Navigating SEWP VI Amendment 8: What Offerors Need to Know

In mid-November, the NASA SEWP PMO released Amendment 8 of the SEWP VI procurement. This amendment was a welcome surprise in the middle of NASA reviewing and answering the thousands of questions they received. Amendment 8 addresses most of the duplicative questions that were asked in March 2024, when the original RFP was released.

Since the release of Amendment 8, there have been three additional sets of questions and answers released, with more to follow. Most of the answers since the amendment release refer to Amendment 8 with the changes therein.

In a Washington Technology event held December 6, 2024, Joanne Woytek, Program Manager for the NASA SEWP Program, stated that NASA will continue to answer all of the original questions as planned. Following the completion of answers to all questions, NASA will post a notification on SAM.gov alerting offerors to the opening of the next Question and Answer period. The notification will also include a deadline for question submittal.

Ms. Woytek stressed that offerors will be able to read the questions asked and should refrain from asking the same question multiple times. This will only prolong the time to answer questions. Once questions are answered, a final due date for the SEWP VI proposals will be established.

Below we address many of the changes in Amendment 8, along with a few of Red Team’s take on these changes.

Due Date

The revised due date is January 30, 2025 at 1pm ET. As mentioned above, this date could change depending on how long it takes to answer new questions posed by offerors.

Questions

The Government will post a notification on SAM.gov alerting offerors to the opening of the next question and answer period. It will also include a deadline for question submittal.

New Exhibits Provided

• Exhibit 1 – REP form
• Exhibit 4 – NAICS
• Exhibit 5 – C-SCRM form

SF 1449

Reminder to add Contract Level NAICS code selected for submission in Box 10.

Volume I Offeror Volume – FAR 9.104-1(a

To determine if an Offeror is responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1(a), Offeror is instructed to submit information which demonstrates its financial capability to perform the contract. Acceptable information includes letters from certified United States banks indicating the available amount of credit for the business and the company’s annual report. If a teaming arrangement, joint venture, or other business combination is contemplated, disclose each participant’s responsibility for financial management of the venture, funding requirements, limitation of liabilities, and any other information which describes the financial arrangement.

Volume I Exhibit 4 NAICS Crosswalk

If you are using a first tier sub to provide a REP or Past Performance project, reminder you need Exhibit 4 NAICS Crosswalk from the first tier sub.

Volume I – Exhibits 3b and 3c

Have been removed from the requirements. This resolves a large list of questions from Category B and C bidders.  As the exhibits were being used for post-award activity, Red Team agrees with their removal until awards have been made.

Volume I – REP (Category B) – Updates for MPJV and Socio-economic JV submission

• Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, one of the REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted from the Protégé or the Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture itself. The Protégé or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture project need only have a minimum of $250,000 in average annual cost/fee incurred.
• Submitting as HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB Joint Ventures, one of the REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted from the HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB partner, or the Joint Venture itself. The HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB partner project, or Joint Venture project need only have a minimum of $2M in total value size of a single order or contract.

Volume I – REP (Category C) – Updates for MPJV and Socio-economic JV submission

• For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, one of the REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted from the Protégé or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture itself. Each Protégé or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture project need only have a minimum of $1M in total value size of a single order or contract.
• Submitting as HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB Joint Ventures, one of the REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted from the HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB partner, or the Joint Venture itself. The HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB partner project, or Joint Venture project need only have a minimum of $1M in total value size of a single order or contract.

Volume II – NAICS for Past Performance

• The offeror must provide past performance submissions as it relates to the SEWP VI in scope NAICS code being used for competition at the master contract level, as noted on the SF1449.
• If the NAICS code for the past performance submission does not match the Offeror’s NAICS code used on the SF1449 or for references that are not assigned a NAICS code (e.g., commercial contracts), the offeror shall include the description within the past performance volume that explains how the work performed relates to the NAICS code used to compete as noted on the SF1449.

Volume II Past Performance

• #1-12 for the PP contracts. Between Amendment 8 and the Q&A there are conflicting answers about whether #9-12 are for the three past performance projects or as a company as a whole.
• Update for MPJV – For offerors submitting as Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, contracts may be submitted from the Protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture itself. The Protégé or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture project need only have a minimum of $500,000 in average annual cost/fee incurred.
• Update to HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB Joint Ventures, contracts may be submitted from the HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB partner or the Joint Venture itself. The HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB partner contract, or Joint Venture contract, need only have a minimum of $500,000 in average annual cost/fee incurred.

Volume III Mission Suitability – Technical

• Offerors only have to address three of the four Acquisition Objectives.

Volume III Mission Suitability – Management

• Management – Sustainability section, removed all the questions and this section requirements have been substantially revised.
• There were requirement updates in the sections. Red Team recommends that all offerors review in detail.

Evaluation Criteria for Volume III updated:

• Phase 3- Updated to have overall Satisfactory Level of Confidence in Mission Suitability: meaning Satisfactory Level of Confidence in both subfactors- Management Approach and Technical Approach.

Submission File Structure

The RFP was updated to further clarify one .zip file should have three folders (for each Volume) and the Volume documents are to be placed in each applicable folder.

Follow us on LinkedIn or subscribe to our newsletter to stay up to date on all of the opportunities we are tracking.