NASA’s Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP) VI contract vehicle is a vital gateway for IT solutions providers looking to do business with the federal government. As part of the solicitation process, NASA recently issued a comprehensive Q&A document to address the numerous questions raised by potential offerors. This document, which handled a staggering 6,792 total submissions, included 271 duplicates or redundantly worded questions, 2,336 suggestions and comments, and 4,456 questions specifically pertaining to the RFP submission process and content. These clarifications and guidance are essential for preparing a successful proposal. In this blog, we will explore the key insights from the SEWP VI Q&A, focusing on technical requirements, subcontracting, and proposal submission guidelines.

Understanding Security Clearance Requirements

One of the primary concerns for offerors is understanding the security clearance requirements. According to the Q&A, there is no requirement for any security clearance at the contract level for SEWP VI. However, specific task orders may necessitate varying levels of clearance. This flexibility allows contractors to bid without the immediate burden of obtaining clearances, although they must be prepared to comply with clearance requirements for particular orders.

System Update Timing and Database Environment

Another crucial area addressed in the SEWP VI Q&A is the timing for system updates and the specifics of the database environment. Contractors are responsible for maintaining their internal systems in sync with the SEWP Database of Record. This means that any updates to the SEWP database must be reflected simultaneously in the contractor’s internal systems to ensure consistency and accuracy.

The SEWP database environment can vary widely as it is used across numerous government agencies. Contractors must be versatile and capable of adapting their solutions to fit any environment within the federal government’s extensive IT infrastructure.

Provider and CLIN Limitations

A significant clarification provided in the Q&A pertains to the limitations on providers and Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). There is no restriction on the number of providers (OEMs) or the total number of CLINs for a technical area. However, each technical area must designate one primary provider with a minimum of 1,000 CLINs and one secondary provider with at least 50 CLINs. This requirement ensures a comprehensive offering while maintaining a manageable scope and depth for evaluation purposes.

Brand Treatment under Parent Company

For companies with multiple brands under a parent company, the SEWP VI Q&A clarifies that all brands will be treated collectively under the parent company’s name. This means that if a company like Legrand AV encompasses several brands, all these brands will be recognized collectively under Legrand AV for the purposes of the proposal. This approach simplifies the proposal process by consolidating brand identities under a single umbrella.

SEWP VI Q&A: SEWP Marketplace and Quote Request Tool

NASA has pointed out that the SEWP VI Marketplace will be similar to the GSA eBuy platform, where agencies can post RFIs and RFQs; the SEWP Quote Request Tool will support that. Agencies will be in a position to send in their requests in one place, and the SEWP contract holders can answer those requests efficiently.

Sustainability Requirements

Sustainability has become a critical component of federal contracting, and SEWP VI is no exception. The Q&A emphasizes that all offerors, regardless of size, must address their commitment to sustainability in their proposals. This includes detailing their sustainability management policies and how they intend to implement these policies within their operations. Small businesses are not exempt from this requirement, though the degree and extensiveness of their sustainability practices may vary.

SEWP VI Q&A: Clarifications on Technical Areas

The Q&A provides detailed explanations of various technical areas covered under SEWP VI. For instance, the scope of each category includes a broad range of products, solutions, and services within the IT and AV domains. Offerors must demonstrate their capability to deliver solutions that cover this extensive scope, ensuring they address both current and emerging technologies within their proposals.

Relevant Experience and Past Performance

Relevant experience and past performance are critical factors in the evaluation of SEWP VI proposals. Offerors are required to submit separate and distinct relevant experience projects (REPs) for each technical area they are addressing. These REPs must meet the mandatory experience requirements specified in the solicitation. Additionally, past performance references must align with the NAICS codes being used for competition.

The SEWP VI Q&A clarifies that while offerors can use the same records for both past performance and REPs, each REP must be unique to a specific technical area. This ensures that the proposal demonstrates a broad range of capabilities and experiences, providing a comprehensive picture of the offeror’s qualifications.

Changes/Notes to Volume 1

The SEWP VI Q&A introduces several important changes to Volume 1, which encompasses the offer volume. Offerors must adhere to the specific file naming conventions provided in the RFP, which include using spaces and detailed labeling. Additionally, the structure of Volume 1 must follow the guidelines meticulously, with each required document formatted correctly and saved as individual PDF files within the respective folder.

The Q&A also clarifies the submission requirements for exhibits and attachments, emphasizing that each exhibit, such as the Letter of Authorization (LOA), relevant experience projects, the NAICS Crosswalk, and the C-SCRM Attestation Form, should be submitted separately but within the corresponding volume folder.

Key changes and clarifications for Volume 1 include:

  • C-SCRM Attestation Form Requirement: The Q&A specifies that a C-SCRM Attestation Form is required for each category. Offerors must submit a complete C-SCRM Attestation Form with each category’s proposal submission.
  • NAICS Crosswalk Submissions: A NAICS Crosswalk is required for each category. Offerors must submit a complete NAICS Crosswalk with each category’s proposal submission.
  • File Naming Conventions: Each document within a volume folder must be named according to the specified conventions, including spaces and precise labeling.
  • Saving Attachments: Proposal components such as Exhibits, ISO 9001 certifications, and LOAs must be saved separately within the same folder of their corresponding volume.
  • Format of Attachments: Attachments (including spreadsheets) should be included as individual PDF files, and each proposal volume must be submitted as a single PDF file.
  • Duplication Prohibition: The prohibition against duplications or replicas applies to each category, ensuring no repeated content within the same category.

Changes/Notes to Volume 2: Past Performance

Volume 2 focuses on past performance, and the Q&A provides several clarifications to help offerors align their submissions correctly. Offerors must ensure that their past performance references align with the NAICS codes being used for competition. The Q&A also emphasizes that past performance and REPs can be the same records of work performed, provided they meet the requirements specified in the RFP. This means that offerors should carefully select past performance examples that demonstrate their capability and relevance to the technical areas they are proposing.

Key changes and clarifications for Volume 2 include:

  • NAICS Alignment: Past performance submissions must relate to the codes being used by the offeror for competition.
  • REP Requirements: Each REP must be unique to a specific category or technical area, ensuring comprehensive coverage of relevant experience.
  • Supporting Documentation: Detailed project descriptions, performance metrics, and relevant client references must be included to support each REP submission.

Changes/Notes to Volume 3: Mission Suitability

Volume 3, the mission suitability volume, requires precise adherence to the format and content guidelines. The Q&A highlights that the mission suitability volume should be submitted as a single PDF file containing both Subfactor A and Subfactor B, each with their own unique cover pages, table of contents, lists of figures, and lists of tables, with a 15-page limit for each subfactor. Offerors must also include a subcontractor management approach within the management approach section, ensuring consistency across all proposal volumes. References to subcontractor capabilities in Volume 3 are permissible, even if they are not used in past performance or mandatory experience sections, as long as they align with the overall proposal and demonstrate the offeror’s ability to meet the RFP requirements.

Key changes and clarifications for Volume 3 include:

  • Single PDF Submission: The mission suitability volume must be submitted as a single PDF file with distinct cover pages, TOC, lists of figures, and lists of tables for each subfactor.
  • Subfactor Page Limits: Each subfactor (A and B) is limited to 15 pages.
  • Subcontractor Management Approach: Offerors must include a detailed subcontractor management approach within the management approach section.
  • Consistency Validation: Ensure consistency between all proposal volumes by referencing subcontractor capabilities in Volume 3, even if they are not used in other sections.
  • Security Controls Clarification: The Q&A clarifies that the RFP specifies which security standards should be addressed in the narrative discussion but not necessarily complied with in their entirety. Offerors must address their security controls in line with the specified standards and demonstrate their capability to meet these requirements.

Subcontracting Plans and AbilityOne Requirements

The SEWP VI Q&A also addresses subcontracting plans and the inclusion of AbilityOne non-profit agencies. All offerors, including Small Businesses, must include AbilityOne NPAs in their subcontracting plans for products and services. This serves as notice of the need to support AbilityOne’s mission and comply with federal subcontracting regulations.

In addition to the proposal, other-than-small businesses must present a total overall subcontracting plan. Such a plan shall identify the offeror’s strategy to meet subcontracting goals, including those relating to small businesses and AbilityOne NPAs.

Multiple Proposals and Joint Ventures

Offerors who intend to submit multiple proposals or participate in joint ventures (JVs) and contractor team arrangements (CTAs) must examine the Q&A carefully. Each proposal must be unique and relevant to only one category. However, an offeror can offer as a prime in one proposal and as a subcontractor in another proposal in the same category, provided the proposals comply with the duplication terms specified in the RFP.

For JVs, past performance, and relevant experience can include work done by individual JV members as well as the JV entity itself. This flexibility allows JVs to leverage the collective strengths of their members, enhancing their overall proposal.

Joint Venture and Contractor Teaming Arrangement

First-tier subcontractors formed under a Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) are not required to submit a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter. Offerors can participate as a prime in one proposal and as a subcontractor in another within the same category, provided the proposals comply with Section A.3.6(B)(7).

ISO 9001:2015 Certification

Offerors may not use the ISO 9001:2015 and/or CMMI certifications of a Parent Company, Affiliate, Division, or Subsidiary within a corporate structure. Each offeror must provide their own certifications.

Mission Suitability Volume

The Mission Suitability Volume must be submitted as a single PDF file containing both Subfactor A and Subfactor B, each with its own unique cover pages, table of contents, lists of figures, and lists of tables, and a 15-page limit for each subfactor. Offerors can reference subcontractor capabilities in the Mission Suitability Volume even if not used in past performance or mandatory experience sections, as long as these references align with the overall proposal and demonstrate the offeror’s ability to meet the RFP requirements.

Summing Up

The SEWP VI Q&A document has invaluable insights and clarifications that are key to developing a successful proposal. The key areas identified help offerors increase their chances of obtaining a contract under the SEWP VI vehicle. The Q&A provides detailed responses to such diverse topics as security clearance requirements, subcontracting plans, and guidelines relating to submitting proposals, thus helping offerors negotiate the complex solicitation process with confidence.

Preparing a proposal for SEWP VI requires attention to detail and solicitation-specific knowledge. Armed with the Q&A information, offerors are much better positioned to ensure that respective proposals are structured, compliant, and competitive in nature, thus paving the way to succeed in this most critical federal procurement opportunity.