, offerors who are awarded the contract will not be limited in scope for competed task orders based upon the selected PWS 3.0 technical area utilized in their proposal.

16. Does the government plan to limit the number of 8(a) contractor awards, or will all offerors receive awards that meet the requirements of Section M including “Acceptable” ratings in Factors A, B and C, and whose Pricing is determined to be both reasonable and realistic?

Answer: The Government does not intend to limit the number of awards. Award decisions will be based on a Best-Value Determination in accordance with Clause M-

TXT-03 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS OF AWARD (BEST VALUE)

(VARIATION).

17. The required qualifications of numerous Labor Categories appear to call for the individual to possess a formal PMP certification. Are there any combinations of qualifications, education or experience that would be considered an acceptable substitute for a formal PMP certification? Would a Master of Engineering Management degree be an acceptable substitute, as it is essentially a graduate degree in engineering project and program management?

Answer: No, there are no substitutes for the solicitation stated labor category qualifications. All proposed personnel must meet the personnel qualifications identified in C-TXT-11 Personnel Qualifications.

18. The solicitation seems to discourage 8(a) prime offerors from teaming with another

8(a) where they both alternatively submit proposals as Prime with the other as a sub, and where done this should be made clear. However, is there any limitation on an 8(a) Prime offeror teaming with a non-exclusive large subcontractor who may also be teaming with another 8(a) prime offeror as well.

Q: May a large subcontractor team with more than one 8(a) prime offeror?

Answer: There are no restrictions with regard to a large business teaming with one or more of the 8(a) offerors as a subcontractor.