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.

Congratulations to Precise Systems!

Precise Wins PMA-234 Work PreciseSystmes-logo

Lexington Park, MD, September 21, 2009. Precise Systems, Inc. (Precise) announced today it has won a Seaport-e task order to support the Naval Air Warfare Center-Aircraft Division’s (NAWC-AD) PMA-234. The 5-year task order is valued at $8.7M, and includes acquisition management, information assurance, and administrative support for the EA-6B, (Prowler), EA-18G (Growler), and Next Generation Jammer programs. The Precise Team includes Atkinson Aeronautics & Technology, Inc. (AtAero) and Camber Corporation. 

Vice President, Pete Williams (RDML, USN, Ret.), said of the win:  “Team Precise looks forward to our role in helping shape the future of Naval Electronic Warfare and to another opportunity to serve our Sailors and Marines.”

Precise is a Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business headquartered in Lexington Park, Maryland. Precise has provided high quality Program Management, Engineering, Information Technology, and Logistics solutions to Federal Government agencies since its founding in 1990.

Visit Precise Systems at www.goprecise.com.

ATG Awarded $28M USAF Contract

Iona Moon congratulates ATG! logo

ATG Wins $28M USAF Contract

Lexington Park, MD, Warner-Robins, GA, September 16, 2009:  Assurance Technology Group, LLC (ATG) announced today it has been awarded a seven-year, $28-million prime contract by the United States Air Force to provide Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory services supporting the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC), other U.S. Air Force installations, and United States Air Forces Europe, including the Azores. Work will be performed at Robins Air Force Base, GA.

ATG, founded in 2000, is a Veteran-owned, measurement science-focused small business providing test and evaluation, engineering, calibration, metrology, and logistics services to the military and commercial industry.

ATG is teamed on the USAF work with Kay and Associates, Inc (KAI), Chicago, IL. KAI is a proven provider of exceptional quality and cost effective technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

Frank Griffo, President and CEO of ATG said, “We are very pleased to be joining the community of 'Team Robins.' We look forward to working with the Air Force to ensure fleet safety through precision measurement science, as we have for the Navy over the past nine years. Likewise, we are delighted to be partnered with KAI, an outstanding performer for over 50 years. We couldn’t be happier.”

For more information, visit www.atgpax.com

[Your business] here

Iona Moon makes headlines.

We use this space to brag about our clients. You can too! Get the word out about your business and increase awareness of your company and its achievements among your customers, your industry, and the community.

Iona Moon puts its clients in the headlines, both by increasing news-worthy performance and by the strategic editorial positioning of announcements, press releases, and professional articles over the by-line of corporate leaders.

Iona Moon can put your company in the news and highlight your note-worthy accomplishments, new product news, contract awards, and professional accolades in industry publications, government journals, and leading periodicals.

Contact us to learn how Iona Moon can help place your company name “above the fold.”

What clients are saying.

"Lee is a focused and driven professional who is excellent in business development, identifying and forming strategic relationships, and keeping my clients best interests in mind. She is well respected in her field and has delivered time and time again. I'm highly confident in her strategic and business development capabilities. Lee Moon is my partner of choice in helping my clients grow their business."  Molly Chen, President POCmarketing   

“I have hired Lee several times to perform a variety of services. I will continue to use her at every opportunity - which is probably the best testament to anyone's services. She has the professional integrity, required knowledge and experience, and consistently produces the desired results on time and within budget. Feel free to contact me anytime regarding a personal recommendation for Lee." Scott A. Bruce, President Avericon, LLC  

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!

Course Corrections: Top 5 Myths about Making the Leap into Federal Services

Should your company pursue government services as a business line? The stimulus package has raised the issue with a lot of commercial businesses: Is it time to move into government services?

Almost daily, I talk with company principals considering a strategic move into the federal arena. Billions of dollars, seemingly suddenly available, are an attractive lure to strapped and struggling companies. Perhaps your commercial services firm is floundering in the economic downturn. Or maybe you are successful in your market and looking to take advantage of current opportunities brought about by recent administrative decisions to allocate funds to federal programs. Either way, stimulus dollars are tempting, but the essential truths of marketing to the Federal government remain constant.

Here, I address the top five myths I hear most often, counterpointed with the facts that belie them.

Myth #1: It is easy to sell to the government, especially if I have a “friend” on the inside.

Fact: The government is as savvy a customer as you will ever encounter.

The government has purchased goods and services for over two centuries and has a well-established and highly regulated system—backed by law—for ensuring best value, minimizing corruption and virtually eliminating subjective buying decision authority. People go to jail for contravening procurement law. Do any of your commercial customers face that risk for a bad buy decision? That said, all business development is about relationships. Having a “friend” in the agency can be advantageous as a door opener, and can be invaluable in identifying opportunities, but you must present a solid value proposition and highly competitive pricing to win.

Myth #2: Government contractors make a lot of money. It’s a great way to “get rich quick.”

Fact: It’s a long game.

Large contractors do generate a lot of revenue, the bulk of which is spent on overhead, salaries and benefits to employees and payments subcontractors and vendors. The story for small and new contractors is much bleaker. It can take many years to turn a profit, even if you win a contract or two in your start-up years. Even with prompt payment regulations, you may have to carry a substantial payroll and pay your subcontractors for a few months before you get paid by the Government.

You must factor in costs of recruiting, businesses development and other expenses you won’t recoup through the rates you bill the Government. A recent poll revealed the cost of recruiting one senior-engineer can be as much as $20,000. Also, you must be financially prepared for contract gaps, possible protests and furloughs during which you may have to carry employees on overhead for one or more pay periods.

The typical sales cycle in the Government for a known requirement is 18-24 months. That is up to two years for your business to support active marketing, business development, capture and bid and proposal efforts. Do you have the resources to sustain operations for two years?

Consider these burdens and the requirement to keep your salaries and your rates competitive and your accounting transparent to comply with DCAA regulations. Do not expect to operate on revenues for the first three-to-five years.

Myth #3: I have a (Woman-owned, Veteran-owned, minority-owned) small-business set-aside status, the government has to give me business.

Fact: The competition just got tougher.

Disadvantaged business set-aside requirements can be a great accelerator to a qualified small business and can open opportunities not available to other firms. The bad news is, you aren’t the only one who knows this and the competition among these groups is as tough as any. Many contracting offices are leery of “carpet baggers,” companies formed for the sole purpose of gaining a set-aside advantage. There are many experienced small-businesses competing for set-aside contracts. You must lead with capabilities and have the financial ability to support the work once you win.

Finally, the purpose of set-asides is to create a level playing field on which you may build your business to compete for unrestricted opportunities. Your aim should be to break through those size-standards with momentum as you grow and make way for the companies that still need the leg up.

Myth #4: Government small-business offices are there to help my business.

Fact: They aren’t there for you.

Small business offices ensure their respective agencies meet mandated contracting objectives for small and disadvantaged business utilization and to ensure the Government receives best value through the contracting process when utilizing small businesses. You will not find individual small business advocacy in their charter. Bottom line: they work not for you, but on behalf of the customer to whom you are trying to sell.

That doesn’t mean small business offices aren’t a great resource for your company. They can help you navigate many of the sticky wickets you will encounter. Just don’t lean too heavily on them for your marketing or business development and never forget for whom they exist.

Myth #5: If I respond to enough RFPs, I am bound to win some work.

Fact: Submitting many proposals is one of the least-efficient business development strategies.

Iona Moon wins over 94% of all proposals we prepare because we concentrate your business development toward opportunities with the highest win probability. We offer a rigorous, objective bid/no-bid process which we apply early and often to every opportunity at every stage prior to submitting a bid. Writing good proposals is critical. Knowing which proposals NOT to write can make or break your business.

Final thoughts

Iona Moon wins over 94% of all proposals we prepare because we concentrate your business development toward opportunities with the highest win probability. We offer a rigorous, objective bid/no-bid process which we apply early and often to every opportunity at every stage prior to submitting a bid. Writing good proposals is critical. Knowing which proposals NOT to write can make or break your business.

There are many variables to consider with any new business strategy. The decision to pursue Federal contracts is a big investment. It should planned carefully, well-funded, and—most importantly—led by a commitment and ability to provide quality service at competitive rates to the toughest customer you will ever love.

Best of luck.

© Iona Moon, 2009

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