Red Team’s Take on SEWP VI Q&A, Part 1

And we are back!!!

On October 11, NASA released the initial set of responses to questions submitted on the SEWP VI procurement. This is the first batch of answers since NASA un-paused the solicitation. The government stated that answers to all questions will be provided prior to holding an industry day in early November. This industry day will follow the release of an amended RFP incorporating all changes. The experts at Red Team reviewed all 1,399 answers to date and pulled out the questions we found most important to bidders.

Update: October 15, NASA posted a notice on SEWP Questions.

Before We Dive In

A few notes before we get into the questions:

1. The questions answered in this batch were those submitted at the beginning of the final solicitation period. There are no questions being answered after June 7, 2024. Since that date, there have been seven amendments that have either addressed questions or rendered some of these questions irrelevant.

2. Bidders will have the ability to ask additional questions once the amended RFP has been released. Bidders should be prepared for this by forming questions as responses are released by the government. Be aware that NASA said that the period to submit questions will be open for 48 hours only.

3. This first set of answers responds to the preponderance of the following types of questions:

• Extension requests
• Page count increase requests
• Requests to reduce the dollar size of Relevant Experience Projects (REPs)
• Past Performance Form issues, errors, and requests for changes

In all cases, no real changes were made to the above areas. Most answers were “The solicitation remains unchanged,” “This change has been made prior to Amendment 7,” or “This Comment is out of date.”

4. We recommend that all bidders review all answers to all questions as some answers may be important to their bids. Red Team is focused on overall changes to the procurement in this article.

Red Team’s Analysis on the Answers to Questions

Of this first batch, we identified some answers of note. Without further ado, grab a cup of coffee or your favorite beverage and let’s dive in!

Question 1659

In section A.1.3.5, it states that offerors must have a letter of commitment from NIB or SourceAmerica. That section also references an Attachment H. Does the Government have a format for the Letter or Commitment or is that Attachment H. Attachment H is not shown as an attachment, could the government provide?

Answer: 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: This answer confirms that AbilityOne is staying in the solicitation and provides guidance on the attachments to be used by offerors. If you are bidding on SEWP and have not gotten this Letter of Commitment completed, you must do so ASAP.

Question 1675

There are contradictions on when the Climate Change Risk Management is due. Within 12 months of contract award (a.1.51) or at proposal submission (TBS section A.2.1)? Would the government also please define “To Be Submitted”? Does it mean at time of proposal submission or at a later submission date?

Answer: The noted Attachments for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Plan, SEWP C-SCRM Annual Plan and Climate Change Risk Management, (G, J and L) are post award documents. They are not required as part of the Offeror’s proposal. The Government will work with Contract Holders post-award to ensure all post-award forms are fully functional and provide guidance on their usage, submission process and submission dates.

Red Team Take: There were a lot of questions about the referenced attachments in this question. This answer confirms that these attachments are not required as a part of the original submission. The attachments will be required post-award.

Question 1808

The RFP says, “2. The offeror shall describe their ITC/AV-based solutions and/or services and how the proposed features provide technological leadership in allowing for the next generation of technology in terms of both solutions and services. 3. The offeror shall describe their ITC/AV-based solutions and services and how the proposed architectural features provide technological leadership in allowing for the next generation of technology.” These two requirements are virtually identical (differing only by the word “Architectural”) and, according to the evaluation criteria, constitute two-thirds of the content. We highly recommend combining them into a single requirement or changing the requirements.

Answer: The Solicitation has been updated to remove point 3 in the section. The word “architectural” is no longer a part of the solicitation.

Red Team Take: This is an example of the Government already correcting an issue through amending the RFP. Point 3 was removed in a previous amendment to the solicitation.

Question 2118

Page 103 states, Offerors proposing to category B and/ or C shall complete Exhibit 3b- Category B Solutions Spreadsheet and Exhibit 3c- Category C Solutions Spreadsheet. The UNSPSC codes must accurately match the proposed services/technology in each row and must be the full 8-digit UNSPSC code. If the CLIN is for an hourly labor rate, then the associated labor category shall be provided in Column G (Labor Category if Hourly Rate).
According to the UNSPSC website, “the UNSPSC provides a very specific product-centric viewpoint.” Most service-providers are not subscribers and would have a difficult time translating their NAICS or PSC codes into UNSPSC codes.
How should service providers in Category C fill out columns A, B, C E and F in Exhibit 3b?

Answer: UNSPSC codes now include IT and other services. Offerors should follow the provided Solicitation directions in Section A.1.22 UNSPSC CODES and provide their best effort to relate the services being offered to a UNSPSC code.

Red Team Take: UNSPSC codes must be submitted in Exhibits 3b and 3c. Researching UNSPSC codes online is highly recommended to find codes that properly describe the services that offerors are providing. Please note, the Government is not evaluating these exhibits and have asked for “best effort” in the answer to this question.

Question 2214

The instructions for Exhibits 3b and 3c are unclear as to how Services should be broken into CLINs. (e.g., should each enterprise service area be a CLIN, or should each labor category the offeror could propose be a separate CLIN?)
Question: Could the government please provide more detailed information on what is needed in Exhibits 3b and 3c? It is unclear if we are supposed to be providing just labor categories or services.

Answer: A CLIN can be as discrete as an hourly labor category or a complete service line item such as “Installation of one compute server”. CLINs should be added such that the Contract Holder can respond to a Government requirement with the CLINs that exist in the SEWP Database of Record for that Contract Holder. In terms of the information in Exhibits 3b and 3c, all columns are applicable; Provider is the OEM or Service provider; Part Numbers are unique identifiers for the offering whether a product with a standardized number or a service that might have a self-generated value or the labor category; UNSPSC codes are the related service UNSPSC codes; SEWP price is the price/labor rate; CLINs are created by the offeror – the only requirement is that each CLIN be unique for the offeror; Description is a brief description of the offering.

Red Team Take: Exhibits 3b and 3c have driven a lot of questions. This answer provides what should be included in each column of Exhibit 3b and 3c. The most important part of this answer is “CLINs are created by the offeror – the only requirement is that each CLIN be unique for the offeror.” These are not pricing tables that are evaluated for price, price reasonableness or anything else. Price is NOT an evaluation factor for this contract.

We highly recommend that you research how the SEWP contract has had the flexibility to add new CLINs throughout the life of the contract, as this knowledge is KEY to this requirement. Also, please refer to question 2285 which states, “The Offeror can update their offerings including labor categories post award utilizing the process described in A.1.23 TECHNOLOGY REFRESHMENT.” Section A.1.23 is essential to the strategy for completing Exhibits 3b and 3c.

Question 2276

The instructions state: “Identify any consultants, generative artificial intelligence, and/or sub-contractors used in writing this proposal (if any) and the extent to which their services will be available in the subsequent performance of this effort.” Could you please clarify what the Govt refers to as generative AI?

Could the Govt also clarify what information should be provided when “identifying” consultants and/or sub-contractors?

Answer: The Government is referring to artificial intelligence systems that can create new content such as text, images, audio, video, code, etc. When identifying consultants and/or subcontractors, offerors should provide company name and address, the nature of services provided in proposal development, and the extent to which they would be involved in performance of the contract.

Red Team Take: Artificial Intelligence has been defined here as well as what is necessary to provide when using consultants as a part of your proposal.

Question 2285

“Exhibit 3b- Category B Solutions Spreadsheet and Exhibit 3b and 3c- Category b& C Solutions Spreadsheet. The UNSPSC codes must accurately match the proposed services/technology in each row and must be the full 8-digit UNSPSC code. If the CLIN is for an hourly labor rate, then the associated labor category shall be provided in Column G (Labor Category if Hourly Rate).

Is there a minimum number of labor categories that the offeror must propose? Will the offeror be allowed to add labor categories after award? If so, what is the estimated time to have new labor categories approved and added to the offeror’s contract after award?”

Answer: No, there is no minimum number of labor categories required. The Offeror determines what labor categories they want to establish in the initial Contract Database of Record upon Contract award. The Offeror can update their offerings including labor categories post award utilizing the process described in A.1.23 TECHNOLOGY REFRESHMENT.

Red Team Take: This is another question regarding Exhibits 3b and 3c with some clarity that there is no minimum number of labor categories required.

Question 2572

A.3.7.1 OFFER VOLUME, Pg. 103, states “Only projects with NAICS codes listed as in-scope for SEWP VI are to be submitted.” Is the Offeror required to put the NAICS code that appears in FPDS on Exhibit 1 or are we able to include NAICS that is most relevant to the scope of our contract?

Answer: The Offeror is required to use the NAICS code from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for the referenced project in Exhibit 1. Only projects with NAICS codes listed as in-scope for SEWP VI may be submitted.

Red Team Take: This confirms that you cannot change the NAICS code referenced on a Government Order that is found in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). You must use the NAICS code listed in FPDS.

Question 2673

Category A, Technical Area 6a Audio/Video Equipment: Does this Category and Technical Area allow the inclusion of projects to custom design and install complex video walls and audio visual multimedia suites such as those that have been created for the launch facilities at NRO Vandenberg and Canaveral, and which cannot be priced in advance due to the customization and complexity of such projects? In other words, can complex ITC/AV projects be listed as “price TBD” CLINS under this Category and Technical Area?

Answer: The types of services noted are in scope for SEWP. When adding the products prior to award, the price can be set to $0 and the description note the item is “To be Priced”. Contract Holders will be provided guidance on how to handles To be Priced CLINs post-award.

Red Team Take: Even though this is for a Category A bid, this is insightful for ALL bidders. Category B and C take note! This is an interesting answer that allows for customized CLINs for Category A bidders at a $0 set price and shows the flexibility of SEWP. Exhibit 3 is the START of your overall catalog and this catalog has incredible flexibility post-award as shown above.

Question 2845

RFP States “A total of 2 different REPs…shall be submitted” for SDVOSB offerors. Can more than two REPs be submitted?

Answer: No. Only the required number of REPs as indicated in A.3.7.1 OFFER VOLUME (b) Mandatory Experience/ Offerings should be submitted.

Red Team Take: This is the clearest answer provided in writing to-date on this subject. Do not provide more than the required Relevant Experience Projects for your offer.

One exception: If you are trying to win a Small Business (not Socio-Economic) award, you will have to provide the minimum REPs for Small Business to receive a Small Business award in addition to a Socio-Economic award.

Question 2929

Attachment A SEWP Scope – A1. Acquisition Objectives: Please clarify if Acquisition Objective 3 is solely for Category A Offerors.

3. To provide the federal government with a wide range of ITC/AV hardware, communications, audio-visual and related hardware, software, and ITC/AV services to enhance the federal government’s Information Technology capabilities.

Answer: “All Acquisition Objectives are pertinent to all Categories as stated: ” ITC/AV hardware, communications, audio-visual and related hardware, software, and ITC/AV services ” which includes services.

Red Team Take: This answer confirms that all acquisition objectives pertain to all categories.

Question 3322

In Section A.3.7(b), for Category B and C, there are differing requirements for Small Business offerors and Small Disadvantaged Business offerors (8(a), HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB). Can the government please confirm that, if an Offeror wishes to be awarded as both a SDVOSB and as a Small Business, only one submission is necessary?

Answer: Yes. Only one submission is necessary and allowed.

Red Team Take: This confirms that a single submission is required to receive awards in Small Business and applicable Socio-Economic categories. One note: There may be more questions that need to be answered regarding the online portal on how to represent this during submission.

Question 3493

It seems that CMMI is most relevant to category C specifically and not as much categories A and B. Would the government please confirm it only desires ISO for Category C? If so, can Offeror’s provide EITHER an ISO or CMMI certification under Category C for compliance with this provision?

Answer: As stated in the Solicitation, CMMI certification is only required for Category B. ISO 9001 certification is required for all three Categories. CMMI and ISO 9001 are different standards and cannot be interchanged.

Red Team Take: This answer confirms that certification requirements remain unchanged. ISO is required for all Categories and CMMI is only required for Category B.

Question 3529

Section A.4.4(b)(1)(v) Management Approach – Exhibit 5 (Page 112) – How should offerors indicate if a particular practice on the Exhibit 5 C-SCRM Attestation Form is not applicable to their organization or solution? For example, if they do not use any “publicly accessible systems” as referenced in question 4.

Answer: “Exhibit 5 will be updated to allow for I(n progress) and NA (Not Applicable) responses. A relevant explanation is required when I or NA is entered.

Red Team Take: This answer allows for a wider array of answers on the C-SCRM Attestation Form. Please be aware that if you are submitting “In Progress” or “N/A” for these answers, you must provide an explanation for those answers.

Question 3671

Exhibit 3a- Category A Solutions Spreadsheet Information tab “Place an X in the 4 proposed areas” Please confirm that offerors awarded a Category A contract will be able to respond to order-level RFQs across all 9 technical areas regardless of which 4 technical areas are “proposed.”

Answer: Yes. Contract Holders will be eligible to reply to all RFQs within their Category for which they match the NAICs code, any business size restriction (i.e. set-side) and any other restrictions set by the Issuing Agency

Red Team Take: This is an important answer that applies to all categories. The awarded contractor will be eligible to reply to ALL RFQs in the proposed category regardless of the areas that an offeror proposes through Letters of Authorization on Category A or has relevant experience in, for Categories B and C. NOTE: This is true unless there are business size restrictions.

Question 3704

Please explain the difference between Relevant Experience and Past Performance? As well as where in Vol 2 is this to be included?

Answer: “Relevant Experience (REP)refers to what the Offeror’s experience is. Past Performance (PPQ) refers to how well an offeror performed. REPs are submitted in Volume 1 by inclusion of the filled in Exhibit 1. PPQs are submitted in Volume 2 as described in the Solicitation.

Red Team Take: This answer clearly defines the two separate requirements for Relevant Experience Projects (REPs) and Past Performance regarding Categories B and C. REPs show past experience and whether or not the contractor did a task. Past Performance is evaluated on how well the contractor performed, not whether the contractor performed a task.

Question 3870

“Many of the designated providers use distributors to sell their products, and these distributors establish reseller agreements directly with government contractors to sell designated provider products. Is it acceptable for a bidder to obtain a letter of authorization from a distributor of a designated provider for the designated provider’s products?

Answer: “The Solicitation will remain as stated. The POC that signed the LOA must be the POC from the company of the designated provider identified in Exhibit 3a- Category A Solutions Spreadsheet, Point of Contact (POC) Info Tab.”

Red Team Take: This is a clear answer for Category A bidders that Volume I Letters of Authorization MUST come from the OEM, not a Distributor or Distribution Aggregator.

Question 4171

For Category B and C beginning on page 103 “single contracts or task orders” are specified for Mandatory Experience and refers to Exhibits 3b and 3c.

1) Are three projects required from each member of a JV or CTA?
2) How should an Offeror determine NAICS for federal subcontracts and commercial contracts where a NAICS is not assigned?
3) Are MRCLs required for subcontractors in a CTA and the members of a JV?
4) Will the Government provide detailed instructions for Exhibits 3b and 3c similar to those provided for Category A’s Exhibit 3a?
5) Will the Government provide the UNSPSC codes as an attachment to the final Solicitation?

Answer: The Solicitation has been updated to remove this language.

Red Team Take: This is an interesting answer because it’s not clear what language has been removed. We will have to wait until the amended RFP is released to understand what has been removed.

Question 4275

Any insights into the relevant NAICS code mapping requirements for both Mandatory Experience (REP) and Past Performance references? There is a lot of ambiguity around what NAICS codes offerors should reference and how the Government will validate project references back to SEWP Category NAICS.

Answer: The Solicitation has been updated for further clarification

Red Team Take: This is an interesting answer because it’s not clear what language has been updated. We will have to wait until the amended RFP is released to understand what has been changed.

Question 4543

A.3.7.1 Offer Volume, (b) Mandatory Experience / Offerings, Category B p.103 Please confirm that any Labor Category rates that are submitted in conjunction with this response will be ceiling rates for the life of the vehicle?

Answer: Labor Categories submitted in conjunction with this response will be the ceiling rate at the start of the Contract period. The Offeror can update their offerings including labor categories and labor rates post award utilizing the process described in A.1.23 TECHNOLOGY REFRESHMENT.

Red Team Take: This is another question regarding Exhibits 3b and 3c. The prices offered in these exhibits can be changed post-award by adding new Labor Categories or changing the prices of the CLINs using the process defined in Section A.1.23.

Question 4921

Would the Government consider allowing more than one past performance from Tier 1 subs?

Answer: The Solicitation will remain as stated.

Red Team Take: Our assumption is that this question is referring to Volume 2 requirements that are only allowing for one of three Past Performance references from Small Business Tier 1 subcontractors for Small Business Offerors. This is not changing, per the government.

Question 5655

Pure Storage is one of the largest storage OEM vendors in the market. Can the government add them to the Enclosure 1 list?

Answer: The Solicitation only requires the 4 designated providers be from the list in Enclosure 1. Other providers may be proposed at the time of proposal or post-award. The solicitation will be updated to revise and significantly increase the list of providers.

Red Team Take: Category A bidders take note! Enclosure 1 will be changing to “significantly increase the list of providers.” This will expand the list of OEMs from which Category A offerors can obtain Letters of Authorization.

Question 6479

A.1.2 GSFC 52.211-91 SCOPE OF WORK (FEB 2016) – Can the Government please confirm that “Technical Areas” 1-11 of the SOW are equivalent to “Mandatory Experience Sub-areas” (page 104) and/or “Content Representative Areas” (pages 108-109). If that is not correct, can the Government confirm that offerors shall only use areas 1-10 found in “Mandatory Experience” and “Past Performance” and omit “Technical Area 11: Program Management/Ancillary Services”?

Answer: The wording has been updated in the solicitation. Technical Areas 9a, 11b and 11c are not considered a Past Performance Content Representative area and are excluded from the REP Areas.

Red Team Take: This question provides clarification that the Program Management/Ancillary Services Content Representative Areas that were appearing for all three categories are NOT included as a Relevant Experience area for Categories B and C. It is assumed that the lists will be the same in all volumes moving forward.

Stay Tuned

That’s all for now. Stay tuned for the next batch of questions likely coming very soon!

If you have any questions about SEWP VI, please reach out to us.