SEWP VI Batch 9 Published 1.17.25.pdf

sewp6_rfp_daily_questions

Question Id Question Answer 6803 Offerors are instructed to provide Exhibit 5 back to the Government as an Excel file;

however, Exhibit 5 has a place for Offerors to provide a signature (cell B18) asserting the information in Exhibit 5 is accurate. Can the Government confirm that Offerors can provide an image of the Signer’s signature in cell B18 to comply with the requirement for returning Exhibit 5 as an Excel file and having it signed?

This has been corrected in Amendment 11.

6804 Can the Government confirm that provision of the most recent CPAR information as part of recent customer evaluations of previous performance would fall under Item 9 and be excluded from page limitation?

The referenced "recent customer evaluations of previous performance" has been removed in Amendment 11.

6805 The response to Question #4135 confirms that “…”recent customer evaluations of past performance" in A.3.6(B) #9, page 107, also include CPARS?. Does the government require copies of the CPARS for the specific projects identified in the Past Performance Volume and if so can those be provided as separate PDF files within

Volume II?

The referenced "recent customer evaluations of previous performance" has been removed in Amendment 11.

6806 Section A.3.7.2(a) states “For joint ventures, the Offerors shall provide past performance for the work done and qualifications held either individually by a partner to the joint venture, the work done by the joint venture itself, or any combination of both.” Later in the same section when referring to SB Category B it states “For offerors submitting as Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, contracts may be submitted from the Protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture itself.” The response to Question #3766 “Does a protege JV member have to provide a past performance? “

- Answer: “No”. If the Offeror is an SB MPJV are we required to submit only past performance from the protégé or work done by the joint venture itself or can we submit past performance from the mentor?

For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, A Mentor may provide Past Performance References and REPs in accordance with the RFP. Amendment 11 provides this clarification.

6813 There appears to be a contradiction in the requirements for both REPs and Past Performance withing an SBA approved Mentor-Protégé JV. For example, the response to Q#3089 states” The mentor cannot submit REPs or Past Performance references.”

Q#6046 asks “Is the protégé of a mentor-protégé joint venture required to submit any REP or PP references? “with a response of “No". Will the government clarify within the RFP that a REP and Past Performance can come from either the mentor or protégé?

For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, A Mentor may provide Past Performance References and REPs in accordance with the RFP. Amendment 11 provides this clarification.

6817 We had a contract that was awarded on 9/30/2021 and we were planning on using that Past Perforrmance for our original submission back when SEWP VI was due in March 2024, that would have been within the 3 year widow for Past Performance, since there have been many delays to submission, can we still use the past performance since the delays have caused the timeline to go over the 3 year window for Past Performance

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6819 Section A.3.7.2(a) states “For joint ventures, the Offerors shall provide past performance for the work done and qualifications held either individually by a partner to the joint venture, the work done by the joint venture itself, or any combination of both.” Later in the same section when referring to SB Category B it states “For offerors submitting as Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, contracts may be submitted from the Protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture itself.” The response to Question #3766 “Does a protege JV member have to provide a past performance? “

- Answer: “No”. If the Offeror is an SB MPJV is it permissible to submit all Past Performance from the mentor?

For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, A Mentor may provide Past Performance References and REPs in accordance with the RFP. Amendment 11 provides this clarification.

6821 Q&A Batch 6: The answer to Q3089 states that “The mentor cannot submit REPs or Past Performance references.” However, Section A.3.7.1 (c ) paragraph “For Category

B and C:” says that “For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, one of the REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted from the Protégé or the Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture itself.” To clarify, doesn’t this mean that the mentor is able to submit at least 1 REP?

For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, A Mentor may provide Past Performance References and REPs in accordance with the RFP. Amendment 11 provides this clarification.

6824 SF1449: Are offerors required to complete Block 10 to specify our NAICS code for which we are bidding for a master contract and our business size? If so, please include detailed instructions.

The Offeror shall include in Block 17a of the SF1449 the NAICS Code the Offeror is proposing using for competition at the master contract level. Amendment 11 reflects this clarification.

6826 Section A.1.34 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) &

NAICS CODES WITHIN SCOPE.

Q&A #4495 asks "Would Government please confirm that the AbilityOne subcontracting is not required under Category A NAICS 541519(e)?".

NASA Response was: "AbilityOne subcontracting is not required under Category A NAICS 541519(e)."

Q&A #2199 asks: "For the NAICS codes marked with two asterisks (**) is unclear if the footnote of one asterisk (*) also applies to those. Does 541519e and 513210 require the use of Ability One as subcontractor?".

NASA Response was: "No, 541519e and 513210 does not require the use of Ability One

NPA as subcontractors.".

Q&A #6199 asks: "On page 61, Section A.1.34 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) & NAICS CODES WITHIN SCOPE

lists NAICS code 541519 as one that has a mandatory requirement to subcontract with

AbilityOne. Can the government confirm whether small businesses submitting a Category A response using NAICS code 541519e have to use AbilityOne as a subcontractor?

NASA Response was: "Small Businesses submitting a Category A response using NAICS

Code 541519e have a mandatory requirement to utilize AbilityOne non-profit organizations as subcontractors.

Question #1846 asks: "Are we required to have a formal agreement with AbilityOne if we are proposing under NAICS 541519e footnote 18 Information Technology Value

Added Resellers?"

NASA Response was: "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"

Yes, NAICs 541519e footnote 18 is a required AbilityOne NAICs code.

6827 As a follow up to question # 3089, in which the Government stated “The mentor cannot submit REPs and Past Performance references” SBA regulations dictate that when evaluating a mentor - protégé joint venture’s experience, capabilities, and past performance an agency “may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally.”

The joint venture as a whole must “demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract.” Will the Government please revise the RFP to allow REPs and Past Performance references from both mentors and protégés?

For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, A Mentor may provide Past Performance References and REPs in accordance with the RFP. Amendment 11 provides this clarification.

6828 Many AbilityOne NPAs do not want to sign an agreement until a Contract Holder has received an award. This avoids unnecessary paperwork for the NPA. How many days from contract award will the contract holder have to establish a formal agreement with an NPA or NPAs as it will not be possible to have an agreement ready upon award? "Upon award, the SEWP Contract Holder shall have an established formal agreement with AbilityOne Non-Profit Agency (NPA)/Non-Profit Agencies NPAs as proof of commitment to meeting the mandatory requirement to utilize non-profit organizations, which will be incorporated into the contract as Attachment H."

Contract Holders should establish a formal agreement with AbilityOne Non-Profit Agency (NPA)/Non-Profit Agencies NPAs within 60 days of Contract Award.

6829 The RFP requires OTSB firms submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. AbilityOne NPAs are not necessarily small businesses. However, on page 66 of the RFP, the

AbilityOne Subcontracting requirement states "The subcontracting plan from Other Than Small Businesses (OTSBs) shall include the goals of the AbilityOne NPAs and their associated NAICS codes. Contract holders shall allocate a target goal of at least 2% of the overall value of all task orders placed under AbilityOne NAICS codes." Should the RFP be amended to require a Subcontracting Plan vs. a Small Business Subcontracting Plan? If not, can the government please identify an alternative location for OTSB to answer this goal?

The referenced sentence was removed in Amendment 11.

6833 Where do we acknowledge amendments, on SF1449 or someplace else? If SF1449, what box?

"Failure to provide a signed SF 1449 and acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments will result in the Offeror being eliminated from competition."

The solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF 30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

6836 Attachment D states that a DEIA plan is required within 30 days of contract award. It is unclear how NASA intends to utilize the DEIA plan in conjunction with

ATTACHMENT_B-PROGRAM_PERFORMANCE to determine that a contractor should be off-ramped on page 10 of Attachment B due to non-compliance with contract deliverables."Contract holders will also be considered for Off-Ramp if one of the following occur: The Contract Holder fails to comply with deliverables as defined in the

SEWP contracts". Is a Contractor compliant simply because they submitted a DEIA plan or are there qualitative measures that NASA intends to enforce about the content and approach of the plan, which may lead to an off-ramp decision?

The due date was changed in Amendment 11 to within 6 months of Contract award.

The requirement is to submit a DEIA plan that addresses the requested information.

Failure to provide a compliant report that addresses the requested information will result in program performance actions as described in A.1.39 CONTRACT PROGRAM

PERFORMANCE.

6842 References: RFP A.3.7.3 Mission Suitability Volume, (a) Technical Approach (Subfactor A) and Attachment A SOW A.2. SCOPE

Question: Starting with Amendment 8, NASA has emphasized that Volume 3, Subfactor A shall focus on a bidder’s overall capabilities with respect to A.2 Scope of

Attachment A SOW rather than the Technical Areas. However, particularly with Category C, the SOW says, “Category C, will be focused on ITC/AV mission-based services that provide a full range of technology services inclusive of custom computer programming services, telecommunication services including network operations, etc.” In effect, all of the technical areas are brought right back in. Please change

“inclusive of” to “such as” to clarify that these are merely examples and not to be prioritized in the response.

Amendment 11 clarifies the wording in Attachment A.

6843 The Q&A responses state that Block 10, on the SF 1449 should be updated with the prime NAICS being used for all Categories being pursued and submitted but this was not updated in the RFP released with the Amendment. However, in Block 10 of the SF 1449s is it acceptable to mark the socioeconomic category be used vice the current

Small Business block which is currently marked?

The Offeror shall include in Block 17a of the SF1449 the NAICS Code the Offeror is proposing using for competition at the master contract level. Amendment 11 reflects this clarification.

6846 REP 3 Year Age Recency as of SEWP RFP Release vs SEWP Bid Submission. The recent change of this in Amendment 10 from “projects that are completed or ongoing within three (3) years of the solicitation release date” now to “projects that are completed or ongoing within three (3) years of the proposal due date” is having a major impact on bids. Project Experience up to five (5) years old for recency is often typical on IDIQs and so we therefore suggest NASA consider reverting this back to “solicitation release date”. Bidders have done extensive work based on the previous RFP language age of

REPs based on “solicitation release date” and this change has major impacts on recency of bidder REPs.

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6847 Past Performance Recency Age as of SEWP RFP Release vs SEWP Bid Submission. The recent change of this in Amendment 10 from “performance occurring within the last three years of the solicitation release date” now to “performance occurring within the last three years of the proposal due date” is having a major impact on bids. Past

Performance experience up to five (5) years old for recency is often typical on IDIQs and so we therefore suggest NASA consider reverting this back to “solicitation release date”. Bidders have done extensive work based on the previous RFP language age of Past Performance experience based on “solicitation release date” and this change has major impacts on recency of bidder Past Performance submissions.

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6848 SF1449 NAICS Problem. Per various Q&A items, NASA says to have portal submission NAICS match the bidder submitted SF1449 NAICS but the field for NORTH AMERICAN

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION STANDARD (NAICS) there has “See Section A.1.34” text already which is a reference to the list of NAICS by Category. Should bidders edit out that text and enter their primary NAICS?

The Offeror shall include in Block 17a of the SF1449 the NAICS Code the Offeror is proposing using for competition at the master contract level. Amendment 11 reflects this change.

6849 Exhibit 1 Problem. Amendment 8 REP form doesn’t display correctly for fields like PROJECT TITLE, if the text in that row is longer than 1 line then you can’t read the other lines.

The Project Title should be limited to 50 characters to fit one line. The Exhibit has been updated in Amendment 11 to include that instruction.

6850 SourceAmerica Letter of Commitment NAICS. Per the NASA answers to various Q&A such as Q5269 “The AbilityOne Commitment Letter must include”.....“List of NAICS codes for which the Offeror plans to subcontract with AbilityOne organizations”.

However, the letter format from SourceAmerica / AbilityOne has reference to “NAICS Codes identified in Section A.1.35 of the Solicitation.” Do we truly need a new letter with the NAICS listed?

The only letter required for the proposal is the Commitment Letter issued by either SourceAmerica or NIB Central Nonprofit Agency (CNAs) and signed by the Prime

Contractor and the CNA. The Prime Contractor does not need to include an additional letter with the NAICS listed.

6854 Can the Government please clarify the requirement to acknowledge all Amendments to this solicitation? Will a statement to that effect within the body of Volume I suffice, or are we required to sign all SF 30s for each and every Amendment? And if we are required to sign all SF 30s, can the Government please re-release them in an editable format? Currently only Amendments 7 and 9 have been released in an editable format, with the other 8 being scanned images that are impossible to fill out and sign.

The solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF 30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

6855 REPs for Multiple Bid Teams or Not. The answer to these two questions appear to contradict each other. Can a firm use a REP on their bid for example in Category C as a small business prime bidder and use that same REP for another bidder’s bid in Category C where they are on that team as a subcontractor?

Q5003 = Will the Government please clarify if an offeror can re-use the same REP more than once in the same Category? For example once as an 8(a) and a SDVOSB as a

Subcontractor? Please advise. NASA answer was No.

Q5011 = Can we use the projects for REPs and PPs if we submit the proposals for multiple teaming arrangements? e.g. As an 8a Prime and Small business JV partner or Subcontractor to SDVOSB? NASA answer was Yes, you can use the same projects for

REPs and PPs if you submit proposals for multiple teaming arrangements.

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.

The above limitations do not preclude a prime contractor from acting as a first-tier subcontractor on one or more proposals within a category if they are not providing

REP or Past Performance references for another Offeror's proposal. These limitations apply only to the number of prime Offeror proposals a company can participate in (as a

CTA/JV or standalone prime), not on the number of times they can act as a first-tier subcontractor.

6858 FAR Type 1 CTAs. Please confirm that bidders can submit a bid under FAR 9.6 as a Type 1 Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) ‘partnership’ where both firms would be considered a prime contractor via the CTA. Type (1) is where “Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor”.

Type (2) is traditional prime/sub where “A potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program”.

Confirmed.

6860 Regarding question 1690 - "on page 103, 2nd paragraph, if subcontractor experience is used for an REP, does the SB offeror need to submit a Teaming Agreement? or is an

MRCL what is required? Amendment 10 updated the cited instructions regarding small business subcontractor experience for REPs and Past Performance." We have reviewed Amendment 10, especially A.3.7.1(a)(4), A.3.7.1(c), and A.3.7.2(a), and it isn't clear if a SB using a first-tier SB subcontractor to show REP and PP would submit an MRCL or CTA.

Offeror would submit a CTA.

6863 A.1.35 AbilityOne Subcontracting (page 66) states "The subcontracting plan from Other Than Small Businesses (OTSBs) shall include the goals of the AbilityOne NPAs and their associated NAICS codes."

Instructions to Offerors (page 90) states "A commercial subcontracting plan is preferred. An individual subcontracting plan may be submitted if a commercial subcontracting plan is not available."

QUESTION: Given that it is unlikely Offerors will have a current Commercial Subcontracting Plan with AbilityOne goals incorporated, please clarify what an Offeror should submit to meet this requirement:

a) the current Commercial Subcontracting Plan (as-is, without AbilityOne goals),

b) an individual subcontracting plan that includes the AbilityOne goals, or

c) both the current Commercial Subcontracting Plan AND an individual subcontracting plan that includes the AbilityOne goals"

The solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to remove the subcontracting plan reference.

6864 A.3.7.2(a) Past Performance Volume, Information from the Offeror (page 106) states "Contracts that are completed or ongoing within three years of the proposal due date will be considered recent."

A.4.3 Phase Two-Past Performance (page 117) states "Recency is defined as performance occurring within the last three years of the proposal due date."

QUESTION: The original proposal due date was July 11, 2024. As of Amendment 10, the current proposal due date is February 17, 2025. Offerors selected past performance references and requested Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) from customers in compliance with the original requirement (through Amendment 9) of

"within three years of the solicitation release date (05/23/2024)". Changing the period of recency for past performance in Amendment 10 (dated 12/16/2024), seven months after solicitation release and five months after the original due date, creates an unreasonable burden on Offerors and Government Contracting Officers who have already completed and submitted PPQs. Request the past performance recency definition be revised to "within three years of the solicitation release date

(05/23/2024)".

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6867 Page 110 of the solicitation states “All Offerors shall present a summary of relevant past performance information in matrix form as set forth below in Table 1, Sample

Past Performance Matrix and accompany each category of the relevant experience.

The information shall match the past performance information with the relevant experience identified in paragraph (a)(12) of this section.” There is no (a)(12) in the past performance section. Can you please clarify the past performance matrix requirements?

The current RFP is updated in Amendment 11.

6869 Page 109 of the solicitation states “For the references submitted with the Offeror’s proposal, Offeror shall provide recent customer evaluations of previous performance including Award Fee Evaluation results, Fee Determination Official letters, Annual Performance Evaluation Forms, or any other written performance feedback, if applicable. (Excluded from the page limitation)”. Answer to question #2574 states “No, offerors should not submit their CPARs.” Question: Can you please clarify that CAPRS are not annual performance evaluation forms or other written performance feedback that should be submitted? Will the offeror be penalized if we don’t have any other written documentation to submit?

The referenced "recent customer evaluations of previous performance" has been removed in Amendment 11.

6870 The Amendment 006 SF-30 has been locked by Gov signature. Can the Government please provide a signed version of the Amendment 006 SF-30 that has not been locked?

No. Note that the solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF

30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

6871 The Amendment 002 SF-30 lists the Amendment number as “1” in Box 2. Can the Government please provide a signed, unlocked version of the Amendment 002 SF-30 with the correct Amendment number in Box 2?

No. Note that the solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF

30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

6872 The Amendment 008 SF-30 has not been signed by the Government. Can the Government please provide a signed, unlocked version of the Amendment 008 SF-30?

No. Note that the solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF

30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

6873 The Amendment 009 SF-30 has not been signed by the Government. Can the Government please provide a signed, unlocked version of the Amendment 009 SF-30?

No. Note that the solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF

30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

6874 The Amendment 010 SF-30 has not been signed by the Government. Can the Government please provide a signed, unlocked version of the Amendment 010 SF-30?

No. Note that the solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF

30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

6875 A.3.7.1 instructs Offerors to fill out blocks 12,17, and 30 in the SF1449. The instructions on the form most recently released instructs Offerors to fill out blocks 12, 17, 23, 24 and 30. And, the answer to several of the industry questions state that the Offerors should also complete block 10. Please confirm which blocks the Offeror is to complete in the SF1449.

The Government fills in Block 10. The Offeror shall complete SF1449 Blocks 12 (if applicable), 17, and 30 and the indicated Offeror required fill-ins in the clauses, provisions/representations and certifications, and attachments. An Offeror’s Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code in SAM.gov shall match the Offeror’s name on the SF1449.

6879 In Amendment 10, NASA changed the definition of recent to "completed or ongoing within three (3) years of the proposal due date,” from "completed or ongoing within three (3) years of the solicitation release date.” This invalidates our Relevant

Experience Projects (REPs). Our past performance questionnaires have already been submitted by our customers. Would you consider reverting to the original definition of recency, so we can submit our planned REPs?

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6880 In Amendment 10, NASA changed the definition of recent to "completed or ongoing within three years of the proposal due date,” from "completed or ongoing within three years of the solicitation release date.” This invalidates our past performance references for which we have already submitted past performance questionnaires from our customers. Would you consider reverting to the original definition of recency, so we can submit our planned contract references?

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6891 Please confirm the new recency period for REPs and Past Performance references released with Amendment 10 is February 17, 2022 - February 17, 2025 with at least 6 months of performance?

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6893 Instructions state to insert our selected NAICS within Block 10 of the SF1449. Is this accurate? Isn't this a block on the SF1449 form that is required to be completed by the Government? Please confirm if offerors are to amend the SF1449 and insert the NAICS in block 10 or if the NAICS should be inserted in block 17a where contractors are to complete?

The Offeror shall include in Block 17a of the SF1449 the NAICS Code the Offeror is proposing using for competition at the master contract level. Amendment 11 reflects this change.

6896 Many offerors will have already submitted PPQs based on the original solicitation requirements, but now Amendment 10 has changed the recency qualification to within 3 years of proposal due date instead of solicitation release date. Will NASA allow Offerors to use past performance references that have already been submitted and meet the original requirements (within 3 years of solicitation release date)?

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6897 The amended RFP requires offerors to include goals for AbilityOne in their commercial small business subcontracting plan. However, existing commercial subcontracting plans created pursuant to FAR 19.701 may not include separate goals for AbilityOne subcontracting. Additionally, a company's commercial plan is written to provide subcontracting goals for an entire company, not just one specific contract. Is it acceptable to provide a company's commercial subcontracting plan plus the

AbilityOne Commitment Letter to satisfy SEWP VI proposal submission requirements?

The solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to remove the subcontracting plan reference.

6898 Amendment 10 changed the recency requirement for past performance references (within three years of solicitation release vs. within three years of proposal due date).

Prior to Amendment 10, customer references may have already submitted PPQs to NASA for contracts that no longer meet the RFP's recency requirement because of this change. Will Offerors need to provide new past performance references to replace previously submitted PPQs? We recommend NASA revert to the original past performance qualifications (recent defined as within three years of solicitation release date) and allow already-submitted PPQs to remain valid for offerors' proposals.

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6905 "Is OTTPS certification an alternative means to submitting an SCRM plan or is it in fact THE SCRM Plan? I ask because of this statement in the attached document DRD No.:3 “Contents: An annual report noting certification with the current ISO 20243 standard including a copy of a valid active Open Trusted Technology Provider™ Standard (O- TTPS) Certification.”?

So which does SEWP mean?

RFP = OTTPS certification optional alternative to Attachment J.

Attachment D = OTTPS required as SCRM Plan (Attachment J).

In A.1.30.1 and DRD No 3 seem to contradict each other. In the RFP, we read this as stating that the O-TTPS (ISO20243) is an (optional) alternative to submitting the

Attachment J. But the CDRL reads as if the OTTPS/ISO20243 certification is in fact the SCRM Plan (Attachment J)."

As stated in A.1.30.1., post award ISO 20243 is an alternate to a C-SCRM plan.

Attachment D - is updated in Amendment 11.

6931 Since the government is requiring page numbers even on attachments within the volume, can we screenshot the documents and then put them in the file but retain the header/footer of the company?

The solicitation is updated in Amendment 11 to clarify that page numbering is only required in documents with page limitations and is not required for separate, non-page limited attachments and documents.

6933 "Regarding Amendment 8 changes, FAR 52.212-4 CONTRACT TERMS AND

CONDITIONS - COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS

AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES. (DEC 2022) ALTERNATE I (NOV 2021) is the government looking for the vendor to fill in all the items in parenthesis?"

This was updated in Amendment 11.

6937 "Amendment 8 changes, on page 102: the government notes ""For joint ventures, the Offerors shall provide a REP from the work done and qualifications held either individually by a partner to the joint venture, the work done by the joint venture itself, or any combination of both."" However on the bottom of page 103: the government notes ""For HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, EDWOSB, 8a, offerors (inclusive of first-tier subcontractors, if applicable): A total of two different REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted. Each Project must have had a minimum of $2M in total value size of a single order or contract and must be described using the Exhibit 1 REP template. For offerors submitting as HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or

EDWOSB Joint Ventures, one of the REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted from the

HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB partner, or the Joint Venture itself. The HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB partner project, or Joint Venture project need only have a minimum of $1M in total value size of a single order or contract.""

Can the government confirm an 8(a) Mentor-Protege JV was specifically left out of the list even though it is included in the intro of the paragraph? i.e. an 8(a) could provide 2

REPs from the mentor? "

The current RFP has been updated.

6939 "Amendment 8 Changes - page 106, category c- Does the following mean that the Mentor Protege cannot utilize the past performance of the Mentor? ""For Small Businesses proposing in Categories C- the past performance provided shall be for similar scope efforts with a minimum average annual cost/fee incurred of $500,000 for size to be rated relevant. For offerors submitting as Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, contracts may be submitted from the Protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé Joint

Venture itself. The Protégé or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture project need only have a minimum of $250,000 in average annual cost/fee incurred. For offerors submitting as

HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB Joint Ventures, contracts may be submitted from the HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB partner or the Joint Venture itself. The HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB partner contract, or

Joint Venture contract, need only have a minimum of $250,000 in average annual cost/fee incurred.""

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section that allows for the consideration of shared past performance from mentor-protégé joint ventures is FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii).

This section specifically addresses how past performance should be evaluated for small business joint ventures, including those formed under the mentor-protégé program.

FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) states:

""In the case of a small business concern as defined in 19.001, when evaluating the past performance of an offeror that is a small business joint venture as defined in 13 CFR 121.103(h), the evaluation shall consider the past performance of each party to the joint venture."" This means that when a small business joint venture submits an offer, the contracting officer is required to consider the past performance of all members of the joint venture—including both the mentor and the protégé. This provision ensures that the joint venture benefits from the mentor's experience, which can enhance the joint venture's competitive position in federal acquisitions."

For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, A Mentor may provide Past Performance References and REPs in accordance with the RFP. Amendment 11 provides this clarification.

6940 Amendment 8 Changes page 107, a.12 (note, the 12 is missing) the government has indicated in Q&A that item 12 in the past performance volume should be for overall contracts of the company. However, on page 109, the last sentence of the paragraph below, the government notes, "Offerors shall present a summary of relevant past performance information in matrix form as set forth below in Table 1, Sample Past Performance Matrix and accompany each category of the relevant experience. The information shall match the past performance information with the relevant experience identified in paragraph (a)(12) of this section. Offerors are advised that the matrix is a summary of the referenced contracts submitted for the past performance volume for a given scope category." This would allude to item 12 being for one contract.

This was clarified in Amendment 11.

6954 Regarding comment 6792, NASA did not answer the questions. Can all of the REPs come from the mentor?

Note that this depends on the Offeror's business size. Please propose in accordance with section A.3.7.1(c) of the RFP.

6956 In answer to question 2207, NASA states that “Other Than Small Businesses (OTSB) must submit a subcontracting plan. The subcontracting plan should follow the format in FAR 52.219-9 and include goals for subcontracting with AbilityOne nonprofits for applicable NAICS codes, as described in section A.1.35”

RFP requirement for large business is a commercial subcontracting plan. Recognizing that AbilityOne partnership and target goals are addressed in the commitment letter and elsewhere in the proposal, please confirm that specific AbilityOne subcontracting goals are not required in our large business commercial subcontracting plan.

Confirmed. The solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to remove the subcontracting plan reference.

6957 For an 8(a) mentor protege JV, does any past performance and REP have to come from the protege, or can it come from the mentor? Please provide a response vs. pointing us to an amendment for interpretation

For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, A Mentor may provide Past Performance References and REPs in accordance with the RFP. Amendment 11 provides this clarification.

6958 Regarding comment 2574, if we are not to submit our CPARs, can the government strike this requirement for item 9? If not, what is the government looking to receive for this item?

The referenced "recent customer evaluations of previous performance" has been removed in Amendment 11.

6962 Comment 6046 contradicts comment 3089. Please provide a revised answer. The current RFP has been updated.

6963 "On page 103 under section ""For Category B and C"" it notes ""...For joint ventures, the Offerors shall provide a REP from the work done and qualifications held either individually by a partner to the joint venture, the work done by the joint venture itself, or any combination of both."" This seems to indicate that a JV can submit REPs from any member of the JV. However, on page 104 under ""Category C"" ""...""For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, one of the

REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted from the Protégé or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture itself. Each Protégé or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture project need only have a minimum of $1M in total value size of a single order or contract."" Does a protege have to provide the REP or for 8(a) MP, can both REPs be provided by the mentor?"

The current RFP has been updated.

6968 In Amendment 10, the REP and Past Performance project date requirements were changed from completed or ongoing within three (3) years from "solicitation release date" (5/23/2024) to "proposal due date" (currently 2/17/2025). This is a big change as this impacts companies who have selected and prepared REPs and Past Performance projects that are completed or ongoing projects within three (3) years from "solicitation release date" and have completed Past Performance Questionnaires from their Government customers.

We are requesting that the government please consider changing back to the original requirement for REPs and Past Performance projects to be completed or ongoing within three (3) years from "solicitation release date" (5/23/2024).

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6970 A.3.7.2 (a) now states “Contracts that are completed or ongoing within three years of the proposal due date will be considered recent.” Given the number of times this solicitation has been extended and may yet be extended again, making the three year requirement based on the due date is onerous to bidders. We request that three year requirement be based on the original solicitation release date (as stated in previous amendments) or to a firm date that is not subject to change

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6980 Does the offeror need to include any of the various amendments SF30 and sign them in the Volume I - Offer Volume?

The solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF 30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

6981 Does the offeror need to include any of the various amendments SF30 and sign them in the Volume I - Offer Volume?

The solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF 30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

6982 Reference: (B) Proposal Content and Page Limitations Proposal Submission Table Page

95 of 152.

There is a discrepancy between the proposal submission table and the proposal submission instructions. The table seems to be missing the header section of (c)

Mandatory Experience/ Offerings to represent both Cat A and Cat B&C Mandatory Experience. Currently, the proposal submission table shows Category A Mandatory

Experience letter of Authorization (LOAs) to be addressed under section (b) ISO 9001 and CMMI Certifications.

Please update table to add section (c) Mandatory Experience/Offerings as a header in the appropriate locations or confirm in writing that the Category A Mandatory

Experience letter of Authorization (LOAs) should be included under (c) Mandatory Experience/ Offerings

The solicitation was updated in Amendment 11.

6983 Does the offeror only need to include the more recent SF1449 completing Blocks 12, 17, and 30 along with the offeror's fill-ins in the clauses, previsions/representations and certifications and attachments without submitting all the SF30's from the various amendments through 10?

The solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF 30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

6987 Reference: Exhibit 3a- Category A Solutions Spreadsheet, Information Tab, Page 102 of

Instructions state "One (1) of the four (4) Technical Areas shall be designated as the primary Technical Area and denoted in Column ‘C,’ ranking the identified proposed technical areas ‘1-4’, with ‘1’ representing the designated primary Technical Area and 2-4 indicating the non-primary proposed technical area. The amended Exhibit+3a-

+Category+A+Solutions+Spreadsheet+Amendment+9+11.21.24.xlsx has removed the title for Column C for ranking. Is this an accidental omission?

Please clarify if Offerors are still expected to proving a ranking in Column C. If not, please update the instructions or Exhibit 3a to keep consistent between the RFP and spreadsheet.

Yes. Amendment 11 revised the wording to simply require an X in the row denotimg the primary designated provider.

6988 Why for Category B and C did the government change the requirement to the following: "Offerors shall furnish relevant experience projects that are completed or ongoing within three (3) years of the proposal due date to be considered recent and be from a different requirement."? Specifically the "...the proposal due date..." in Amendment 0010? Request the government to change the requirement back to

"...the solicitation release date ...". You have impacted several offerors projects they were bidding for REPS and forcing at list minute to find a subcontractor with project requirements.

6989 Reference: Exhibit 3a- Category A Solutions Spreadsheet, Technical Area Tabs, Page

Instruction states "The SEWP Catalog Price is provided in column ‘G.’" However, Technical Area 9 has the SEWP Catalog Price in Column F.

Please confirm the exceptions to the instructions in Technical Area 9 that the pricing is to be placed in Column 'F'.

This has been updated in Amendment 11.

6997 Why for Category B and C did the government change the requirement to the following: "Only contracts with performance within three years from the proposal due date will be evaluated."? Specifically the "...the proposal due date..." in Amendment

0010? Request the government to change the requirement back to "...the solicitation release date ...". You have impacted several offerors projects they were bidding for past performances and forcing at list minute to find a subcontractor with project requirements.

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

6998 In the paragraph … "For Small Businesses proposing in Category B - …. For offerors submitting as HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB …". Did the government leave out "8a" by mistake in Amendments 8 through 10?

The current RFP has been updated.

6999 In the paragraph … "For Small Businesses proposing in Category C - …. For offerors submitting as HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, or EDWOSB …". Did the government left out "8a" by mistake in Amendments 8 through 10?

The current RFP has been updated.

7004 Is the Offeror required to sign all SF30's, including the ones with the Contracting Officer signature?

The solicitation was updated in Amendment 11 to indicate "acknowledgement of all subsequent solicitation amendments" can be done via the SF 30 or via an affirmative statement within the General Instructions Cover Page.

7016 Regarding the submission of Exhibit 4, we would like to request confirmation on whether this exhibit needs to be submitted only by the Prime Offeror, considering there is a contradiction between what is stated in the RFP: 'Each Offeror (including first-tier subcontractors, if applicable) for each NAICS code represented in Section

A.1.34 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) & NAICS CODES

WITHIN SCOPE must complete Exhibit 4,' and the answer to Question No. 2699, which states: 'No, only the Offeror (Prime) is required to complete the NAICS Size Standard

Crosswalk, Exhibit 4.' This question pertains to proposals where there is no a JV

The wording has been updated in Amendment 11 - only the prime should fill out and submit the exhibit.

7018 Amendment 10 changes the past performance relevancy period to within 3 years of proposal due date, vs. solicitation release, which had held from the original RFP through Amendment 9. This change, and at this late date, creates an undue burden on offerors to develop new references, and an undue burden on their government and/or commercial customers who will be asked to submit new PPQs. We respectfully request that the Government revert this requirement back to its original wording, i.e."Contracts that are completed or ongoing within three years of the solicitation release date will be considered recent."

Amendment 11 revised the recency date to 3 years from the original RFP release date.

7027 Could the government please confirm that the following requirements, listed in the original solicitation release information on the SAM.gov SEWP VI web page, are required for proposal submission? (Note: These requirements have not been included in the RFP document itself.) If these requirements do apply, can the Government confirm that they can be met through a member of an MPJV instead of through the unpopulated JV itself?

Potential offerors should ensure its company is listed in the online database(s) for the following:

(1) System for award management: https://www.sam.gov/SAM/

(2) U.S. Department of Labor Veterans’ Employment and Training Service, VETS-4212

Reports: https://vets4212.dol.gov/vets4212/

(3) Date Universal Numbering System (and the transition to the US Government’s unique entity identifier (UEI)): https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/organization/federal-acquisition-service/office-of-systems-management/integrated-award-environment-iae/iae-information-kit/unique-entity-identifier-update

The successful offeror must pass an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) clearance before contract award (See FAR 22.805).

Please propose in accordance with the current RFP. All items listed in the question shall be in the name of the MPJV that is registered in sam.gov

7028 RFP instructions for SF1449 say offerors should complete boxes 12, 17, and 30.

However, many Q&A responses in Batch 6 say “The Offeror's past performance should relate to the NAICs code for competition as selected by the Offeror at the time of the proposal submission and as indicated in their SF 1449.” Where on the SF1449 should offerors insert our primary NAICS code? (Block 10, where the NAICS code is usually listed, has already been filled out by the Government with the text “See Section A.1.34.”)

The Offeror shall include in Block 17a of the SF1449 the NAICS Code the Offeror is proposing using for competition at the master contract level. Amendment 11 reflects this change.

7037 Questions #2947 and 6229 instruct offerors to complete reps and certs from the offering JV entity itself. However, Question #3114 instructs offerors to submit reps and certs from each member of an upopulated JV. Could the Government please confirm that reps and certs should be completed only by the offering JV entity?

Reps and Certs shall come from the Offering JV and not each member.

7038 The Government has provided conflicting instructions as to which partners in a MPJV are permitted/required to provide REPs or PPs: Question 3766 states that a protege

JV member does not have to provide a PP reference; Question 6046 states that a protege JV member does not have to provide either an REP or PP reference; and

Question 5533 says that, for REPs and PPs for MPJV offerors, the Government allows work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the MPJV, the work done by the MPJV itself, or any combination of both.

Amendment 10 revised instructions for SB Category B/C REPs (Section A.3.7.1.(c)) state: "For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, one of the REPs from different mandatory experience technical areas shall be submitted from the Protégé or Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture itself." (This instruction permits MPJV offerors to submit at least one REP from the Mentor.)

Amendment 10 revised instructions for SB Category B/C PPs (Section A.3.7.2.(a)) state:

"...contracts may be submitted from the Protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture itself." (This instruction does not permit Mentors to submit any PPs for an MPJV offeror.)

13 CFR 125.9, which details the rules governing SBA’s small business Mentor-Protégé program, permits SBs to form an approved MPJV, including with OTSBs, to assist the Protege in seeking any type of small business contract (i.e., small business set-aside, 8(a), HUBZone, SDVO, or WOSB) for which the protégé firm qualifies.

Would the Government please confirm that a Mentor in an MPJV is permitted to provide at least one REP and PP reference?

For Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures, A Mentor may provide Past Performance References and REPs in accordance with the RFP. Amendment 11 provides this clarification.

7041 In Section A.3.7.2.(a), page 111, could the Government confirm that the terminated…