SEWP VI Batch 2 published 10.28.24.pdf

SEWP VI Q&A Batch 2_10.28.24

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.

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).

1677 A.3.2 needs clarification. It states to email questions or comments and provides the POC/email address. Further in the section states "Any offeror questions shall be submitted using the SEWP VI RFP Application (https:www.sewp.nasa.gov/sewpvi). Which format is the correct for submitting questions?

Any comments regarding the solicitation should be submitted electronically using the SEWP VI solicitation application found at https://sewp.nasa.gov/sewpvi/ during Q and A periods as announced on sam.gov.

1679 The zip file shall be labeled:

“OfferorName_80TECH23R0001_Category Submission”. If submitting proposal in more than one scope category, the zip file shall be labeled with each intended Category letter at the end of the label. For example:

GetItDone_80TECH23R0001_CategoryA GetItDone_80TECH23R0001_CategoryB GetItDone_80TECH23R0001_CategoryC

Did you mean to use 80TECH23R0001 in these file names or

The language in the solicitation is example. The solicitation number in which you are responding is to be used.

1680 Upon initial review of the solicitation, we want to bring to your attention that it appears copies of Attachments G, H, I, K & L were not provided. Please provide these attachments when possible and we hope you enjoy the holiday weekend.

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.

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.

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.

1698 from p 106: "A Small Business Prime Offeror may provide past performance references for first tier subcontractors to the extent the small business prime offeror does not independently demonstrate capabilities and past performance." Does this apply to Category C as well as A and B?

Yes, this applies to all 3 Categories.

1699 "The Offeror shall include a list of those to whom the questionnaires were sent, including name of individual, phone number, organization, and contract number." is this within the 10 page limit?

Yes, the list is part of the 10 page limiit.

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.

There are no requirements regarding the cover page and indices.

Neither will be reviewed or evaluated.

1702 Since the Technical Approach Volume III-A and Management Approach Volume III-B are listed separately in this table, are they supposed to be submitted as separate files?

No. The Technical and Management Approach should be submitted in a single file.

1703 If "Each proposal volume shall be submitted in a single searchable Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) file," what is the purpose of the examples of naming respective documents (e.g., "GetltDone_Category#- EXHIBIT #, GetltDone_Category#-

LOA #, GetltDone_Category#- PP #")?

Naming conventions provide standadization of proposal submissions.

1707 Please clarify what the difference is between #2 and #3 on page

111. They are identical except for the insertion of the word

"architectural" in #3.

The Solicitation has been updated to remove point 3 in the section.

The word “architectural” is no longer a part of the solicitation.

1710 Shouldn't the requirement for 2 content representative areas also include VOSB and WOSB offerors?

The Solicitation has been updated in an Amendment prior to Amendment 7 to include VOSB and WOSB.

1713 Requesting confirmation that Category C - ITC/AV Mission- Based ITC/AV Services is only open for bid to Small Businesses.

Large Businesses are unable to bid in this specific category.

Yes. Category C is only open for bid to Small Businesses.

1715 As A.3.7.1(b) all offerors shall propose technology solutions for any 4 of the 8 Mandatory Technical Areas, but in Past performance volume A.3.7.2(a) "Prime Offerors shall furnish the information requested below a minimum of one (1) but no more than three (3) of your most recent similar contracts"

Please confirm that past performance is not required for all (4) proposed mandatory areas.

Past Performance is not required for the 4 proposed mandatory areas.

1716 It's not clear why Ms. Ross' email is provided. Please confirm all submissions must be made via the SEWP VI RFP website.

The email is listed for Sam.Gov administrative purposes only. All questions and comments concerning the Solicitation using the SEWP

Comment Tool located at https://www.sewp.nasa.gov/sewpvi/ during Q and A periods as announced on sam.gov.

1717 Does the SEWP VI RFP website allow offerors to delete or replace uploaded files prior to final submission?

Yes, the SEWP VI RFP website allows offerors to delete or replace uploaded files prior to final submission.

1718 Will a format for the AbilityOne Commitment Letter be provided by the SEWP Program Office for the offeror to utilize in their Offer Volume?

Please reference A.1.35 AbilityOne SUBCONTRACTING for guidance on obtaining an AbilityOne Commitment Letter.

1721 Will the government allow a different and large Font size for the Cover Page and Table of Contents?

There are no restrictions on the font size on Cover Pages and Table contents as Title pages, tabs, and tables of contents are excluded from the page counts specified in paragraph (1) of Provision A.3.6(b)(3).

1722 Will the government allow a larger Font size for proposal section headers?

Yes. The font size described in Section A.3.6(B)(2) is a minimum size..

1723 Is Attachment G (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Plan- Applicable for Categories B & C) required at the time of proposal submission and if so in which Volume?

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.

1724 On page 101 of the RFP, Exhibit 3a- Category A Solutions Spreadsheet it states "indicate which 4 Technical Areas are being offered, in addition to Tech Area 9 - Product Based Services. 1 Primary and 2-4 indicating the non-primary proposed technical area". On the actual Exhibit it states on row 3, "If this is one of the 4 minimum proposed Technical Areas other than the primary Technical Area..." Which is correct - 3 non-primary technical areas or 4 primary technical areas?

There are four designated technical areas. One of those four areas is the primary designated area in which a minimum of 1,000 CLINs must be proposed. The other 3 designated areas have a minimum of 50 CLINs.

1725 In the solicitation it states: “Questions regarding the SEWP VI RFP Application (e.g., access, system issues, and upload issues) must be submitted via email to sewp6@nasa.gov at least 72 hours in advance of the RFP deadline. Any questions regarding the application submitted after this deadline, will not be considered by the Government. The Offeror is solely responsible for its inability to submit a proposal due to issues with the application that were not submitted to the

Government 72 hours in advance of the RFP deadline.”

The current deadline for offerors is July 11th. Given the stipulation above, offerors would be required to submit NLT

1200PM on July 8th in case of any technical difficulties. Given the preceding July 4th holiday, would it be possible to extend the due date of submission from Thursday, July 11th to Thursday, July 18th at 1200PM? This would permit the week of 8 July to work out any offeror application technical issues that may arise, particularly given the volume of content and the potential quantity of offerors (small and large businesses) that will be submitting.

The comment is out of date.

1726 We plan to conduct a test upload of our proposal on the Government's online portal to ensure its functionality. Please note, this submission is for test purposes only, our proposal will be submitted before the deadline in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

There was no question submitted.

1727 Follow up to my previous question, it does not appear that the upload tab is enabled, would it be possible to enable this submission tab prior to the proposal due date to allow for test uploads?

The proposal upload tab is available.

1728 Document: 80TECH24R0001+SEWP+VI+Final+RFP / Section:

Proposal Format and Organization, page 94 / Question: Naming convention for the proposal submission states the zip file shall be labeled Offeror Name_80TECH23R001_ Category. Should the solicitation number be changed to 80TECH24R0001 which is the current solicitation number?

The Offeror's proposal name is to reference the solicitation number for the solicitation in which a proposal is being submitted.

1729 Document: Exhibit 1 - Relevant Experience Project Table / Section: Part III: Project Description / Question: The instructions state that the completed REP Template may not exceed a total of three (3) pages. The PDF has a fixed field for the project description. What should an offeror use if there is additional information that does not fit within the field, while still remaining under 3 pages?

As stated in the Solicitation, the response attached to Exhibit 1 is limited to 3 pages per REP.

1730 Document: Exhibit 1 - Relevant Experience Project Table / Section: Part III: Project Description / Question: The instructions indicate that the offeror should indicate where the supporting information/evidence is in the attached documents. Please confirm that supporting information/evidence is NOT needed for an Other than Small Business submission for Category B.

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. "

1731 The instructions state that the completed REP Template may not exceed a total of three (3) pages. The PDF has a fixed field for the project description. What should an offeror use if there is additional information that does not fit within the field, while still remaining under 3 pages?

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. "

1732 The instructions indicate that the offeror should indicate where the supporting information/evidence is in the attached documents. Please confirm that supporting information/evidence is NOT needed for an Other than Small

Business submission for Category B.

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. "

1733 Naming convention for the proposal submission states the zip file shall be labeled Offeror Name_80TECH23R001_ Category.

Should the solicitation number be changed to 80TECH24R0001 which is the current solicitation number?

The Offeror's proposal name is to reference the solicitation number for the solicitation in which a proposal is being submitted.

1734 Exhibit 2 PPQ - Instructions - There is an uncompleted sentence in this form.

“Sections 5 and 6 are completed by the”

The solicitation was updated in a previous Amendment.

1735 There is no guidance in the RFP for Attachment J 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

Include all designations within the associated cell in Column C; e.g.

WOSB, VOSB.

1753 A.3.7.3(b)(1)ii. "FOR CATEGORY B and C - The Offeror shall describe ancillary products required for performance of specific tasks and corporate risks associated with SCRM (e.g., availability and security of corporate resources)." Please clarify what kinds of products are being referred to here; for example, is the government talking about technology used to perform work under the various task areas (software like Jira, DevOps tools, testing tools; hardware like A/V equipment; etc.)?

Yes. An example would be a laptop required to perform specific requirments on a task order.

1755 Does the government allow for the same management plan to be submitted over multiple categories? For example, a company submitting in Categories B and C would have similar information across both management plans submitted, is this acceptable?

Each proposal is a separate submission. If the offeror is submitting in multiple categories and the information in response to each category is equivalent, then the same information should be submitted in each proposal.

1756 We are a manufacturer of two way radio communications compliant with APCO Project 25 specifications and are reviewing the above referenced RFP requirements. Would you please advise if we are able to bid only the LMR radio/subscriber equipment category of the RFP?

Please see A3.7.1.(b)Mandatory Experience/ Offerings for the required minimum offerings required to bid in each Category.

1757 Exhibit 1 - Relevant Experience Project Table references, Part III Project Description requires offerors to "identify where the supporting information/evidence is in the attached documents."

Can the Government please provide additional instructions pertaining to providing supporting documentation with the following information:

1. What documents should be attached? For example, the SOW

/ DD1155.

2. How should these documents be attached? Format, file name, etc.

3. How should we identify where the supporting information/evidence is in the document? Is "tagging" or

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. "

1765 Exhibit 2 contains several fields that automatically update based on the data entered in other fields. Will the Government provide an updated version of this form to ensure accurate

Exhibit 2 was updated to fix the noted issues.

1767 Reference: A.1.30 Supply Chain Risk (Not a provision/clause but reads like one)

(e)I The Contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph I, in all subcontracts involving the development or delivery of any information technology whether acquired as a service or as a supply.

Question: What or where is paragraph I?

The Solicitation has been updated in an Amendment prior to Amendment 7.

1775 The RFP states "If proposing a Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) to satisfy the requirements of this contract, a copy of the agreement must be provided and be in accordance with FAR 9.6." Is there a requirement for a specific file name for this agreement?

No. There is no requirement for a specific file name for the Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) agreement.

1776 The RFP states" Identify any consultants, generative artificial intelligence, and/or subcontractors used in writing this proposal (if any) and the extent to which their services will be available in the subsequent performance of this effort." How will the response to this be evaluated by the government?

This is not an evaluation factor.

1780 A.1.13 FAIR OPPORTUNITY AND REQUESTS FOR QUOTES states "The Contractor shall not market, quote or otherwise offer for sale, any IT Solutions not listed under this contract, until the said solutions are included in the SEWP database, and available to all Government end-users."

Please confirm that this stated restriction applies only to sales within the SEWP VI contract.

Yes. The stated restriction applies only to sales within the SEWP VI contract.

1783 The Exhibit 1 REP Template indicates, in Part III: Project Description, that the REP template may not exceed a total of three (3) pages and the fillable table in Part III must not be smaller than Arial 10 point font. However, the fillable table is not conducive to entering a lot of content not to mention up to 3 pages and actually auto reduces the font to fill within the space provided. Can the government please provide a more flexible/usable Exhibit 1 REP template?

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. "

1792 Proposal Content, item 7: Please provide clarification that the items we list within Exhibit 3a will not be considered as duplication when compared to other proposals, since many proposals will utilize the same OEMs to meet the criteria.

Proposed offerings in Exhibit 3a will not be reviewed for duplication.

1793 Exhibit 3a - Category A Solutions Spreadsheet - Technical Area Tabs – Page 102: Please provide clarification of the following:

“for administration purposes to establish the initial Contract

Database of Record upon Contract Award”. Is this addressing how the SEWP PMO will stand up the SEWP VI contract, or is it related to individual Contact Holders and their SEWP VI contract

The reference is to the initial load of the SEWP Database of Record which will contain individual Contact Holders and their SEWP VI contract catalog offerings.

1795 Exhibit 3a - Category A Solutions Spreadsheet - Technical Area Tabs – Page 102: A.3.7.1(b) states that offerors must provide “A brief description is to be provided in Column ‘D’ for each Technical Areas with no more than 2500 characters, 500 words” in the “Information” tab of Exhibit 3a. Are there specific criteria

NASA is seeking in this description?

The description shall indicate the relevance of the offerings to that Technical Area.

1796 Question: A.3.7.2 Past Performance Volume – (a) Information from the Offeror – Page 106: Please clarify that a task order issued under a GWAC is considered acceptable Past Performance, for example, an order issued by DOD under our

GSA Schedule for Firm Fixed Price delivery.

Task orders issued under a GWAC are acceptable past performance references.

A.3.7.2 PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME

1797 Reference: A.3.7.2(a), (page 105) The RFP instructions for past performance state, “An Offeror may submit a single award

IDIQ/BPA at the contract/agreement level for as a single past performance reference. However, Offerors are not permitted to submit a multiple award or GWAC as an individual past performance reference.” Will the Government please clarify that individual task orders under multiple award IDIQ contracts are acceptable as individual past performance references?

Individual task orders under multiple-award IDIQ contracts are acceptable as individual past performance references.

A.3.7.2 PAST PERFORMANCE VOLUME

1798 VOL I: OFFER - In B. Proposal Content and Page Limitations Proposal Submission Table (p. 96), the RFP states a page limit of three pages for the Mandatory Experience Letter of Authorization (LOAs). However, in A.3.7.1.(b) (p. 101), the RFP states “There shall be an LOA for each different designated provider for a maximum of four (4) LOAs.” Please confirm the maximum number of LOAs to be provided. If the maximum is four LOAs, please revise the page limit for the LOAs to 4 pages.

The page limitation for LOA's is 3 pages per LOA and not 3 pages in total.

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.

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.

1801 VOL I: OFFER - In B. Proposal Content and Page Limitations Proposal Submission Table (p. 96), the RFP states a page limit of three pages for the Mandatory Experience Letter of Authorization (LOAs). Some of the OEM's from the Enclosure I has 2 or 2 pages LOA will that be acceptable?

Yes, Letter of Authorization (LOAs) are limited to 3 pages per LOA.

1807 Many federal agencies place IT help desk requirements in NAICS 517919. Please add this NAICS code to the lists for Category B and Category C in A.1.34

NAICS 517919 is no longer a valid NAICs code. See updated NAICS 519290 Web Search Portals and All other Information Services.

1814 A.3.5 page 93 and A.3.6 (B) (7) page 97: The RFP says, "Only one proposal per group for each scope category will be accepted per offeror. 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."

-and-

"In no event can an offeror compete as a prime and as part of more than one joint venture or teaming arrangement per category." Will the Government consider Category B Unrestricted and Category B Small Business to be separate categories? For example, could an offeror submit as a subcontractor on Category B Unrestricted and also as a part of a

JV on Category B Small Business?

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.

1823 For Offerors submitting a proposal as part of a Mentor Protege JV, does the Government require a Meaningful Relationship

Commitment Letter if a JV member's ISO 9001 certification is in the name of their parent company?

Yes, the government requires a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter if a Joint Venture member's ISO 9001 certification is in the name of their parent company.

1824 When primes obtain NPA teaming without SourceAmerica involvement, can they submit letters of commitment without

SourceAmerica involvement?

"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.

1836 Verification requirements include a copy of the Offeror’s official ISO 9001:2015 Certification of Conformity/Conformance. Does

SEWP require both the ISO 9001:2015 certification and the Conformity/Conformance Statement?

Only the official ISO 9001:2015 Certification of Conformity/Conformance is required for verification.

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?

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.

1846 Are we required to have a formal agreement with AbilityOne if we are proposing under NAICS 541519e footnote 18 Information Technology Value Added Resellers?

Yes, offerors proposing under NAICS 541519e footnote 18 (Information Technology Value Added Resellers) are required to have a formal agreement with an AbilityOne nonprofit if the task order involves a designated NAICS code or Product Service Code requiring

AbilityOne subcontracting.

A.1.35 AbilityOne SUBCONTRACTING 1851 Can the Government confirm we can recreate the REP Template to accommodate the required writeup or will the Government provide a Word version of the template?

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. "

1852 Can NASA confirm that if a company has a pre-existing relationship with an AbilityOne company, we can simply submit a Letter of Commitment from that company to satisfy the AbilityOne requirements?

Yes, if a company has a pre-existing relationship with an AbilityOne company, they can submit a Letter of Commitment from that company to satisfy the AbilityOne requirements for the SEWP VI contract. However, a formal agreement (Attachment H) will still be required at the task order level.

A.1.35 AbilityOne SUBCONTRACTING 1859 Page 32 states: “While all services must have a product basis for the service, there is no requirement to purchase a product with any of these services.” Regarding the NAICS 541519e 15-50% services requirement, will the 15-50% services be amortized over the life of the SEWP VI contract, or will each task order require 15-50% services?

The NAICS 541519e services requirements are amortized at the contract level and not the individual order level.

1860 When utilizing Non-Manufacturer Rule Class Waiver for NAICS 334111 to cover Technical Area 1a, it does not capture the following items. We recommended obtaining an Individual

Waiver to the NMR for the following products.

1. Desktops

2. Handhelds

3. Thin Clients

4. High speed computer systems

5. Data/Computer Center facilities and containers

6. Facility Environmental technology and accessories (power, cooling, security, fire suppression lighting and monitoring, etc.)

7. Electronic Components

8. Graphics or video accelerator cards

9. Memory module cards

10. Data acquisition board

11. Wearable computing device

12. Computer kiosk

13. Anti-fatigue mats

14. Bags and cases for ITC/AV products

15. ITC/AV Shipping Products and Supplies

16. Ergonomic desks

17. Racks, Enclosures and shelves

The items covered by the contract level NMR are defined through the SBA NMR approval process.

1861 When utilizing NMR Class Waiver 334118 for Technical Area 4a, it does not capture 3D printers. We recommended obtaining an individual waiver for these products.

Waivers were granted based on the SBA Individual Class Waiver guidelines. 3D printers were not granted a waiver.

1864 Page 49: Please clarify what this means: “At the Government’s discretion, the Government may order, at any time during a warranty period, monthly maintenance at a Discounted Monthly Extended Warranty amount in lieu of the extended

The Government reserves the right to request monthly maintenance and billing, which may change the overall cost of that maintenance.

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.

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.

1872 Please describe the post-award significance of the “primary” vs “non-primary” proposed Technical Areas. Will there be primary and non-primary Technical Areas associated with the awarded contract?

There is no post award significance to the primary and non-primary Technical Areas. Post award, a contract holder may add offerings to these minimal requirements across the entire scope of SEWP in the given category.

1875 Page 102, Technical Area Tabs states, “The POC must be a US

Citizen, and identifiable as either the provider’s federal sales representative or equivalent.” How will NASA verify the POC provided is a US citizen?

As stated, the Government reserves the right to verify the validity of each LOA. If there is a concern, the Government will use appropriate validations methods such as contacting the POC or the company.

1876 What is the post-award impact of selecting a single “designated provider” to include in proposals. At the task order level, will contract holders be allowed to offer products from providers that will not be included in our proposal?

Yes. The designated provider identified in the offerors proposal is for evaluation purposes only. Contract Holders will be permitted to offer products from other providers across the entire scope of SEWP in the given category.

1878 Will there be a review of the proposed products for technological compliance? Specifically, what criteria will be used to determine if the proposed products meet the technical

There will be no review of the proposed products for technological compliance at the time of proposal submission.

1879 Please confirm the format of the Letter of Authorization from an OEM will not be held to the formatting requirements of the

RFP (font size, etc.).

The Letter of Authorization (LOA) format is not required to adhere to the RFP font and size requirements.

1883 With the Independence Day holiday the week prior to the current due date (July 11), it can be expected that many government and industry personnel will be out of the office that week. And since proposals require input from multiple parties, including Past Performance Questionnaires from government personnel, Letters of Authorization from IT manufacturers, and initial catalog pricing from distributors, will NASA consider extending the due date to July 25 to allow more time to finalize

The Comment is out of date.

1888 80TECH24R0001 SEWP VI Final RFP/A.3.7.1 (b)/Pg 103 - Only projects with NAICS codes listed as in-scope for SEWP VI are to be submitted. - Will the government please confirm that NAICS Codes listed as in-scope is inclusive of Categories A, B, and C in total?

Please see section A.1.34 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) & NAICS CODES WITHIN SCOPE for a list of the acceptable NAICS Codes that can be used within the scope of SEWP VI for each category.

1897 "Only one proposal per group for each scope category will be accepted per offeror."

And

"Should a particular offeror wish to propose on more than one category, that offeror shall submit a complete and separate proposal for each category"

Offerors appear to only be able to submit a single proposal for one specific category (A, B, or C) but in the zip file explanation it gives an example of a single zip file with documents for different Categories being submitted.

If a small business contractor can supply services for both Category B & Category C, can they not submit a single proposal (in a single zip) addressing B & C or must they submit separate proposals for each as separate zip files, unless they are entering into a JV or CTA for one of the separate categories?

Offerors meeting the Category requirements can propose in one, two, or all three of the Categories

1898 Can a single proposal contain both the offer for a single category and a JV/CTA offer for a separate category?

Two separate proposals would need to be submitted.

1901 The RFP says that "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." Joint Ventures may also have duplication or replica in other sections/volumes of their proposal to a Joint Venture's standalone bid. Please confirm that Offerors proposing as a prime and as part of a joint venture can submit duplicate or replica content associated with the Mission Suitability Volume, specifically Technical for Categories A, B, and C (as applicable), and therefore, allowable.

Yes.

1903 Are AbilityOne Commitment letters required for all Offerors or only for those who plan to propose against the resulting orders associated with the AbilityOne NAICS codes?

The AbilityOne Commitment letter is required for Offerors who plan to propose against the resulting orders associated with the AbilityOne

NAICS codes.

A.1.35 AbilityOne SUBCONTRACTING 1907 Section A.1.23.1 lists several additional CLINS that can be added to order quotes including OVERHEAD-Z and GENADMINISTRATION-Z. Can the Government please confirm that these CLINs should only be used at the order level for ODCs and that the SEWP Catalog pricing should be inclusive of offeror indirect burdens?

Yes, these CLINs should only be used at the order level for ODCs and the SEWP Catalog pricing should be inclusive of offerors indirect burdens

1915 For the Overall Contract rating, the instructions say to "circle one". Request the Government add the option for the rater to highlight the rating to enable raters to more readily complete the form. (as allowed in the Section 5 Performance ratings)

Highlighting the response is equivalent to a circle.

1916 The RFP instructions specify Times New Roman font. REP instructions specify using Arial font. Request the Government indicate which takes precedence for the REP.

The font instructions were clarified in a previous amendment. The instructions internal to an exhibit take precedence for that exhibit.

1923 As this exhibit is being collected to verify an Offeror’s size standard and for the SEWP data repository only would you like us to complete the crosswalk for all categories or for only the category we are bidding?

Exhibit 4 should only be filled out and submitted as part of the proposal for the category(s) the offeror is proposing in.

1924 Once we login, we are not seeing “Proposal Upload” from the top navigation bar. We see Home, RFP Info, View RFP &

Comment, MY RFP Comments, All RFP Comments, Attachments, Profile, SEWP V, and Logout.

A registered Interested Party with an Organization Type of Industry at https://www.sewp.nasa.gov/sewpvi/ has access to the proposal upload tool at https://www.sewp.nasa.gov/sewp6rfp after logging in.

For any technical issues including accessing the Upload tool, send an e-mail to sewp6@sewp.nasa.gov.

1926 Should Exhibit 3a, b, and c spreadsheet be submitted as a separate attachment or which volume does it go in?

Yes, Exhibit 3a spreadsheet should be submitted as separate attachments and labeled accordingly within Volume I.

1935 Is there a template for the Meaningful Commitment Letter? No, there is no template for the Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter.

1936 Is there a template for the Mandatory Experience LOA? No, There is no template for the Mandatory Experience LOA.

1938 Does the NAICS Crosswalk need to be submitted for each category, or is one sufficient?

Each Category proposal is a separate proposal and therefore all documentation must be included within each individual proposal.

1939 Is a C-SCRM Attestation Form required for each category or is one sufficient?

Each Category proposal is a separate proposal and therefore all documentation must be included within each individual proposal. updated

1952 If we win a SEWP VI award as small business under Category B & C and then go large how does that impact future TO awards?

For Category B Contracts, a Contract Holder that has a status of Other Than Small Business will be eligible for unrestricted RFQs. For

Category C Contracts, if a Contract holder no longer holds any small business designations, their contract will be put in dormant status.

1953 What are the requirements for lateral transfer process work under Category B & C for companies that go large during the period of performance?

Contracts Laterally On-Ramped will maintain their awarded Period of Performance. A lateral/ vertical on ramp does not occur automatically for a contract, as a capability determination must be met by the contractor before the transition. Specific requirements will be provided Post-Award.

1959 In Exhibit 1 under Part III, Project Description, the government states that the completed REP template may not exceed a total of three pages. Can the government please confirm if only the project description section should be three pages or if the entire Exhibit 1 REP template, including the project identification, project reference information, and project description sections, should be three pages?

The three pages refers to the response in Exhibit 1.

1960 The Exhibit 1 REP template does not allow offerors to insert three pages of text in the project description section without the template automatically changing the font type and size. Will the government please provide a new Exhibit 1 PDF template that allows the offeror to insert three pages of text in the project description section while maintaining the requested

Arial 10 pt font?

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. "

1963 Within A.3.7.1(c) it states, "This exhibit is being collected to verify an Offeror’s size standard and for the SEWP data repository. An Offeror will be grouped within a scope category based on the size standard associated with NAICS code identified on Exhibit 4." Will the Government please go into more detail on how it will determine size status for a valid offeror, when considering every teaming scenario (e.g., Prime, Prime-1st Tier Sub, Mentor Protege JV, Joint Venture, Co-Prime

CTA (non JV)). It is not clear on size status requirements for partners for each Category. It is also not clear if meeting the

Small Business Size requirement for only one NAICS Code under Exhibit 4 for the applicable category qualifies the offeror to bid all Task Orders under the applicable category upon award.

An Offeror’s size status will be determined based on their associated NAICS codes and business sizes identified on Exhibit 4 and verified in sam.gov.. Only Contract holders within that RFQ's category that meet the NAICs code and set-aside (or unrestricted) status and any other requirements of an Issuing Agency will be eligible to see the Issuing

Agency's RFQ.

1966 What type of information is the government looking for when asking the offeror under Volume I Offer Volume to provide relevant experience as it relates to the NAICS code being used for competition? Is the government looking for a paragraph summary of the offeror's relevant experience related to the

NAICS code they will be submitting under?

Offerors in Category B and C shall provide a summary description of their relevant experience for their selected Relevant Experience Project (REP) as it relates to the selected mandatory experience technical area for that REP using Exhibit 1 .

1967 The Exhibit 1 Relevant Experience Project (REP) template states that we need to provide supporting documents. The RFP states on page 103, “No additional information is requested in support of the Exhibit 1 REP template.” Can the government please confirm if offerors must provide supporting documents for each REP? If not, can the Government please remove the language in the Exhibit 1 Relevant Experience Project (REP) template stating offerors must provide supporting documentation?

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. "

1979 Are Offerors required to submit a commercial small business subcontracting plan with their proposal in Volume I, or after award?

Offerors that are other than small businesses are required to submit a subcontracting plan with their initial proposal per FAR 52.219-9 and in accordance with the instructions in Section A.1.32.

1990 Reference: (a) TECHNICAL APPROACH (SUBFACTOR A) please define "For All Categories"

For All Categories means Category A, B and C.

1993 We noticed that Exhibit 1, Relevant Experience Project Table, notes the description can be up to three pages, but it is only a one-page PDF. Can we re-create this document with the same fields in our working Word Document, or is this specific from required to be used?

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

1994 In Exhibit 1 it requests we identify where the supporting information is in the attached documents. What supporting information do you want? In the Offer Volume 1 page 103 it notes “No additional information is requested in support of the Exhibit 1 REP template.”

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. "

1997 RFP, A.3.6 B(7); 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.

This language specifically identifies situations between prime and JV bids. Does duplication between proposals of two subsidiaries, both leveraging management approach, processes, best practices, etc.; of the same Parent organization, allow for duplication of content? For example, a recently formed entity, under a Native America Corporation, would be managed by or modeled after their Parent organization. Another subsidiary, under that Parent organization would have the same/very similar management approach. Will NASA allow for duplication of content between proposals in this situation?

Offerors leveraging shared resources of a Meaningful Relationship, such as a Parent Company/Holding Company or any one or more of its affiliates, subsidiaries, business units, joint ventures, or any other types of independent business structures, may only submit one offer from that Corporate structure. If an Offeror submits more than one proposal with any Meaningful Relationships sharing proposal evaluation elements, only the first proposal received will be considered for evaluation and all other proposals received will be rejected and not evaluated.

A.3.5 PROPOSALS REQUESTED

1998 RFP, A.3.6 B(7); 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.

The referenced language seemingly allows for reuse of content in multiple sections of the proposal, but leaves out technical approach. In some situations (for example, a Prime on Unrestricted and that same Prime as part of a Mentor Protégé JV, or two subsidiaries leveraging technical capabilities of their parent organization), there would be logical and justifiable instances of duplication of technical approach. Will NASA allow for duplication of technical approach in these type situations?

Offerors leveraging shared resources of a Meaningful Relationship, such as a Parent Company/Holding Company or any one or more of its affiliates, subsidiaries, business units, joint ventures, or any other types of independent business structures, may only submit one offer from that Corporate structure. If an Offeror submits more than one proposal with any Meaningful Relationships sharing proposal evaluation elements, only the first proposal received will be considered for evaluation and all other proposals received will be rejected and not evaluated.

2002 In section A.3.5 of the RFP, the Government states “Only one proposal per group for each scope category will be accepted per offeror.” We understand “group” to refer to the Groups A1 and

B1…