SEWP VI Batch 5 Published 12.11.24.pdf

Comment Id

Original Comment Published Response

1658 Can the Government clarify for Exhibit 3b, if the offeror is only proposing labor rates, would the Government require all labor rates that offeror has or is this only applicable for the specific relevant experience projects

Amendment 8 removed Exhibit 3b from the solicitation.

1662 "Offerors proposing as a prime and as part of a joint venture may submit the same management approach...". Can parts of the Technical Approach be similarly reused?

Yes. Amendment 8 updated the solicitation to include the Technical approach in this section.

1663 "For joint ventures the Offerors shall provide the work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself" If the Joint Venture does not any work awarded to the Joint Venture yet, is it sufficient to only provide work of individual partners? Is it sufficient to only provide work of one individual partner?

Amendment 8 updated and clarified the wording in this section.

1664 Relevant Experience Projects (REPs) are allowed to be commercial contracts or subcontracts. The RFP requires for REPs to be only the projects with NAICS codes listed as in-scope for SEWP VI. However, commercial contracts typically do not have NAICS assigned to them. How should we demonstrate this mapping for commercial contracts? For subcontracts, should we map to the prime contract NAICS code?

Amendment 8 removed the reference to NAICs code with regard to REPs.

1672 Please confirm the companies are allowed to showcase capabilities and offerings of their subcontractors/teammates in the Mission

Suitability/Technical Approach regardless of whether the prime a Small or a Other Than a Small business? And regardless of whether they are using that subcontractor Past Performance, as long as they have a document teaming arrangement?

Amendment 8 clarified the wording in A.3.7.3 MISSION SUITABILITY VOLUME in terms of teaming partners, subcontractors, and other business to business relationships.

1673 In order to allow for improved readability for the evaluators, we would propose using 10 point Arial Narrow in graphics, versus Times New Roman.

Amendment 8 clarifies that there is no requirement to use Times New Roman as long as the resulting font size is "no smaller than 10-point type

Times New Roman font".

1689 The Government has provided fillable PDF forms for some but not all required response documents. For Exhibits 1 and 2, would the Government please provide either Word versions or fillable PDF versions of the files? Or alternatively is it permissible for offerors to create Word or fillable PDF versions of these files?

Exhibits 1 and 2 were updated in Amendment 7 and 8.

1691 Other NAICS Alignments, on Category C and Category B, if a Federal project can show alignment to different NAICS then the one listed in FPDS.gov, is that allowable and what method to explain the alignment such as perhaps

Part III Project Description?

Amendment 8 clarified handling of referenced projects that do not match the NAICs code used for competition.

1692 "The offeror must provide past performance submissions as it relates to the NAICS code being used for competition." Does this mean offerors can only provide past performance that matches the NAICS under which they are bidding? Or does it mean that the past performance must match one (or more) of the NAICS codes included in Exhibit 4 that are relevant to the SEWP VI procurement?

The past performance references NAICs codes must relate to the NAICs code being used for competition. Amendment 8 clarified handling of referenced projects that do not match the NAICs code used for competition.

1712 Please provide evaluation criteria in A.4.4(b)(4) for Program Management A.3.7.3(b)(v) Section vi (page 113).

The referenced criteria was updated in Amendment 8.

1720 1) Is there a requirement for Category C regarding timeframe of projects which can be used for past performance? For example, the project would have needed to be performed within the last 5 years?

2) For category C, can we utilize any existing rates for purposes of proposing labor category rates OR are our proposed rates required to map to our existing customers?

1- Past Performance Projects must be completed or ongoing within three

(3) years of the solicitation release date.

2- Exhibit 3c was removed from the solicitation in Amendment 8.

1754 "For HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, 8a offerors (inclusive of first- tier subcontractors, if applicable): A total of 2 different REPs for each of the mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted."

Two REPs for "EACH" of the mandatory experience technical areas suggest that offerors submit 20 REPs for Category B. Should this read the same as the instructions for Category C? "A total of 2 different REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted."

The solicitation was updated on Amendment 8 to clarify that, in this example, only a total of 2 REPs are required.

1774 The RFP states "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." When proposing as a prime and as part of a joint venture within the same Category may we submit the same technical approach?"

Yes. Amendment 8 updated the solicitation to include the Technical approach in this section.

1778 (B) Proposal Content and Page Limitations (Pg 95) states "Each proposal volume shall be submitted in a single searchable PDF file with appropriate bookmarks to at least the section header. Spreadsheets shall be converted to PDF, in the most readable manner practicable, and submitted as part of a single PDF file." The RFP Cover Letter states "proposal shall include completed exhibits in MS Office Excel format with working cell formulas."

Please confirm that spreadsheets should be in MS Office Excel format with working cell formulas.

Amendment 8 clarified that Exhibits 3a, 4 and 5 should be submitted as MS Office Excel format with working cell formulas.

1788 Reference: A.3.7.1 Offer Volume (page 98 and 103 of 151) and A.3.7.2 Past Performance Volume (page 105 of 151)

Many multiple award contract vehicles utilizes an umbrella NAICS code that does not fully encompass and/or specifically identify the relevancy or breadth of the services that may be provided by a Contractor (e.g., SEAPORT-NXG, OASIS, etc., which have 541330, Exception as NAICS). Task orders issued under these umbrella NAICS may relate to the scope of work conducted in Category A, B, or C; however, will not have a NAICS Code being utilized for competition under SEWP VI.

Questions: Will the Government please consider removing the requirement for a Relevant Experience Project (REP) to have the same NAICS code being used for competition so that Task Orders issued under a multiple-award contract with an umbrella NAICS may be utilized?

Will the Government please consider removing the requirement that the offerors' past performance references must be issued under the NAICS code being used for SEWP VI so that Task Orders issued under a MAC with an umbrella NAICS may be utilized?

Amendment 8 removed the NAICs code wording with regard to REPs.

Amendment 8 clarified that if a NAICs code of a referenced contract or award, does not exist or match the NAICS code being used for competition then the Offeror should describe how the work relates to the NAICS code being used for competition.

1789 Reference: A.3.7.1 Offer Volume (page 98 and 103 of 151) and A.3.7.2 Past Performance Volume (page 105 of 151)

Many multiple award contract vehicles utilizes an umbrella NAICS code that does not fully encompass and/or specifically identify the relevancy or breadth of the services that may be provided by a Contractor (e.g., SEAPORT-NXG, OASIS, etc., which have 541330, Exception as NAICS). Task orders issued under these umbrella NAICS may relate to the scope of work conducted in Category A, B, or C; however, will not have a NAICS Code being utilized for competition under SEWP VI.

Questions: Will the Government please consider removing the requirement for a Relevant Experience Project (REP) to have the same NAICS code being used for competition so that Task Orders issued under a multiple-award contract with an umbrella NAICS may be utilized?

Will the Government please consider removing the requirement that the offerors' past performance references must be issued under the NAICS code being used for SEWP VI so that Task Orders issued under a MAC with an umbrella NAICS may be utilized?

Amendment 8 removed the NAICs code wording with regard to REPs.

Amendment 8 clarified that if a NAICs code of a referenced contract or award, does not exist or match the NAICS code being used for competition then the Offeror should describe how the work relates to the NAICS code being used for competition.

1791 A.3.7.1 OFFER VOLUME, (a) ISO 9001 and CMMI Certification - The government has stated that "Offerors may not use the ISO 9001:2015 and/or CMMI certifications of a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary within a corporate structure." This is a significant change from the Draft RFP which did not apply this restriction. Earlier in the RFP, under section A.3.7.1, the government stated that "Offerors sharing resources from a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary within a corporate structure for evaluation purposes will need to provide a

Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter, which will be treated as contractual promises and will be incorporated as an attachment to the resulting master contract." In some companies, the ISO 9001:2015 certification may be held by a part of the company that is shared by all its subsidiaries. For clarity, can the government confirm that the ISO 9001:2015 certification requirement will be met if a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter is provided that describes this relationship, even if the ISO 9001:2015 certificate is in the name of the parent company?

Amendment 8 updated the wording to allow for certifications where there is a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter.

1809 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." In 15 pages, it is impossible to describe even a miniscule fraction of our ITC/AV-based solutions, to say nothing of their innumerable architectural features. The key architectural features of, for example, a video accelerator card (listed under SOW Technical Area 1a) are:

• Graphic Accelerator Chipset or Co-processor

• Software Driver Is this (multiplied by thousands of ITC/AV-based solutions) really what you want bidders to provide? If not, please provide different instructions.

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Technical Approach to clarify it is based on the offeror's general technical capabilities with regard to the SEWP scope and Acquisition Objectives and not on specific line items.

1810 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." The architectural features of an ITC/AV-based solution are created by the manufacturer, not the value-added reseller.

Therefore, the relationship between those features and a bidder’s ability to provide the next generation of technology is not obvious. Is the intent of this requirement for bidders to explain the actual features of the products, or the features of the methodologies employed by bidders make those products available to the government?

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Technical Approach to clarify it is based on the offeror's general technical capabilities with regard to the SEWP scope and Acquisition Objectives and not on specific line items.

1811 The RFP says, "Category A: All Offerors shall complete Exhibit 3a- Category A Solutions Spreadsheet and propose technology solutions for any four (4) of the eight (8) Mandatory Technical Areas below and technical Area 9.

And

The offeror must provide a summary description of their offerings and capabilities as it relates to the scope of the proposed Category as provided in A.1.2 GSFC 52.211-91 SCOPE OF WORK (FEB 2016)." Section A.3.7.1 requires bidders to identify 4 of the 8 areas, plus Area 9 to propose.

However, section A.3.7.3 refers to the entire scope of work available under the SEWP VI contract, implying that all bidders must address all 9 technical areas in Mission Suitability Volume 3, Subfactor A. Can we assume that our discussion of A.1.2 GSFC 52.211-91 SCOPE OF WORK (FEB 2016) should be restricted to the same 4+1 areas we identified in Volume 1, and that we are not required to demonstrate expertise across the entire scope of services?

Please note that if bidders are required (or even allowed) to address all 9 scope areas in Mission Suitability Volume 3, Subfactor A, they will be compelled to create much more elaborate teaming arrangements to comply.

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Technical Approach to clarify it is based on the offeror's general technical capabilities with regard to the SEWP scope and Acquisition Objectives and not on the sample Technical Areas.

1812 The RFP says, "Category B: For Other than Small Businesses: A total of four

(4) different REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted. Each Project must have had a minimum of $30M in total value size of a single order or contract and must be described using the Exhibit 1 REP template.

And The offeror must provide a summary description of their offerings and capabilities as it relates to the scope of the proposed Category as provided in A.1.2 GSFC 52.211-91 SCOPE OF WORK (FEB 2016)." Section A.3.7.1 requires bidders to provide REPs that demonstrate experience in 4 technical areas. However, section A.3.7.3 refers to the entire scope of work available under the SEWP VI contract, implying that all bidders must address all 11 technical areas in Mission Suitability Volume 3, Subfactor A.

Can we assume that our discussion of A.1.2 GSFC 52.211-91 SCOPE OF WORK (FEB 2016) should be restricted to the same 4 areas we identified in Volume 1, and that we are not required to demonstrate expertise across the entire scope of services? Please note that if bidders are required (or even allowed) to address all 11 scope areas in Mission Suitability Volume 3 Subfactor A, they will be compelled to create much more elaborate teaming arrangements to comply.

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Technical Approach to clarify it is based on the offeror's general technical capabilities with regard to the SEWP scope and Acquisition Objectives and not on the sample Technical Areas.

1829 A reference is made to an Attachment D-Contract Deliverable Requirements. The RFP package contained an Attachment D-Contract Data Requirements. Is Attachment D-Contract Data Requirements the same as Attachment D-Contract Deliverable Requirements? If not, will you please provide guidance as to where to locate Attachment D-Contract Deliverable Requirements? Thank you.

Amendment 8 updated the reference to Attachment D to read Contract Data Requirements.

1837 Page 104: "For HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, 8a offerors (inclusive of first- tier subcontractors, if applicable): A total of 2 different

REPs for each of the mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted." To clarify, the government would like 20 REPs from HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, 8a offerors in categories B & C?

The solicitation was updated on Amendment 8 to clarify that, in this example, only a total of 2 REPs are required.

1839 In Category B, for Other than Small Businesses, the RFP requires 4 different REPs in "different mandatory experience technical areas." We ask the

Government to clarify if this means that each REP must address one and only one Mandatory Experience Area, and that each REP must a different

Mandatory Experience Area, for a total of 4 such areas. Or, may an offeror indicate that any single REP can address multiple Mandatory Experience areas, such that those four REPs must cover at least four (4) or more Mandatory Experience Areas?

Amendment 8 clarified that each REP must address one and only one Mandatory Experience Area, and that each REP must address a different

Mandatory Experience Area, for a total of 4 such areas for OTSBs.

1841 Page 103 "Offerors proposing Categories B and/or C shall complete Exhibit 3b- Category B Solutions Spreadsheet and Exhibit C Solutions

Spreadsheet."....."The information including pricing in these spreadsheets will not be reviewed or evaluated and will only be utilized to establish the initial Contract Database of Record upon Contract award."

If this is not going to be reviewed OR evaluated, can it be submitted post award?

Amendment 8 removed Exhibit 3b and 3c from the solicitation.

1853 Section A.3.7.1, page 103-104 The requirements for Small Businesses state “A total of three (3) different

REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted.” The requirements for HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, and 8a offerors state “A total of 2 different REPs for each of the mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted.” This requirement is more onerous for socially/economically disadvantaged small businesses, as they would need to provide a total of 20 REPs as-written.

Was this NASA’s intent, or will the wording be changed to “A total of 2 different REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted?” This wording would be commensurate with the Category C requirement

The solicitation was updated on Amendment 8 to clarify that, in this example, only a total of 2 REPs are required.

1880 Section A.1.51 on Page 76: For offerors whose environmental impact is primarily due to powering their office building, how will the Commitment to Sustainability impact the overall confidence rating? What criteria is being used to evaluate the Commitment to Sustainability confidence level?

Amendment 8 updated the Commitment to Sustainability section.

1892 The RFP states "For joint ventures the Offerors shall provide the work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself." Please confirm that mandatory experience and past performance can be held by either JV partner or the joint venture itself by changing the requirement to read "For joint ventures the Offerors may provide the work done and qualifications held individually by either partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself."

This was updated in amendment 08.

1893 The RFP states "For joint ventures, the Offerors shall provide the work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself." It is not clear if a REP is required from each JV partner and the JV (as implied by the use of shall), or whether offers may submit REP from any either of the JV partners or the

JV. If a REP from all is required, it would require 3 REPs while SDVOSBs are only allowed to submit 2. Request the government clarify that REPs may come from either JV partner or the JV itself.

Amendment 8 updated the wording regarding JVs.

1905 Page 102 of the RFP states, “The SEWP Catalog Price in column ‘G’ is not to be inclusive of any associated costs for shipping or payment methods.”

However, page 55 of the RFP says that the DELIVERY-Z CLIN is only for use of OCONUS and expedited delivery. Can the Government confirm that

DELIVERY Z-CLIN can be used for standard delivery charges of items ordered across Categories A, B and C? If not, where can the offeror place standard delivery charges?

Amendment 8 removed the referenced wording in A.3.7.1 OFFER VOLUME.

Section A.1.29 describes when and how the Delivery-Z CLIN is utilized.

1906 Page 102 of the RFP states, “The SEWP Catalog Price in column ‘G’ is not to be inclusive of any associated costs for shipping or payment methods.”

However, page 55 of the RFP says that the DELIVERY-Z CLIN is only for use of OCONUS and expedited delivery. Can the Government confirm that

DELIVERY Z-CLIN can be used for standard delivery charges of items ordered across Categories A, B and C? If not, where can the offeror place standard delivery charges?

Amendment 8 removed the referenced wording in A.3.7.1 OFFER VOLUME.

Section A.1.29 describes when and how the Delivery-Z CLIN is utilized.

1919 The RFP instructions say "When page limitations apply to a volume or specific section, a page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8-1/2" x 11 ", with at least one-inch margins on all sides, using not smaller than 12- point type

Times New Roman font inclusive of headers, footers, and any graphic captions." ..."The margins may contain headers and footers but shall not contain any proposal content to be evaluated." Request the Government allow 10pt font in headers and footers as they are outside of the evaluated content.

Amendment 8 was updated to allow for a 10 point font in headers and footers.

1941 Can you confirm you want all items, even Excel worksheets like the solutions spreadsheet submitted as PDFs?

Amendment 8 removed the referenced wording in A.3.7.1 OFFER VOLUME.

Section A.1.29 describes when and how the Delivery-Z CLIN is utilized.

1945 Page. 100. A.3.7.1 OFFER VOLUME, (a) ISO 9001 and CMMI Certification states “Offerors may not use the ISO 9001:2015 and/or CMMI certifications of a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, and/or Subsidiary within a corporate structure.”

Due to the reality of how professional services corporations are structured, this requirement, as written, unduly restricts competition, and we strongly urge NASA to remove it. Specifically, professional services corporations may be organized in many different ways based on their corporate strategy, history, and value proposition to the government. As a result, companies often maintain certifications like ISO 9001 Quality Management System at the parent company level so that its quality processes apply to all its subsidiaries. On the other hand, the more IT-specific CMMI certification may reside with the subsidiary of that parent that focuses on IT solutions—resulting in different corporate entity names on the ISO 9001 and CMMI certificates. The current RFP requirement rules out many proven, large-scale, multi-disciplinary companies that provide a unique value proposition to the government via the ability to combine large-scale IT solution capabilities with mission expertise in areas like health, defense, environment, international development, etc. The current RFP requirement arbitrarily dictates a specific corporate structure and quality management approach as acceptable while disqualifying all others. The inclusion of this requirement is unnecessary for NASA to meet its goals and results in the

RFP needlessly limiting competition by disqualifying a large number of companies and artificially reducing the SEWP vendor pool.

Amendment 8 updated the wording to allow for certificates to be used from entities with a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter.

1946 Amendment 8 updated the wording to allow for certificates to be used from entities with a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter.

Amendment 8 updated the wording to allow for certificates to be used from entities with a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter.

1947 The offeror must provide a summary description of their offerings and capabilities as it relates to the scope of the proposed Category as provided in A.1.2 GSFC 52.211-91 SCOPE OF WORK (FEB 2016). The summary shall provide detail as to how the offeror will support the four Acquisition Objectives including... please point the offeror to where we can find the

"four Acquisition Objectives?"

The Acquisition Objectives are provided in Attachment A-SEWP Scope, Section A.1. ACQUISITION OBJECTIVES.

1964 Will the government please provide definitions or criteria for how it intends to evaluate effectiveness, reasonableness, and efficiency?

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Technical Approach evaluation factor.

1969 For Category B 8(a), the RFP states that offerors must submit two different REPs for each mandatory experience technical area. Can the government please confirm that offerors should only submit 2 REPs, each representing a different mandatory experience technical area?

The solicitation was updated on Amendment 8 to clarify that, in this example, only a total of 2 REPs are required.

1981 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).

The information including pricing in these spreadsheets will not be reviewed or evaluated and will only be utilized to establish the initial

Contract Database of Record upon Contract award.

Is there a minimum required number of Labor Categories to be submitted with the Offeror's proposal submission, or are Offerors permitted to use their discretion in filling out Exhibit 3b?

Amendment 8 removed Exhibit 3b and 3c from the solicitation.

1982 In keeping with the GAO’s decision in MetroStar Systems, Inc., B-416377.5;

B-416377.8 (April 2, 2020), please confirm that bidder may use a parent company ISO 9001 certification that expressly identifies the bidder and applies to the bidder’s quality management system at the time of proposal submission.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-416377.5.pdf

Amendment 8 updated the wording to allow for certificates to be used from entities with a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter.

1983 Can you confirm that the information submitted by Offerors in Exhibit 3b will be immediately available within their catalog upon contract award?

Amendment 8 removed Exhibit 3b from the solicitation.

2008 Under A.3.6.B(7) in the RFP, the Government stated that Offerors proposing as a Prime and as part of a joint venture “may submit the same management approach, certifications, and references for past performance and mandatory experience,” but does not reference the technical approach. Can we assume the absence of “technical approach” is this section of the RFP is an inadvertent omission that the Government will correct since small businesses may need to use the capabilities of a JV or CTA to show their mission suitability?

Yes. Amendment 8 updated the solicitation to include the Technical approach in this section.

2025 For the Phase 3 Mission Suitability volume, we understand it will be evaluated on the "degree of confidence" in the offeror's ability to perform the SEWP VI contract. As a potential new offeror to the SEWP program, it would be extremely valuable if NASA could provide additional insight into the specific factors and evidence that would demonstrate a "high degree of confidence." Providing these additional objective details will help NASA attract a new set of offerors to consider the SEWP contract, especially given that the new service areas of Categories B and C have been added in the SEWP VI solicitation.

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Technical Approach evaluation factor.

2033 In reference to Section A.3.7.1, page 98, do the REPs need to be awarded under one of the NAICS code listed in Exhibit 4 in order for the REP to be deemed relevant to this solicitation?

Amendment 8 removed the NAICs code wording with regard to REPs

2038 In reference to Section A.3.7.1B, page 103, for Categories B and C, the RFP states that "A REP provided by an Offeror shall meet the mandatory experience technical area for the category being proposed on Exhibit 1 - Relevant Experience Project Table." Can offerors include Exhibit 1 as part of

Volume I, rather than as an exhibit to our proposal? Additionally, could offerors provide a response without including the exhibit instructions?"

The solicitation was updated in Amendment 8 to indicate that Exhibit 1 is a separate attachment that is part of Volume I. The Instruction page is not included in Exhibit 1 3 page limit count.

2040 The RFP states, "Offerors proposing to Category B and/or Category C shall complete Exhibit 3b - Category B Solutions Spreadsheet and Exhibit 3c - Category C Solutions Spreadsheet." Could the government please clarify that offerors proposing only to Category B should complete only Exhibit 3b - Category B Solutions Spreadsheet and not Exhibit 3c - Category C Solutions

Spreadsheet? Conversely, offerors proposing only to Category C should complete only Exhibit 3c - Category C Solutions Spreadsheet and not Exhibit

3b - Category B Solutions Spreadsheet.

Amendment 8 removed Exhibit 3b and 3c from the solicitation.

2062 In reference to Section A.3.6, The solicitation requires the offerors to “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).” This is extremely broad and difficult to interpret and open to protest. For example, clauses in section 9.104-1 require offerors to have sufficient financial resources, organization, experience, accounting and operating controls, integrity, etc.

The range of possible responses could range from “we have nothing else to report” to pages and pages of operating controls, accounting, financial resources, etc. Please clarify this requirement.

The wording with regard to 9.104 was updated in Amendment 8.

2072 In A.3.7.1 and A.3.7.3 it states “Category A: All Offerors shall complete Exhibit 3a- Category A Solutions Spreadsheet and propose technology solutions for any four (4) of the eight (8) Mandatory Technical Areas below and technical Area 9.

The offeror must provide a summary description of their offerings and capabilities as it relates to the scope of the proposed Category as provided in A.1.2 GSFC 52.211-91 SCOPE OF WORK (FEB 2016).”

Question: The solicitation has a discrepancy between Sections A.3.7.1 and A.3.7.3 regarding the required scope, leading to confusion around demonstrating expertise across the 9 areas for this volume.

For the Mission Suitability Technical Approach (Subfactor A) in Volume 3, please clarify whether we are required to address all 9 technical areas specified in the Scope of Work, or if they can limit their narrative to only the 4 areas plus Area 9 in the Offer Volume Mandatory

Experience/Offerings section (per Section A.3.7.1 instructions).

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Technical Approach to clarify it is based on the offeror's general technical capabilities with regard to the SEWP scope and Acquisition Objectives and not on the sample Technical Areas.

2074 In A.3.7.1 and A.3.7.3 it states “Category B: For Other than Small Businesses:

A total of four (4) different REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted. Each Project must have had a minimum of $30M in total value size of a single order or contract and must be described using the Exhibit 1 REP template.

The offeror must provide a summary description of their offerings and capabilities as it relates to the scope of the proposed Category as provided in A.1.2 GSFC 52.211-91 SCOPE OF WORK (FEB 2016).”

Question: The solicitation has a discrepancy between Sections A.3.7.1 and A.3.7.3 regarding the required scope, leading to confusion around demonstrating expertise across all 11 areas for this volume.

For the Mission Suitability Technical Approach (Subfactor A) in Volume 3, please clarify whether we are required to address all 11 technical areas specified in the Scope of Work, or if we can limit their narrative to only the 4 technical areas that correspond with the REPs they submitted in the Offer

Volume Mandatory Experience/Offerings section (per Section A.3.7.1 instructions).

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Technical Approach to clarify it is based on the offeror's general technical capabilities with regard to the SEWP scope and Acquisition Objectives and not on the sample Technical Areas.

2089 NAICS 334515 is listed as Battery testers, electrical, manufacturing on page 62 as an acceptable NAICS, but 334515 is Instrument Manufacturing for

Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals. What is the intended applicable NAICS?

The wording for NAICs 334515 was updated in amendment 8.

2111 Will the government confirm if these are all the requirements offerors need to comply with in response to FAR 9.104?

To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must -- (a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (see 9.104-3 (a)); (b) Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments; (c) Have a satisfactory performance record (see 9.104-3(b) and Subpart 42.15). A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in 9.104-2; (d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; (e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors). (See 9.104-3 (a).) (f) Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them (see 9.104-3(a)); and (g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations

The wording with regard to 9.104 was updated in Amendment 8.

2117 Page 104, Category C states, "For HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, 8a, offerors (inclusive of first- tier subcontractors, if applicable):

A total of 2 different REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted.” Are HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, 8a offerors required to show experience in all sub-areas?

The solicitation was updated on Amendment 8 to clarify that, in this example, only a total of 2 REPs are required.

2121 In the table, what does the asterisk (*) indicate for each category? Amendment 8 removed the asterisks.

2128 Category C Solutions Spreadsheet: Does NASA have a specific taxonomy for the CLIN numbers?

Exhibit 3b and 3c were removed from the solicitation in Amendment 8.

2139 If a company qualifies as an SB, SDVOSB, HUBZone, etc., under a specific NAIC's code, is that the only work you can bid on?

Are we required to submit relevant past performance for each NAICS code we are proposing on?

Once awarded a contract can we compete for any work under any NAICS we meet the size standard for? (at the task order level)

If we are only proposing to provide services not hardware or software in Category C are we required to complete Exhibit 3 for UNSPSC codes?

Post award, contract holders will be eligible to bid on any requirements in their category for which they meet the NAICs and business size at the task order level, regardless of the NAICs code used for competition at the contract level.

Relevant Past Performance should only be submitted as it relates to the one NAICS code being used for competition.

A Contract Holder can compete for any work for which they meet the NAICS and size standard.

Exhibit 3c was removed from the solicitation in Amendment 8.

2183 On page 103 of the RFP it states that “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). The information including pricing in these spreadsheets will not be reviewed or evaluated and will only be utilized to establish the initial Contract Database of Record upon Contract award”.

The spreadsheet lists CLINs, OEM Service Providers, Par Numbers, description, UNSPSC Code, price and labor categories.

Are Offerors to assign CLINs to labor categories; provide position descriptions; and also provide pricing for the life of the vehicle?

Could the Government please provide a sample of this exhibit including where labor categories and multi-year rates would be entered for Offerors that are proposing services only?

Amendment 8 removed Exhibit 3b and 3c from the solicitation.

2198 A.3.7.2 states in Vol 2, PP Volume “The offeror must provide past performance submissions as it relates to the NAICS code being used for competition.” Does this mean that the past performance submissions must be the exact same as the overarching Category NAICS, or can the past performance relate to any approved NAICS for the Category (p61-62)?

Amendment 8 clarified that if a NAICs code of a referenced contract or award, does not exist or match the NAICS code being used for competition then the Offeror should describe how the work relates to the NAICS code being used for competition.

2296 "Spreadsheets shall also be converted to PDF, in the most readable manner practicable, and submitted as part of a single PDF file."

Does this requirement to convert Excel documents into PDF format apply to Exhibit 3a-c?

Amendment 8 clarified that Exhibits 3a, 4 and 5 should be submitted as MS Office Excel format with working cell formulas.

2298 Is there a minimum period of performance for the projects being submitted as REPs in volume 1? (i.e. minimum 1 year of performance)

A 6 month minimum period of performance was added in Amendment 8.

2304 A.3.7.2 states “The offeror must provide past performance submissions as it relates to the NAICS code being used for competition.” A.3.7.2 (a) states “Offerors identified as a Small Business in Category B and C shall provide past performance references showcasing relevant work in at least three (3) content representative areas for content to be rated relevant (pertinent).”

Requiring the offeror to provide past performance references that all have the same NAICS code doesn’t provide the flexibility required to demonstrate past performance in three different content representative areas. Would you please consider removing the requirement that all past performance references must relate to the single NAICS code being used for competition?

No. The solicitation will remain as stated in Amendment 8.

2310 RFP Section 3.7.1, page 98 and103. The RFP states that vendors may only submit relevant experience in the designated NAICS. Several contracts in

NAICS outside this list often contain enterprise-wide IT solutions in support of the primary contract NAICS. Previous GWACs have allowed contractors to cite that relevant experience with a customer sign-off verifying the accuracy of the work description. Would the government consider allowing the REP form customer sign-off to consider work outside of the listed NAICS? For example, many contracts in 541611 contain large amounts of enterprise IT work vendors can otherwise not reference for SEWP.

We respectfully request that the government provide a customer sign-off options for REPs in lieu of NAICS mapping if necessary. This ability is particularly important to emerging large businesses, are are likely to have otherwise qualifying programs in an unlisted NAICS, with fewer options that meet both the $30M and NAICS thresholds.

Amendment 8 removed the reference to NAICs code with regard to REPs.

2314 Pg 2 of the Final RFP cover letter indicates that Excel files should be submitted in Microsoft Excel format with working cell formulas, but pg 95 of the RFP indicated that each proposal volume shall be submitted in a single, searchable Adobe PDF document. Please confirm which approach the Government prefers.

Amendment 8 clarified that Exhibits 3a, 4 and 5 should be submitted as MS Office Excel format with working cell formulas.

2327 As stated on Page 103 for Category B & C, offerors are only allowed to submit REPs as per the instruction "Only projects with NAICS codes listed as in-scope for SEWP VI are to be submitted." Some other IDIQs, just as SEWP is structured, use an over-arching NAICS for administrative purposes but task orders can have different PSC codes, that are highly relevant to the SEWP Scope. Please consider highly relevant PSC codes as in-scope for

SEWP VI (e.g. PSC Code R425 - Support - Professional:Engineering/Technical). This was a similar approach the recently solicited OASIS contract vehicle used when determining relevancy of projects which seems like a fair and reasonable approach.

Amendment 8 removed the reference to NAICs code with regard to REPs.

2340 For a SB in Category C - It says we should submit - "A total of three (3) different REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted."

Can I do the following:

1. REP1 with sub-areas - Network Services, Innovation Services, Information and Data Analytics Services (IDAs), IT Operations and

Maintenance / Help Desk/Call Center Support

2. REP2 with sub-areas - Cybersecurity Services, Innovation Services

3. REP3 with sub-areas - Application Services/Software Development, IT Operations and Maintenance / Help Desk/Call Center Support

Amendment 8 clarified that each REP must address one and only one Mandatory Experience Area, and that each REP must address a different

Mandatory Experience Area, for a total of 3 such areas for small businesses in Category C. Therefore REP1 must be relevant for one area; REP2 must be relevant for a second area and REP3 must be relevant for a third area.

2343 For the Mission Suitability Volume 3, Subfactor A - For Category B and C, are we required to address all the 10 or 11 Technical areas mentioned in A.3.7.3 ? Can we restrict our response to the Technical Areas we chose to do the REPs for? For e.g. for SB if we respond to 3 Technical areas from the A.3.7.3, then in Volume 3 Subfactor A - can we write the technical approach for those 3 technical areas or we have to write for all the 10 or 11 areas mentioned in A.3.7.3 Scope of service?

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Technical Approach to clarify it is based on the offeror's general technical capabilities with regard to the SEWP scope and Acquisition Objectives and not on the sample Technical Areas.

2364 If we are a WOSB and 8a business, are we required to submit a total of 25 REPs (2 REPs for each technical areas plus 3 REPs for small business criteria)

The solicitation was updated on Amendment 8 to clarify that, in this example, only a total of 2 REPs are required.

2385 What does the "*" mean by the Category A, B or C for Volume III in the Proposal Component Column in the Proposal Submission Table?

Amendment 8 removed the asterisks.

2394 Will the government provide a detailed explanation of completing Exhibit 3c - Category C Solutions Spreadsheet that is required to be completed and included by the offeror?

Exhibit 3b and 3c were removed from the solicitation in Amendment 8.

2405 During the industry day on June 4th, the government demonstrated the process of submitting a proposal on the NASA portal and was selecting various offeror information like NAICS Code, does all the offeror's Category B Past Peformance INFORMATION FROM THE OFFEROR must all have the same NAICS Code that was entered on the proposal submission portal? For example, all being the NAICS Code 541512.

Amendment 8 clarified that the NAICS code of the references must relate to the NAICs code being used for competition, which is selected by the

Offeror and may be other than 541512. A referenced contract may have a different or non-existent NAICs code from the one being used for competition, in which case the Offeror should describe how the work relates to the NAICS code being used for competition.

2406 During the industry day on June 4th, the government demonstrated the process of submitting a proposal on the NASA portal and was selecting various offeror information like NAICS Code, does all the offeror's Category C Past Peformance INFORMATION FROM THE OFFEROR must all have the same NAICS Code that was entered on the proposal submission portal? For example, all being the NAICS Code 541512.

Amendment 8 clarified that the NAICS code of the references must relate to the NAICs code being used for competition, which is selected by the

Offeror and may be other than 541512. A referenced contract may have a different or non-existent NAICs code from the one being used for competition, in which case the Offeror should describe how the work relates to the NAICS code being used for competition.

2408 For Category C, does all the 3 PPQs must have a NAICS Code of 541512? Amendment 8 clarified that the NAICS code of the references must relate to the NAICs code being used for competition, which is selected by the Offeror and may be other than 541512. if a NAICs code of a referenced contract or award, does not exist or match the NAICS code being used for competition then the Offeror should describe how the work relates to the

NAICS code being used for competition.

2413 During the industry day on June 4th, the government demonstrated the process of submitting a proposal on the NASA portal and was selecting various offeror information like NAICS Code, does all the offeror's Category

B PPQs must all have the same NAICS Code that was entered on the proposal submission portal? For example, all being the NAICS Code

541512.

Amendment 8 clarified that the NAICS code of the references must relate to the NAICs code being used for competition. if a NAICs code of a referenced contract or award, does not exist or match the NAICS code being used for competition then the Offeror should describe how the work relates to the NAICS code being used for competition.

2416 Section A.4.2- Are projects that are completed under a Collaborative Agreement viable projects for mandatory Experience even if they do not have NAICS codes? In the NASA SEWP webinar, it was stated that for commercial projects the offeror must determine what NAICS best applies.

Can applying a NAICS also apply for contracts under a collaborative agreement since they are not assigned a NAICS?

Comment is no longer relevant - Amendment 8 removed the reference to NAICs code with regard to REPs.

2418 Reference the Exhibit 3b - Category B Solutions Spreadsheet/Exhibit 3c - Category solutions spreadsheet. Please provide additional instructions on how to fill this out, with column-specific instructions. For example, should these be CLINs from the contracts used as REPs or just CLINs from any prior work performed by the offeror?

Amendment 8 removed Exhibit 3b from the solicitation.

2419 Reference the Exhibit 3b - Category B Solutions Spreadsheet/Exhibit 3c - Category solutions spreadsheet. Is this intended to be our price list? If so, how should offerors show discounts as described in A.1.15?

Amendment 8 removed Exhibit 3b from the solicitation.

2420 Reference Exhibit 3b - Category B Solutions Spreadsheet/Exhibit 3c - Category solutions spreadsheet. Is there a minimum and maximum number of CLINs and LCATS required?

Amendment 8 removed Exhibit 3b from the solicitation.

2421 Reference Exhibit 3b - Category B Solutions Spreadsheet/Exhibit 3c - Category solutions spreadsheet. Is there substantiation required for each CLIN/LCAT, similar to GSA MAS schedules that require invoices to support the LCATs and price catalog?

Amendment 8 removed Exhibit 3b from the solicitation.

2422 Reference A.3.7.3 (b) MANAGEMENT APPROACH (SUBFACTOR B), (4), iii, Page 113. Will there be a penalty or will the Government score offerors as higher risk of unsuccessful performance if a Prime offeror has no history of OCONUS work? Can this requirement please be removed for SB offerors?

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Management Approach evaluation factor.

2459 A.3.7.3 (a) TECHNICAL APPROACH (SUBFACTOR a) Page 111: Please confirm whether that all offerors, including SB offerors, will have to write a response demonstrating capability (which requires available resources and prior experience) in all scope areas as described in A.1.2 for the Category in which they are proposing? This is a challenge for many SBs and will require teaming for the sake of the proposal compliance versus teaming that will result in meaningful delivery for NASA and SEWP VI customers. This also does not make sense, given that the REPs and Past Performance do not require that an offeror meet ALL Content Representative Areas/Mandatory Experience Areas.

Amendment 8 updated the instructions for the Technical Approach to clarify it is based on the offeror's general technical capabilities with regard to the SEWP scope and Acquisition Objectives and not on the sample Technical Areas.

2461 A.3.7.3 (b) MANAGEMENT APPROACH (SUBFACTOR B), (2) Page 112: If a small business prime offeror cannot answer "yes" to all questions listed in this section, will they be automatically assessed as high risk and/or low confidence?

The sustainability section was updated in Amendment 8 to remove the questions.