(At least) 78 Iona Moon Clients Take Home the Gold!

Congratulations to the 78 (known) Iona Moon clients who won SeaPort-e prime contract awards!  No losses have been reported yet. This was a huge year for rolling admissions, with 556 new prime contractors added. The complete list of awardees can be found here. The Iona Moon list with links will be published in an upcoming post.

Here are a few of the things clients had to say about their experience with Iona Moon.

"We got one! THANK YOU FOR ALL!!!!"

"We got ours!  Thanks for your guidance and help!"

"[Our company] was notified today that we were awarded a Navy Seaport-e Contract!!! Thank you so much for your assistance. We could not have done it without your company's help because we started very late in the process and we didn't get a chance to have telephone calls to you but we were able to use your templates. Thanks again."

"We have been awarded our first prime contract. Thank you for your help."

"Software Systems International, Inc. was awarded.  We greatly value the Iona Moon Seaport-e  Toolkit  for our ultimate award. Please include our name in your Toolkit success."

"You can add [Us] to the rolls of 2010 Seaport-e contract winners.  With the aid of your tool kit, we were able to submit a winning proposal that required only one clarification point on the pricing.  Thank you very much for putting together a winning proposal toolkit."

"Thank you for all your help and assistance.  [Our company] was on the award list for Seaport-e.  Without your support and templates it won’t have happened."

"Thanks for everything and you were correct we had nothing to worry about.  I want to also thank you for your excellent RFP support."

"Hi, Lee.  [Our company] won an award.  We are very happy.  The toolkit and your assistance were extremely valuable in the process.  Thank you!"

"Thank you very much for your outstanding guidance during this process.  I am pleased to announce that [Our company] received a Seaport Prime award.  Your kit made the process logical and your regular updates kept us right on track."

"[We] received an award.  Your toolkit was a great help.  Feel free to use me as a reference for future potential customers."

"We made the cut - and we could not have got this far without Iona Moon.  Now on to winning a contract!"

I am overwhelmed at the outcome this year, and very pleased Iona Moon could be a part of so many success stories. Thank you all for a great year and congratulations again. I look forward to helping many of you achieve your goals with this important contract.

Finally, if you used the Toolkit, submitted on time and didn’t win, make sure you request a debrief from the contracts office. With that in hand, get in touch with me and I will help you determine where you went wrong so you can prepare to win in the next round of rolling admissions. Remember, you are entitled to free lifetime updates until you win.

As always, best of luck!

SeaPort-e award date moved

The Navy has announced the anticipated award date for SeaPort-e 2010 Rolling Admissions has been pushed from June 29, 2010 to late July 2010. Please follow me on Twitter for updates as I have them.

If you haven’t heard from the contracting office – this is probably a good thing. The Dahlgren staff is very thorough and helpful. They will contact you if they want clarification on anything in your proposal. Any time prior to awards, “no news is good news.” I discourage you from calling them for updates on awards or the status of your own proposal. They are hard at work and they will let you know when they are done. Every distraction is a setback.

H.11 Web-page requirement

If you haven’t already, you should be preparing your SeaPort-e Web-page to comply with the H.11 clause requirements of the contract. Your web-page must be live within 10 days of award.

The web-page does not need to be complex or elaborate. I will be publishing a guide to creating your web-page and complying with H.11 by the end of the week. Subscribe to this feed or follow me on Twitter to be alerted when that guide is available for purchase and download.

More guides and tutorials coming soon

Over the next few months, Iona Moon will be publishing more guides and tutorials for optimizing your SeaPort-e contract, evaluating bid announcements, teaming issues, educating your current Navy customers about SeaPort-e, and how SeaPort-e fits into your overall business development strategy and execution. If there are specific questions or issues you would like to see addressed in this series, now is the time to submit them.

While you wait, I encourage you to read through the archives of this blog, for more tips, success stories, and historical news items of interest. Again, please subscribe to make sure you get all the latest posts.

I am looking forward to watching the changing landscape of SeaPort-e after this year’s awards, and to helping all of you achieve your goals for this exciting contract vehicle.

As always, best of luck!

Congratulations to SEAI!

Congratulations to SEAI!

Iona Moon congratulates Solution Engineering Associates, Inc. on their first SeaPort-e task order win, announced today. Iona Moon helped SEAI win a SeaPort-e prime contract in the Spring 2008 rolling admissions. Iona Moon also assisted in the preparation of the task order proposal that resulted in this awesome $5.5M win.

Lexington Park, MD, April 05, 2010. Solution Engineering Associates, Inc. (SEAI) announced today it has won a SeaPort-e task order to support the Naval Air Warfare Center-Aircraft Division's (NAWC-AD) Air 4.3.2.4 & Air 4.3.2.6, Flight Controls and Flight Dynamics Branches.

The 5-year task order has a value $5.5M, and includes a wide range of program management, engineering and technical services, software and hardware development, prototype development, flight test and analysis across a wide variety of aircraft platforms.

SEAI personnel have been and are key contributors alongside Navy personnel on Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) for the following platforms: the F/A-18A-F Hornet, E/A-18G Growler, F-14, X-29 (Forward Swept Wing) technology demonstrator, Super Hornet and Growler, the V-22 Osprey, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the A6-E, EA-6B Increase Capacity (ICAP) II and III Prowler, C-2A, E-2, H-1, C-2A, VSTOL, Tilt Wing, ASW, the CH-53K helicopter, the E-2 Advanced Hawkeye Programs, X-31 EFM and VECTOR programs. SEAI growth plans include applying this expertise and to providing the same level and quality of support in the ever-emerging technology of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) such as, Navy-Unmanned Combat Air System (NUCAS), Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) and Vertical Takeoff Unmanned Air Vehicle (VTUAV). Work will be performed at Patuxent River Naval Air Station.

SEAI's President, Susan Smith, said of the win: "We are very excited. SEAI personnel are some of the best minds and top performers in the field, and provide the best technical solution to requirements. We look forward to many more years of supporting these precision systems for the fleet."

SEAI is a Woman-Owned Small Business headquartered in Lexington Park, Maryland, and has provided highly-skilled and experienced engineering services to NAVAIR for six years. For more information, contact Lee Moon at 240-298-3334, or visit SEAI on the web at: www.seaincusa.com.

What you need to know about rolling admissions - FAQ

Updated December 06, 2010

"Seapa-what?"

I am getting a lot of calls on the upcoming SeaPort-e rolling admissions period, slated for April 2011. Here, I address some of the questions I answer most frequently, and provide some resources to enable your understanding.

What is SeaPort-e?

SeaPort-e is a multiple-award contract (MAC), an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) vehicle with a scope of 22 functional areas. Currently, over 1,500 prime contractors, large and small, and their team members, compete for task orders across seven geographical zones and multiple contracting agencies.

Read the Navy's FAQ on Seaport-e here.

What is Rolling Admissions?

Rolling admissions is the process by which the Navy qualifies new vendors as prime contractors on SeaPort-e. The 2011 Rolling Admissions is predicted to open in Spring 2011.

How do I know if I should bid?

If you provide services in any of the 22 functional areas, and your pipeline includes selling to any of the authorized agencies as a prime, you should consider submitting during the next rolling admissions period.

Will my company qualify for an award?

If you have past performance and/or can demonstrate expertise through your workforce qualifications in at least three of the 22 functional areas (as a small business), you will likely qualify for award. The evaluation process is not competitive, but based on objective evaluation criteria in the solicitation. Of course, the contracting office may limit the number of awards, but historically that has not occurred.

How does SeaPort-e work for small/disadvantaged businesses?

About 85% of the current primes on SeaPort-e are small businesses, across all categories. The NAICS code is 541330 and the size standard is $25M. Task order set-aside decisions are made by the local commands, based on market research. There is a 30% small business requirement on SeaPort-e.

Should I team with a large business?

The reasons to team are myriad, and dependant on your situation. You may want to team with a larger company if your firm is new to expand your breadth of capabilities. Teaming can also help you establish Zone coverage so you can compete in other geographical markets.

Teaming has become more challenging over the last few years, as more large businesses lose contracts to small business set-asides. A large business may be reluctant to bolster your competitive advantage in a market they are targeting.

A better strategy may be to reach out to similar small businesses in other Zones to build your team.

I don’t have any government past performance, only commercial. Will I qualify for an award?

You may. I have seen companies with only commercial experience win. However, you will have to tell a good story in your proposal and correlate your experience to the Navy’s mission areas and objectives.

I don’t know where to start. Can you help me?

Yes. Yes I can.

I have tried to address the questions I receive most often, but I am sure you have issues I didn’t touch on. Please use the comment field to post your issue. I will answer in this forum if I can. If you have more specific questions, please get in touch using the contact link above.

Don't forget to subscribe to receive updates.

Best of luck!


Navy announces 2010 SeaPort-e Rolling Admissions

The Navy today announced the next full and open rolling admission for SeaPort-e will be in April, 2010. If you plan to bid this time around, you should be preparing now for your submission. Iona Moon is planning capacity for assisting firms during this round. We highly recommend you purchase the previous proposal toolkit and begin collecting your data.

We cannot urge strongly enough how important it is to get started NOW on your submission. Issues such as teaming and developing your cost-savings approach should not be done at the last minute.

Best of luck.

Seaport-e Resources has moved

Well, I think everything went swimmingly with the move. Please update your bookmarks! We have moved the blog to our own domain. Subscriptions will be handled a little differently. Clicking the little elephant will take you to our RSS feed. You may still subscribe via e-mail using the link in the sidebar. If you were already a subscriber, you don't need to do a thing, everything has been transferred for you!

Thanks again for your support! More great articles coming soon!

Seaport-e Under Fire

Navy Systems Commands, including Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), headquartered at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, have run afoul of Federal Acquisition Regulations and Department of Defense Acquisition regulations with the use of the Seaport-e contract vehicle, according to a report by the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) issued earlier this month.

By not following the Concepts of Operations issued by the Seaport-e program manager, the Inspector General found that NAVAIR and other agencies restricted competition, performed inadequate market research, improperly set-aside some work for small businesses, failed to enact measurable quality standards for contract performance, and failed to control the scope of contracts across functional areas, effectively using some task orders as indefinite- delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.

The IG's report further identifies a possible contradiction in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) that may require legislation to clarify, regarding the use of small-business set asides under IDIQ contracts.

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), the contracting authority and administrative office for the Seaport-e contract, through the Seaport-e program manager, issues and maintains a “Concept of Operations” document (CONOPS) promulgated throughout the ordering agencies via the Seaport-e web-portal and a bi-weekly meeting of a council comprising representatives from each command.

The Seaport-e program manager holds no authority to direct the individual agencies’ contracts officers or Deputies of Small Business in the use of the contract for competing and awarding task orders. Ordering agencies pay an annual fee for participation in the Seaport-e program, use of the portal, contract administration services, and the minimum award guarantees for prime contract awardees. There is no penalty for deviating from the CONOPS.

NAVAIR under microscope

The IG studied 133 task orders across all ordering agencies, including 17 from NAVAIR, and determined that 39, valued at nearly $500-million, were awarded without fair competition. Of the 17 NAVAIR task orders examined during the year-long audit, the IG found 7 were set-aside improperly and 15 did not follow quality assurance requirements.

Not enough time to bid

The report stated the length of time task orders were open for bidding and the number of bids received indicated a lack of competitive environment and a violation of Seaport-e CONOPS. The audit found one task order valued at $2.3-million open to bidders for only 6 days.  That solicitation received only one bid – from the incumbent contractor. Another $56-million order was open for only 19 days.

The Seaport-e CONOPS states orders between $1-50-million should be open for 11-24 days, and orders over $50-million remain open for at least 25 days. This guideline is designed to insure contractors have a fair opportunity to bid on task orders so the government may realize the “best value” from the resulting award.

Small business set-asides illegal?

Further, the report finds some task-orders were improperly set-aside for small business without adequate market research and possibly against FAR regulations. FAR 19.502-2(b) states: “the contracting officer shall set aside any acquisition over $100,000 when there is a reasonable expectation that offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns.” The report cites a recent protest of an NAVAIR task-order award by Delex Systems, Incorporated, a small business prime contractor on Seaport-e, which leaned heavily on that FAR clause. The protest was upheld by the GAO.

The IG however, determined a contradicting section of the FAR (16.505(b)) to apply, which requires the contracting offices to provide each contractor a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000 issued under multiple-award IDIQ. This regulation would seem to prohibit any small business set-asides under IDIQs.

The IG report recommends evaluation of the need for revision of the FAR to clarify this issue.

“Weaknesses” in contracting workforce

The report found significant deficiencies in the application of performance-based contracting principles in the task orders reviewed. In cases where task orders were written to be performance-based, the metrics used to measure contractor performance were negligible to non-existent, and in some cases copied from other contracts without relevance to the statements of work. Additionally, the report charges inadequate or non-existent methods for quality surveillance, poor information assurance standards, and failure to identify a Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) to monitor work performed.

The report cites lack of training of contracting officers writing the task orders, insufficient understanding of performance-based contracting practices, and inadequate oversight to standardize and enforce CONOPS at each ordering agency.

Some task orders were used as IDIQs in and of themselves, the report claims -- “undefinitized” orders across multiple functional areas that left details to later-issued “technical instructions” that then acted as task orders. This is directly contrary to CONOPS which states “No undefinitized task orders are allowed” and would seem to indicate a lack of understanding of the purpose of the contract.

Seaport-e Program Manager Disagrees

The Seaport-e program manager’s response to the findings is included, and states that although the Seaport-e program office maintains the Seaport-e portal, awards the base contracts, and negotiates changes to the ordering system, it does not hold authority to enforce guidelines at ordering agencies using the contract.

The Seaport-e program manager further disagreed with the charges of restricted competition, citing multifarious methods for market research that may not be evident from the data reviewed by the auditors, such as advanced planning, industry days, and standardized work packages.

The Seaport-e program manager does plan to update CONOPS in response to some elements of the report, and to disseminate the revised document to ordering agencies.  Additionally, the Seaport-e office will provide training resources on performance-based contracting via the Seaport-e portal and will require a COR be identified for every task order issued. The portal enhancements are to be complete by December, 2009.

It’s not enough for the IG though, who wants to see authoritative oversight of Seaport-e to assure compliance with CONOPS and the FAR. The Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy (Acquisition and Logistics Management) has until June 8, 2009 to respond to the IG with a plan of action and milestones to address every recommendation in the report.

Iona Moon will continue to gather information on these issues and developments as they impact the NAVAIR small business community. We will provide updates as they are available, including any responses from the NAVAIR Deputy for Small Business, and command leadership.

Please subscribe to receive updates.  

Iona Moon is a full-service business development and management consultancy with extensive experience with Seaport-e, having won the base contract and several task orders for 23 companies over the past four years.

Please feel free to join the discussion about this issue by posting your comments.

Assessing Event Invitations for Real Opportunities

As a prime or sub contract holder on the Seaport-e vehicle, you receive numerous Event Invitations from the Seaport-e bid administrator every day. How can you most efficiently assess these e-mails for business opportunities without spending countless business development resources on the portal, reading each and every RFP? I routinely “rack and stack” these invitations for several different clients across a broad range of capabilities, business sizes, and Seaport-e zones. Using the following process, it takes between 10 seconds and 3 minutes to assess an event for possible action. These are the steps and decision gates I use to determine if an event invitation represents a genuine opportunity for a client.

Depending on the contracting command, and even the event creator, the event invitations will contain varying amounts of information. There are times you will have to login to the portal and open the attachments to the event to accurately determine applicability to your company.

I start with the e-mail. The recent announcement below is an excellent example of a well-done event invitation.  All the information you need is contained.

* Category: SeaPort Enhanced * Name: N00024-09-R-3232:1 * Description: Missile/All Up Round (AUR) Integration Engineering, Technical and ILS Services (Zone 6, SB Set-Aside) Requiring Activity: Port Hueneme Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Port Hueneme, California Period of Performance: Three (3) Years Anticipated Award Date: 2 June 2009 Incumbent: Basic Engineering Concepts & Technologies, Inc. Contract Number: N63394-03-D-1153 * Start Time: 3/17/2009 5:00:00 PM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) * Stop Time: 4/2/2009 2:00:00 PM (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) * Creator: Nelson F. Nailat (nelson.nailat@navy.mil) * Contract Negotiator: Nelson F. Nailat (nelson.nailat@navy.mil) * Contracting Officer: Kittie S. Ellison (cathleen.ellison@navy.mil) * Zone: 6 - Southwest Zone * Set Aside: SB

Reading from the top, Category is either Seaport or Seaport Enhanced, depending on the contract vehicle. You will know which one you have.

Name:

The name of the event is a combination of letters and numbers that uniquely identifies the task order opportunity. The “N” means Navy and the next five numbers represent the Navy Unit Identification Code, or contracting command from which the event is issued. You can look up Navy UIC’s here.  The next two-digit number is the year, and the “R” means this is a “Request for Proposal.”  The last sequence of numbers is the unique sequential identifier for the event.  A trailing “:#” represents an iteration or amendment to a previously-issued event.

The name field may read “sources sought” or “advance notice” if the RFP has not yet been finalized.

“Sources sought” is a market research tool used to help the government determine the competitive environment for a particular requirement. A “sources sought” invitation is an opportunity for you to inform the government of your firm’s capability to perform the work described. If the government determines there is a sufficient competitive environment, the work may be set-aside for a small or disadvantaged business.

An "advance notice" is the announcement of the government’s intent to compete the work. An "advance notice" may or may not request industry comments on the Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Based Work Statement (PBWS).

Description:

The description of the event is one sentence to one paragraph about the work being competed. As in the example above, it may contain the type of work, the program office or agency for which the work is to be performed, the zone in which the work will be performed, information about the incumbent, the period of performance, level of effort, and other information to help in your assessment.

More often, the description field will contain only a program office or agency, and the type of work.

Decision gate #1: if it’s not in your wheelhouse, it’s a no-bid.

Start Time: is the day the invitation was created.

Stop Time: is the date and time the proposal or response is due. 

Stop Time can be your biggest clue in determining if a competitive environment exists. Often, the stop time alone will determine the bid/no-bid decision for your company if you don’t have sufficient resources to develop a competitive response by the due date.

A short suspense doesn’t necessarily mean the competition is “wired” for another company, though it certainly does give the incumbent an advantage. It some cases it simply means the government was slow in getting the requirement written and through legal review and contracts process ahead of the original contract’s expiration date.

Decision gate #2: If you don’t have the time to prepare a cogent and competitive response (I recommend a MINIMUM of 14 days) it’s a no-bid.

The Creator, Contract Negotiator, and Contracting Officer are listed in the next three items.

Zone:

Zone is the Zone in which the work will be performed or contracted. You must be a prime contract holder in that Zone to submit a proposal to prime the opportunity.

Set-aside:

Set-aside will tell you if the work is full and open (unrestricted), small business, or a subset of small business, such as Small Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB) or 8(a). 

Note: if the work is previously unrestricted, or has been performed by a small business that may have graduated during the period of performance, and is now being set-aside for a small business, chances are the incumbent will be looking for a team member in that class to recomplete the work. Although teaming agreements are often in place long before the RFP is issued, this can represent an opportunity to team with the incumbent, or a likely competitor, to compete for the work.

Decision gate #3: If you don’t qualify to prime the work, do you have time and resources to get on a team? If no, this is a no-bid.

After evaluating the e-mail, if I find there is either sufficient information to warrant looking into the opportunity, or not enough information to make a determination, I login to the Seaport-e portal to investigate further.

Once in the portal, the first thing I look at is the number of event attachments and the type. A well-prepared RFP will contain forms and worksheets to be submitted with the proposal, and all the reference information you will need to adequately respond. These documents can decrease your time investment in preparing a response, and that factor can be weighed against a short suspense to sway your bid/no-bid decision.

Note: A “poorly” written or rushed RFP can cause no end of headache in the proposal process. Often the only bid attachment will be the RFP itself, leaving your proposal team to interpret sections L&M to determine what is an adequate response, and to develop attachments and worksheets independent of specific guidance. Often, amendments will be issued until the due date of the response. This is time-consuming, confusing and frustrating, and is unfortunately often the reality of doing business with certain commands. The decision to submit a response to such a poorly written RFP needs to be made carefully. You may be able to gain clarity through carefully-worded questions submitted through the portal, keeping in mind every other contractor will have access to your questions and the government’s response.

My next stop in the portal is the Q&A, even before I open the RFP. Often, the information I am looking for has been asked by other contractors, and the answers will save me valuable time reading the RFP.

Decision gate #4: a long list of questions that indicate a poorly-written RFP, weighted against time to respond and relevancy of capabilities against requirements: this is either a “no-bid”, or a “no-bid as-is” but “track” for amendments and possible extensions.

My last stop is actually reading the RFP. I get that far in roughly 20% of event notices. I skim the introduction and background (which may contain a reference to the incumbent), and I look for information on the level of effort.

At any of these decision gates, I may pass the opportunity over to a client with expertise in the work to make a determination whether to add it to their pipeline. The client may then throw it back over to me for a thorough evaluation of the RFP and a bid/no-bid recommendation. That evaluation process, including an analysis of the competitive environment, will be the subject of future articles.

The foregoing should provide some clarity and save you valuable time as you sort through the deluge of Bid Announcements streaming from the Seaport-e portal to make your decisions about which ones to pursue. I wish you the best of luck in your efforts!

 

Copyright Iona Moon 2009