NASA SEWP VI – Amendment 8 Significant Changes

With the recent NASA SEWP VI – Amendment 8 release The Gormley Group wanted to highlight several of the major changes to the RFP.  We expect vendors will need to make some revisions to their current proposal packages, especially within Volume III.

On proposal format and inclusions:

1. NASA has removed language suggesting that relevant files for each proposal volume should be combined into a single searchable pdf. Offerors are now free to include items that make sense as attachments (ISO 9001 Cert, AbilityOne Commitment Letters, LoAs etc.) as separate files within the appropriate volume folder.

Volume I:

1. NASA has clarified that fill-in clauses and amendments should be completed and submitted as an attachment to Volume I.
2. NASA has now made explicit a requirement to submit documents to demonstrate the financial capability of the offeror to perform.
3. Offerors now can make use of an ISO 9001 or CMMI certification that belongs to a parent company.

Volume II:

1. NASA has clarified their requirement that NAICS codes for past performance must relate to the NAICS code used for competition. If the offeror would like to submit past performance that was not issued under the NAICS code used for competition, they may include an explanation of how that past performance is related to the NAICS used for competition.
2. NASA has clarified that a single-award IDIQ/BPA may be considered holistically (i.e. may have the value of its task orders combined) for one, and no more than one, example of past performance.
   1. Multiple-award IDIQs/BPAs are still excluded from this exception.
   2. Any other examples of past performance must be individual task orders.

Volume III:

1. NASA has revised the instructions for completing the Technical Approach narrative. While the “gist” of this prompt is roughly the same, we have noted several differences. TGG encourages vendors to review and interpret this section themselves. TGG is happy to discuss our interpretation.
   1. Offerors now only need to directly address the first three of the four “Acquisition Objectives.”
   2. The prompt now instructs offerors to look to Section A.2 of the SEWP Scope document for the scope to address. This section only outlines the broad scope of each category, rather than the scope of each technical area. Although specifically presenting each technical area in your response to this section is still useful, reasonable, and appropriate.
   3. The scope of the two enumerated prompts (i.e. the “Extensible and Scalable” and “Next Generation of Technology” requirements) has been narrowed slightly. The new wordings seem to restrict themselves more specifically to the realm of solutions the government expects to be looking for within the Category scope the offeror is proposing under, rather than the general “realm” of technology.
2. On the SCRM section:
   1. NASA has updated the SCRM section of the Management Approach narrative to include general “IT Security” as an area of discussion.
   2. A updated template for Exhibit 5 (C-SCRM Attestation Form) has been added the solicitation package, which allows a response of “In progress” or “N/A” to any of the prompts (as opposed to the previous binary of Yes/No).
3. On the Sustainability section:
   1. NASA has significantly scaled back the level of specific information requested for the sustainability section, allowing for a more open-ended response from offerors.
4. On the Program Management Section:
   1. Prompt (ii) has been revised to focus on an offeror’s ability to scale elements of their business, such as “management, staffing, teaming, processes, etc.” to address SEWP requirements. This is a significant change from the prior language, which could have been interpreted (and we were interpreting) to discuss scaling into additional SEWP technical areas, if applicable.

On requirements for Category A:

1. The list of designated providers has been significantly expanded, and now includes several OEMs.
2. An updated version of Exhibit 3a (pricelist document) has been released.

On requirements for Categories B and C:

1. Like with past performance, NASA has clarified that a single-award IDIQ/BPA may be considered holistically (i.e. may have the value of its task orders combined) for one, and no more than one, Relevant Experience Project (REP).
   1. Multiple-award IDIQs/BPAs are still excluded from this exception.
   2. Any other REPs must be individual task orders.
2. Exhibits 3b/3c (pricelist documents) are no longer required for a submission in these categories.

Miscellaneous:

1. There have been several clarifications related to JV and team offers included in the amendment. TGG will be happy to discuss their impact with vendor clients individually.
2. For OTSB (Large) offerors: The language related to subcontracting plans being required “at the summary level only for agencies” has been removed.

For vendors who may want TGG’s assistance with the SEWP VI RFP please reach out to us at 202-833-1120 or via email at info@gormgroup.com.