Heather Kirk October 11, 2023 1 Comment

by Eric Nusbaum, President & CEO of ENcompass Consulting Group, LLC

NASA released a draft solicitation in September 2023 for its Best-In-Class (BIC) Government-Wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) called Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP) VI. As the name would indicate, this is the sixth iteration of this highly successful program. The draft RFP can be downloaded here.

Here are the top 3 things you need to know about the SEWP VI acquisition:

1) Addition of IT Services

The SEWP program has historically focused on Information Computer Technology (ICT) and Audio Visual (AV) equipment. SEWP VI is making a significant change by adding professional services to the scope, and divided SEWP VI into the three categories:

  • Category A – IT Solutions (ICT and AV Products)
  • Category B – Enterprise-wide IT Solutions (Products and Service Solutions)
  • Category C – IT Professional Services (ICT and AV Services)

Each Category is broken down into Technical Areas, which are further broken down into Sub-areas. The Sub-areas listed in the draft RFP are not exclusive, but instead define a broad range of technology that is within the scope of each Technical Area.

The addition of Category B and Category C is a natural evolution of the SEWP program, which has expanded with each iteration. It is perfect timing for NASA to add professional services to the SEWP program, as other GWACs for IT services have struggled with protests (e.g., NIH’s CIO-SP4 and GSA’s Polaris). If NASA is able to avoid lengthy protests on its acquisition, SEWP VI could gain some business that would otherwise have gone elsewhere.

2) Mix of Unrestricted and Small Business Set-Asides

All 3 Categories will be competed under NAICS code 541512, which has a $34M size standard. However, the SEWP VI draft RFP discusses a mix of unrestricted and Small Business (SB) set-aside awards.

  • Category A – Group A1 will be unrestricted competition, and Group A2 will be set aside for small businesses only.
  • Category B – Group B1 will be unrestricted competition, and Group B2 will be set aside for small businesses only.
  • Category C – Group C1 will be set aside for small businesses only. There will not be an unrestricted award for Category C.

3) No Limit to the Number of Awards

NASA has decided that SEWP VI will not limit the number of awards. The draft RFP says: “The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make an award to each and all qualifying offerors.”

The term “Qualifying Offeror” is defined as an offeror that meets all the following criteria:

  • Submits a proposal that conforms to the scope category requirements of the solicitation in which they are proposing.
  • Meets all requirements within the firm down select phase of evaluation:
    • Phase 1 – Pass the certifications and mandatory experience requirements
    • Phase 2 – Have an overall Neutral, Moderate, High, or Very High confidence past performance rating
    • Phase 3 – Have an overall High Confidence rating in both subfactors of the Mission Suitability volume
  • Is determined to be a responsible source IAW FAR 9.104
  • Is otherwise eligible for an award

While the idea of unlimited awards sounds nice, it is important to understand that NASA has set the bar relatively high for companies to qualify for a contract. For example, offerors in Category B and Category C must have both an ISO 9001 certification and a CMMI Maturity Level 2 (or higher) appraisal as a prerequisite. This is by design, as NASA tries to keep the total number of awardees manageable.

As indicated above, the evaluation will be conducted in 3 phases. Phase 1 will include corporate certifications, as well as a specific amount of mandatory experience that offerors must provide. Phase 2 will evaluate three recent and relevant past performance references. Phase 3 will evaluate each offeror’s Technical Approach and Management Approach. If an offeror passes all 3 evaluation phases, they will receive an award.

Submit Comments

NASA is accepting questions about the SEWP VI draft RFP. If you would like to submit questions or comments (including recommendations for changes to the draft RFP), you can do so here. The deadline is October 23, 2023.

Learn More About the SEWP VI Draft RFP

If you are interested in learning more about the SEWP VI draft RFP, you can do so at several upcoming events:

 

Ad


Not Yet a Premium Partner/Sponsor? Learn more about the OS AI Premium Corporate and Individual Plans here. Plans start at $250 annually.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Leave a Reply

  1. osdelahunty

    In the department of “things we want to know about the SEWP procurement”.

    Mandatory Relevant Experience Projects (REPs) Dollar Value. Will the REP value be Obligated Value to date as of the solicitation or Awarded Total Project Value?

    REP Value Aligned to SEWP Task. If the Category C $2m minimum REPs value cited in the industry day for Small Business was REP level or does a bidder need to show $2m of work per Category C task area where they align the REP. For example if the REP is worth $2.5m and the project is relevant to both Task 1 Network Services and Task 5 Cybersecurity Services, can it be used to show experience in both tasks or must the project have $2m of worth in each task? Similar question for the $30m minimum REP value for Category B for Large Business.

    Past Performance. Hoping that NASA makes the year’s age past performance requirement to be “completed or ongoing within three (3) years of the as of the solicitation issuance date to be considered recent” versus “completed or ongoing within three (3) years of the solicitation due date to be considered recent”. Otherwise if NASA has multiple unforeseen extensions of the procurement, that will create havoc among bidders that have aligned their past performance.

    Contracting Teaming. Hoping for clarification on the use of CTAs for REPs/Past Performance. On teammate use of REPs, the RFP draft notes: “Relevant experience from subcontractors, affiliates, and predecessor companies will not be evaluated or taken into consideration.” The RFP also notes this, much further into the draft: “If proposing a Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) to satisfy the requirements of this order, a copy of the agreement must be provided. The CTA should include the names of the team members and a description of the responsibilities of each team member.”
    We want to confirm that firms can form a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA) per FAR 9.601(1) and thus use REPs and Past Performance from each or any CTA member. CTA per FAR 9.601(1) where two or more companies form a partnership to bid as a Team and each team is considered a prime contractor versus FAR 9.601(2) where a prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program (aka prime/sub bid). It would be our understanding that each CTA member would need to hold the GSA MAS 54151S (IT Schedule) and each CTA member must hold ISO 9001 and CMMI-2 (or greater) at time of submission or prove that certification is already underway.