Red Team’s Take on SEWP VI Q&A, Part 2

October 28, 2024, NASA released the second batch of answers to questions on the SEWP VI RFP — 1,201 to be exact. This brings our total up to an even 2,600 questions that have been answered to date by the government. In case you missed it, here is Red Team’s take on the first batch of 1,399 questions.

Summary of Commonalities and Highlights

For this current set of questions, the government stopped referring to other answers and is instead answering each individual question. We went through all the answers and identified some commonalities and highlights, which are summarized below:

Relevant Experience Projects (REPs) and Past Performance References

• The same project can be used for both REPs and Past Performance.
• A single project or Task Order from an IDIQ/GWAC or MAC can be used as an REP or Past Performance.
• A single REP cannot be used for more than one Content or Technical Representative Area.
• Offerors cannot submit more than the maximum number of REPs or Past Performance for the Category on which they are bidding.
• The minimum number of Content Representative/Technical Areas required to be covered through Past Performance must be met in the aggregate of the 3 references provided, not in a single reference.
• GSA Schedules cannot be used as a Relevant Experience Project or Past Performance.
• The REPs and Past Performance must relate to the contract level NAICS code. (see below for more on this).
• No supporting documentation is required for REPs.

Meaningful Commitment Relationship Letters

• For any offeror using 1^st tier subcontractors in accordance with CFR 13, offerors using the experience or capabilities of members of a CTA (including Joint Ventures), and/or offerors using affiliates, a Meaningful Commitment Relationship Letter must be provided.
• No template is provided, but the letter must explain how the affiliate/subsidiary, CTA member, or 1^st tier Subcontractor will play a meaningful role in the execution of the contract.

Exhibits 3a, b and c

• Further clarity provided on how to fill out individual cells of this exhibit including how to use UNSPC codes.

Exhibit 4 NAICS Crosswalk

• This is where an offeror’s socio-economic categories will be identified by individual NAICS code.
• This exhibit will also identify the master contract level NAICS code.
• 1^st tier subcontractors used for Volume I or II certifications, REPs, or Past Performance must individually complete an Exhibit 4.

Attachments H Ability One Formal Agreement

• Must be brokered from SourceAmerica or an approved Non-Profit Agency (NPA).
• No format is set by the government.

Attachment I Small Business Subcontracting Plan

• Must be compliant with FAR 52.219-9(g).
• No format is set by the government.

Mission Suitability

• Subcontractors can be referenced within Technical and Management Sections.

In addition to the above summary, we found some individual answers to be of interest.

We strongly recommend reviewing all answers to questions as there are nuances to some of the questions and answers that could affect your bid.

Red Team’s Analysis on the Answers to Questions

Question 1661

Offerors proposing as a prime and as part of a joint venture may submit the same management approach. Can the same offeror proposing in more than one Category submit same or same parts of the Management approach for different categories, if they apply?

Government Response: Yes. Offerors proposing as a prime and as part of a joint venture may submit the same management approach, certifications, references for past performance and mandatory experience.

Red Team Take: This confirms that offerors are allowed to submit the same material as an individual offeror AND as a part of a Joint Venture. This circumstance will not count as “duplication” of material. Be aware that there are a lot of allowances that have been provided with this set of answers. This is NOT a point scoring evaluation. Just because something is allowed does not mean that it is a sound or recommended bid strategy.

Question 1676

Neither Attachment H or Attachment I are part of the solicitation package that has been issued. Please issue these Attachments so that offerors can prepare for this requirement.

Government Response: The AbilityOne Formal Agreement is Attachment H. Attachment H is to be provided by the contractor in coordination with Source America/National Industries for the Blind. Reference Solicitation A.1.35 AbilityOne Subcontracting for guidance. Attachment I- Commercial Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Other than Small Businesses) is to be provided by the contractor and what is provided will be incorporated into the contract as Attachment I. For guidance on Attachment I- Commercial Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Other than Small Businesses) reference FAR 52.219-9(g).

Red Team Take: There were a multitude of AbilityOne answers provided in this set of answers. This answer confirms that Attachment H is to be provided in coordination with Source America/NIB and is not provided by the Government in a standardized format as a part of the solicitation. There will be additional questions that we will address below on some of the other particulars regarding AbilityOne.

Additionally, this answer confirms that Attachment I is also to be provided by the Offeror and a standardized format is not provided by the Government. FAR 52.219-9(g) does provide the necessary elements that need to be addressed in a compliant Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Question 1684

Mandatory Experience Project Exclusivity, can a project from a bid prime or teammate be used on another NASA SEWP bid team? Or must a project be exclusive to a SEWP Category? For instance, firm XYZ’s project titled ACME can be used once for Category B and once for Category C.

Government Response: An Offeror can propose as the prime contractor one time per category and can propose one additional time as a member of a joint venture (JV) or contractor team arrangement (CTA) in that same category. For example, it is permissible for XYZ, Corp to propose as a prime contractor in Category A, and form a JV with 123, LLC to propose in category A. This example applies to all categories as well as CTAs.

Red Team Take: This answer clarifies that a Relevant Experience Project or Task Order can be used twice in a single category. Please note that this answer includes usage of a REP as a 1^st tier small business subcontractor in accordance with CFR 13 as that would constitute a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) in accordance with the FAR.

Question 1701

Please provide guidance for what is required for the cover page and indices listed for the Past Performance Volume, The Technical Approach and the Management Approach.

Government Response: There are no requirements regarding the cover page and indices. Neither will be reviewed or evaluated.

Red Team Take: We have fielded several questions regarding the contents of the cover page. This confirms that anything provided in addition to that which is required will not be reviewed or evaluated.

Question 1742

For Small Businesses: Please confirm that Meaningful Commitment Letters (MCL) are NOT required for each 1st tier subcontractor (i.e., traditional prime/subcontractor teams (NOT CTAs or JVs)), in cases where the Offeror is NOT using said subcontractor(s) to meet the requirements of Volume I REPs or Volume II Past Performance. This would reduce the burden on government and industry to obtain MCLs for subcontractors that are ONLY discussed as part of an Offeror’s Technical Approach or Management Approach, but not used for REPs or Past Performances.

Government Response: Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters (MRCLs) are not required from each first tier subcontractor in cases where the Offeror is not using said subcontractor(s) to meet the requirements of Volume I REPs or Volume II Past Performance.

Red Team Take: Put another way, MCRLs are required for any 1^st tier subcontractor or CTA/JV member where an offeror is using the subcontractor to meet the requirements of Volume I or II. This includes certifications. There are several other questions below on MCRLs that will add to this definition.

Question 1748

Each Offeror (inclusive of first-tier subcontractors, if applicable) for each NAICS code represented in Section A.1.33…must complete Exhibit 4 reflecting their size standards…” Should we add tabs for each first tier subcontractor or a column to indicate which company is responding?

Government Response: Each Offeror, including first-tier subcontractors if applicable through an MRCL, must individually complete Exhibit 4 for each NAICS code they are proposing.

Red Team Take: 1^st tier subcontractors being used for Volumes I and II for Certifications, REPs, and/or Past Performance will need to individually complete Exhibit 4 – NAICS Crosswalk.

Question 1751

If a company is more than one designation (e.g., is a WOSB and VOSB), how should that be indicated in the NAICS crosswalk?

Government Response: Include all designations within the associated cell in Column C; e.g. WOSB, VOSB.

Red Team Take: It is now evident that Exhibit 4 will be used to determine the following for Offerors’ contracts:

• Contract NAICS Code and Size Standard
• NAICS codes that an Offeror is available to compete in by Task Order (in accordance with sam.gov)
• Size standard by authorized NAICS code for the Category
• Socio-Economic designation by NAICS code

At a task order level, we believe that this will establish the initial database of awardees and allow SEWP to filter available small businesses and socio-economic designations by NAICS code for any set-asides that a customer may want to compete.

Question 1800

1. VOL II: Past Performance – In A.3.7.2 (a) (p. 106), the RFP states “The offeror shall provide the following information on all past/current contract references that meet the above criteria for the prime offeror” and then lists 12 items. Please confirm that items 1 through 8 are to be included in each Past Performance reference and that items 9 through 12 are additional information the offeror is to provide.

2. VOL II: Past Performance – In A.3.7.2 (a) (p. 106), gives a minimum average annual cost incurred of $150,000 for Small Businesses proposing for Category A and $500,000 for Category C. However, in A.4.3 (p. 116), the RFP gives an evaluation criteria for Small Business of “In Category A and C, shall furnish the past performance for similar scope efforts with an average annual cost/fee incurred of $500,000.” Please confirm the minimum average annual cost incurred for Small Business Category A is $150,000 and for Category C $500,000.

Government Response:

1. The Offeror shall provide the past performance information requested for items 1-12.

2. For Small Businesses in Category A, the dollar threshold for the Past Performance Project requirements is a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $150,000. For Small Businesses in Category C the dollar threshold is a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred $500,000.

Red Team Take: This answer clears up some ambiguity on the initial threshold numbers required for Category A and C small business offerors.

We believe that the threshold for Category A is smaller due to the type of work being requested in Category B versus that which is being requested in Category C, but it is not clear from this answer if that is the case.

Question 1824

When primes obtain Non-Profit Agency NPA teaming without SourceAmerica involvement, can they submit letters of commitment without SourceAmerica involvement?

Government Response: Primes are not required to submit documentation from SourceAmerica. A prime may use an NPA without SourceAmerica’s assistance, as all qualified NPAs are listed on the AbilityOne website.

Red Team Take: This is another AbilityOne question and answer that confirms that SourceAmerica is not required for completion of Attachment H. Offerors should understand that for a compliant response on Attachment H without SourceAmerica involvement, an NPA MUST be on the AbilityOne website.

Question 1845

Exhibit 4 NAICS Size Standard Crosswalk: If proposing in Category A, are we required to add all NAICS codes in the corresponding Category A table to Sam.gov?

Government Response: No, the table is the list of in scope NAICs codes that can be used at the order level. In order to respond to a specific Request for Quote, you will have to have that RFQ’s NAICS code in sam.gov.

Red Team Take: This confirms that only NAICS codes that a company is registered for on sam.gov will be competed as a part of their Exhibit 4 crosswalk. If an offeror wants to compete on all associated NAICS codes, they will need to update their sam.gov registration.

Part of the sam.gov registration process involves entering the NAICS code or codes associated with your products or services. You can list multiple NAICS codes on your SAM registration; however, you will have to designate a primary NAICS.

Question 1871

Please consider adding NAICS 54159e (ITVAR) to the in-scope NAICS for category B and C. This will enhance small business participation for both prime and sub opportunities. Many large IT project require a purchasing a high quantity of hardware and software that are valued higher than the professional services. Value-Added Resellers will be able to obtain the best pricing in these situations.

Government Response: For requirements in which a high quantity of hardware and software that are valued higher than the professional services, Category A will typically be utilized by the Government.

Red Team Take: This response is the Government’s clearest response that large IT hardware, software, and even cloud licensing buying will be competed on Category A and not B or C. Category B and C will be strictly IT service contracts. This is the reason that NAICS 541519e will not be included as an option in Category A.

Question 2005

In section A.3.7.1(c) of the RFP titled Offeror NAICS Size Standard Crosswalk (Exhibit 4), the Government states that “an Offeror can compete for a SEWP VI contract using any of the eligible in-scope NAICS for the category for which they are competing and are not beholden to using NAICS 541512-Computer System Design Services.” Confirm that a bidder who is deemed “Large” under NAICS 541512, may, at its discretion, submit a Category B2 base contract bid as a small business set aside submission if that bidder was deemed “Small” under one of the Exhibit 4 associated sub NAICS, i.e., 334220.

Government Response: An offeror must select a single NAICS code that will be used to compete for a master SEWP VI contract award. A contractor can compete for a SEWP VI contract using any of the eligible in-scope NAICS for the category in which they are competing and are not beholden to using NAICS 541512- Computer Systems Design Services in Category B and C or NAICS 541519e- IT Value Added Reseller in Category A.

Red Team Take: This answer clearly states that all the NAICS in the RFP and Exhibit 4 are available to be used as an offeror’s primary Contract Level NAICS for SEWP VI and that contractors are not beholden to 541512 or 541519e as their contract level NAICS.

We will cover other requirements regarding the Contract Level NAICS in future questions. Offerors should be aware that the choice of Contract Level NAICS will affect Past Performance for all categories and REPs for Categories B and C.

Question 2027

We see mention of 9.104 in the scoring in Volume III. Should we be including this in the previously mentioned reference in Volume I or Volume III?

Government Response: Provide information addressing all the elements under FAR 9.104 to demonstrate responsibility (address the elements under this section that are not addressed in another proposal volume) in Volume I.

Red Team Take: This confirms that all elements of FAR 9.104 Responsibility must be addressed in Volume 1 in writing.

Question 2054

“Part III & A.3.7.1 & Exhibit 1 – REP Table (REP Page 103 & Exhibit 1, Page 1): Please confirm each REP should reference one, and only one, mandatory experience technical area.

Government Response: Yes, each REP should reference one, and only one, mandatory experience technical area.

Red Team Take: Category B and C Relevant Experience Projects can only address a SINGLE Mandatory Experience Technical Area. Multiple technical areas cannot be addressed by a single order. There were multiple variations on this question in this release. Since a single order cannot be used more than once, an offeror must meet the minimum number of REPs for their categories and each of those REPs must cover the required number of technical areas. For example, a large business must submit four separate REPs covering four separate technical areas each for a Category B bid.

Question 2209

We do not plan on subcontracting with any entity. Is AbilityOne still a requirement for us?

Government Response: If you do not plan on subcontracting any part of the work under the SEWP contract, you are still required to use AbilityOne subcontractors for the portions of work covered by the designated NAICS codes or Product Service Codes. A.1.35 AbilityOne SUBCONTRACTING

Red Team Take: AbilityOne is a requirement of the bid in the same way that Small Business subcontracting is a requirement for Large Businesses. Offerors, regardless of size, cannot state that they will not be subcontracting on the contract. All bidders will be required to use AbilityOne subcontractors for those NAICS with an asterisk in the RFP.

Question 2261

Exhibit 1 Relevant Experience Project Table makes reference to Section A.3.5.1(b) of the RFP. That section does not exist in the final RFP, will the Government please update this reference to match the final RFP?

Government Response: “The Solicitation has been updated to fix various formatting issues and to update the instructions and remove the reference to “”supporting documentation””. No supporting documentation can be included or referred to. Responses must be self-contained within a 3-page limit that the Offeror attaches to Exhibit 1. The three-page limit is separate from other page limits in the solicitation. The instruction regarding the font to use in the response was updated to read: “”Use a font, no smaller than 10 point.

Red Team Take: No supporting documentation is required for Relevant Experience Projects.

Question 2281

Given that Categories B and C are new for SEWP, it may take some time for task orders to start coming out. We recommend that the timeline for identifying dormant status starts 12 months after contract start. This gives the SEWP PMO and Category awardees time to adjust to the task order flow and process.

Government Response: “NASA anticipates Requirement submittals to begin in all three categories within days of the Contract start date.

Red Team Take: This is an interesting response that shows the anticipation of work starting very soon after contract start. For more information on the velocity of work that flows through the SEWP contracts we recommend reviewing NASA SEWP’s YouTube Channel.

Question 2302

A.3.7.1 OFFER VOLUME states “The offeror must provide relevant experience as it relates to the NAICS code being used for competition.” However, 3.7.1. (b) For Category B and C states “Only projects with NAICS codes listed as in-scope for SEWP VI are to be submitted.” Please reconcile the contradiction of the requirement that all relevant experience must be in the one NAICS code the offeror selects for competition as opposed to the ability to submit different projects that have any of the NAICS codes listed as in-scope.

Government Response: “An Offeror may propose experience under multiple NAICS codes in their proposal, but must select a single NAICS code for competition. The single NAICS code will be the predominant NAICS code under which the majority of the Offeror’s proposed solutions fall.

Red Team Take: This response relates to the earlier response regarding selecting an offeror’s Contract Level NAICS code. Per the response above, the NAICS code will be “the predominant NAICS code under which the majority of the Offeror’s solutions fall.” If a NAICS code is selected for the Contract Level NAICS in Exhibit 4 for submission on a Category A bid where no Past Performance is competed under that NAICS code, their bid could be non-compliant at worst, or the offeror may need to change their Contract Level NAICS code to match their Past Performance. We would need to see the exact language of the bid to determine this.

Question 2633

In reference to Exhibit 1 of the RFP, would the government please specify what information should be provided under “Present/Final Contract Value” and “Current Contract Expenditures Incurred to Date”. Do you want contractors to show exercised value as of today or total contract value if all options were exercised (including future options)?

Government Response: “For “”Present/Final Contract Value”” provide the total contract value if all options were exercised and for “”Current Contract Expenditures Incurred to Date”” provide the total contract expenditures incurred to date.

Red Team Take: This clarifies the difference required for these two elements.

Question 2702

Exhibit 3a – Category A Solutions Spreadsheet: Technical Areas tab – column F: If a selected OEM has not adopted UNSPSC code standards, can the offeror apply UNSPSC codes to the products selected from said OEM?

Government Response: “Yes, If the selected Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) has not adopted UNSPSC code standards, the offeror is permitted to apply a relevant UNSPSC code for the proposed product.

Red Team Take: This response clarifies what offerors must do if an OEM or an offeror has never used UNSPSC codes. The Offeror is allowed to assign relevant UNSPSC codes themselves to their offering. It does not appear that validity of UNSPSC codes is being evaluated only that they must be used.

Question 3521

Can we use LOA’s from distributors that confirm which OEM’s we are authorized to sell? Section A.3.7.1 notes that was are to provide a maximum of four (4) LOA. Including a LOA from a distributor that lists all of our OEM authorizations would be an easy way to show the wide range of OEM products we can supply. Additionally, if this is allowable, can we include LOA’s from more than one distributor? The distributor we use for a given task order is dependent upon which OEM we are quoting.

Government Response: No, LOAs from distributors are not allowed as they do not meet the intent of the requirement. The LOAs are to show that the Offeror is an authorized reseller of a given Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)’s products.

Red Team Take: Distribution Letters of Authorization are not a compliant response. LOAs must be provided by the Original Equipment Manufacturer.

Question 4102

Can subcontractors be discussed in the mission suitability/technical evaluation even if they are not utilized for REPs or past performance?

Government Response: Yes.

Red Team Take: Subcontractors can be discussed in the Mission Suitability response.

Question 4251

Page 105 and 118 RFP “A.3.7.2 and A.4.3 ”

A.3.7.2 “The offeror must provide past performance submissions as it relates to the NAICS code being used for competition.” and “Prime Offerors shall indicate how the contracts are related to the proposed effort in content and scope.”” and

A.4.3 “The Offeror must provide Past Performance submissions as it relates to the NAICS code being used for competition”

Example 1. For example, all DoN contracts for technology are assigned NAICS Code 541330 – Can the Offeror submit a project with a 541330 NAICS Code and support a SEWP VI NAICS Code based on the PWS tasks?

Example 2. Some Gov’t agencies do not assign a NAICS Code. Can the Offeror demonstrate tasks relavant to SEWP VI NAICS Codes?

How will the Gov’t determine relevance to a NAICS code?

Will the Government evaluate that the project is aligned to the SEWP VI NAICS Codes based on the PWS/ narrative submitted by the Offeror?

Does the Government want the Offeror to submit Award Forms, PWS/SOW or FPDS reports?

Government Response: Offerors must provide past performance examples that relate to the NAICS code used for SEWP VI competition at the master contract level. When government agencies do not assign a NAICS code to a contract or order, the Offeror may submit relevant past performance examples that demonstrate tasks, experience and/or capabilities like the NAICS code they selected to compete under SEWP VI. The government will evaluate the submitted PWS/narrative from the Offeror to determine relevancy.

Red Team Take: On this response, the impact of the Contract Level NAICS in Exhibit 4 has the greatest impact. The Past Performance Example must RELATE to the NAICS code used at the Master Contract Level. The Government will be reviewing the past performance narrative to determine relevancy to the Master Contract Level NAICS.

Question 5441

Will the requirements to handle 100 requirements per day for Category A and ten requirements per day for Categories B & C apply to small businesses?

Government Response: This is not a requirement – it is a statement of expectation as to the minimally expected number of RFQs per day that Contract Holders will need to manage.

Red Team Take: The response here provides insight and explanation to the required response in the Mission Suitability Management Section. This is a scenario that all bidders must respond to. It is not a requirement of the contract.

Question 6619

Can you disclose within the UNSPC codes which segment, family and class would be used to classify IT labor categories for filling out Exhibit 3C?

Government Response: The list of UNSPSC codes includes service codes. Offerors should match their labor categories and service to the most applicable UNSPSC service code.

Red Team Take: As stated in a separate question, offerors can assign UNSPSC codes to their offerings and Category B and C bidder should assign the most applicable UNSPSC codes to their offering.

Questions 2286 and 2284

Finally, there is an area where we found a direct contradiction in answers. Questions 2286 and 2284 both address Exhibit 5: C-SCRM Attestation form. The Government’s answer to Q2286 regarding Exhibit 5 states, “…Exhibit 5 is to be submitted, no substitutions.” Yet, their answer to Q2284 reconfirms that, “…The Government is requiring a level of Cyber Security compliance to be indicated through either Exhibit 5: C-SCRM Attestation Form…or a copy of a valid active O-TTPS Certification to attest to meeting the ISO 20243 standard.” We are hopeful that this will be cleared up with the amended RFP.

Stay Tuned

Until the next set of questions are released, we recommend that all bidders review all questions and prepare any questions that they may still have regarding this RFP!