19GE5026Q0131-00002-QA.pdf

Acquisition of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Solicitation No. 19GE5026Q0131

U.S. Embassy Quito, Ecuador Amendment 0001 dated 09/10/2026

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS (Q&A)

SBU - CONTRACTING AND ACQUISITIONS

1.

(Q) Please confirm the intended treatment of VAT under the solicitation where VAT is invoiced by an Ecuadorian subcontractor or supplier to the Prime Contractor. Specifically, should such VAT be treated as Input VAT and incorporated into the applicable underlying

CLIN pricing, while CLIN 009 is reserved for Output VAT, if any, separately invoiced by the

Prime Contractor in accordance with applicable Ecuadorian requirements? Please also confirm whether the customs and tax-exemption documentation referenced in the solicitation will be made available, as applicable, for imported equipment being delivered under the contract.

(A) Confirmed. As indicated in the RFQ, “Output VAT” means value-added tax, goods and services tax, sales tax, or similar indirect tax that the Contractor is legally authorized and required under the laws of the country of performance to assess, collect from the customer (here, U.S.

Government), and remit to the applicable host-country taxing authority in connection with services provided under this contract while “Input VAT”: Means VAT or similar indirect tax paid by the

Contractor to its own subcontractors, suppliers, or vendors on purchases, imports, materials, supplies, equipment, overhead, or other business inputs incurred in the performance of this contract.

The U.S. Government will assist the Contractor in obtaining customs clearance and tax exemption certificates from the Government of Ecuador provided the contractor follows the instructions indicated in the RFQ.

2.

(Q) The RFQ references F.o.b. Destination in accordance with FAR 52.247-34, while SOW

Section 5.9 references DDP Incoterms for delivery to Manta, Ecuador. Please confirm which delivery term will govern for purposes of proposal pricing and contract performance, including responsibility for customs clearance, duties, and import-related charges.

(A) Delivery shall be made under F.o.b. Destination as indicated in the RFQ and revised SOW. It is the responsibility of the contractor to obtain the custom clearance and deliver the items to its final destination. The U.S. Government will assist the Contractor in obtaining customs clearance and tax exemption certificates from the Government of Ecuador provided the contractor complies with the shipping instructions on a timely manner as specified in the RFQ under Duty-Free Clearance section.

3.

(Q) Within the solicitation, you mention inclusion of VAT in pricing 'if applicable' in multiple places throughout the solicitation. However it is unclear what goods typically qualify as

'applicable.' Please advise if you are aware what goods/services the VAT will be applied to in your evaluation.

(A) As indicated in the solicitation, the applicability of VAT depends on the whether or not the

Contractor is legally authorized and required under the laws of the country of performance to assess, collect from the customer (here, U.S. Government), and remit to the applicable host-country taxing authority in connection with services provided under this contract. The Government will evaluate proposals based on total evaluated cost, including any non-reimbursable VAT, which may impact the competitiveness of non-registered Offerors.

4.

(Q) Additionally, in previous communications, we have been told that the US Embassy

(DoS) in Ecuador is VAT exempt. Is the reference to VAT exemption for the importation VAT?

Should the bidder assume that VAT will be applicable to ALL CLINs?

(A) There is no VAT exemption in place. Contractors shall refer to the terms of the solicitation under VAT section.

5.

(Q) With regards to VAT applicability for local sales VAT, assuming VAT does apply, will

DOS be able to provide an official Diplomatic Tax Exemption Certificate issued by the

Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Can the RUC also be provided (Diplomatic Tax ID)?

Is identifying the application of VAT at 0% on the pricing submittal the desired course to reflect the assumed exemption, if the Contractor does not have a local registration?

(A) contractors shall refer to questions #3 and #4.

6.

(Q) Within SOUTHCOM's customs clearance process instructions for Ecuador (attached, Page 11), it mentions that "When the cargo is a donation to the partner nation, the customs clearance process requires the contract of one of the below embassy-authorized customs brokers" and list Omega Shipping Cargo, ASAMH, and LIDESER. Should the bidder assume that we must use one of these customs brokers within our delivery plan?

(A) The question refers to a document that is not part of the RFQ. Contractors shall only refer to the documents attached to the RFQ. Contractors shall refer to the instructions specified in the RFQ under Duty-Free Clearance section.

7.

(Q) "The Contractor shall install and integrate the required sensor payloads, beyond line-of-sight – SATCOM/GPS navigation equipment, and wide area search capabilities with IMSAR-

NSP-3, or equivalent visual detection and ranging search capabilities." IMSAR NSP-3 is a

Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) payload. The Appendix A listed Overwatch PT-6, a Wide

Area Search (WAS) payload, as the specified technical requirement. Other sections mention either WAS or SAR. AV assumes that Overwatch PT-6 will be considered 'equivalent' to meet

Task 3.3. Please confirm.

(A) Yes, the Overwatch PT-6 would be considered an equivalent payload for purposes of Task

3.3. The Contractor may also propose another payload providing equivalent or superior wide-area search, detection, tracking, and ranging capabilities, provided that the proposed solution meets or exceeds the technical and operational requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A and does not exceed the applicable price point for the PT-6 baseline requirement.

The Contractor shall be responsible for the installation and integration of the required sensor payloads, antennas, and navigation equipment.

8.

(Q) SOW, Appendix A: "The entire UAS shall be assembled from transport cases and launched in a maximum of 30 minutes and disassembled post-recovery in a maximum of 15 minutes. Assembly shall include fueling and/or propulsion battery-charging. Assembly, launch, and disassembly, within the times above, shall be completed by a maximum of two (2) personnel. All equipment (boxes) and the aircraft in its fully assembled state shall be capable of being hand-carried by a maximum of two (2) personnel. Video documentation shall be provided." AV assumes that the video documentation must include all tasks (ie, assembly in 30 minutes, disassembly in 15 minutes, and hand-carry of aircraft), and the video can be provided prior to contract award or delivery, instead of with the RFQ response. Please notify if this is not correct and provide specific video submission instructions.

(A) The Contractor shall provide the required video prior to delivery for Government review and verification. The video shall be submitted electronically in a commonly accessible digital video format, such as MP4 (H.264), at a resolution sufficient to clearly demonstrate the required capabilities.

Video documentation shall be provided via CD-ROM shipped to the US Embassy Quito/ Attn: INL.

9.

(Q) Aircraft Group Classification: The solicitation specifies a Group 3 aircraft requirement.

Our proposed solution, meets or exceeds all mission and operational performance capabilities required of a Group 3 system while using the smaller footprint, lower logistics burden, and significantly reduced operating costs typical of a Group 2 aircraft. Would the Government consider a submission using this operationally proven platform?

(A) The Government maintains the Group 3 UAS classification requirement specified in the

SOW. Proposed systems shall meet all applicable Group 3 requirements and the technical and operational requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A.

10.

(Q) Payload Capacity: The solicitation outlines a minimum payload capacity of 25 pounds.

Our proposed solution successfully integrates all required mission payloads within a lower weight profile, fulfilling all operational performance specifications without requiring a full 25-pound payload allowance. By optimizing payload integration, this approach reduces fuel burn, extends endurance, and lowers overall life-cycle costs. Will a submission with all required payloads fully integrated under the 25-pound total payload weight be considered compliant?

(A) The proposed aircraft shall have a minimum payload capacity of 25 lbs. The aircraft shall be capable of carrying the required payload configuration while meeting all other applicable performance, endurance, and operational requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A.

11.

(Q) Statement of Work Requirement 19.7 “The UA shall be capable of transition time from take-off (vertical flight) to forward flight in approximately 60 seconds. The UA landing process after transition from forward flight to vertical flight shall be accomplished in less than 90 seconds[.]” Could you provide context on any mission requirement driving the 60 second launch and 90 second recovery requirement for time from ground to horizontal flight? Is the government open to considering shorter or longer vertical flight times from proven VTOL systems to avoid this requirement precluding the government from considering otherwise fully capable vendors?

(A) The transition time requirements specified in SOW Section 19.7 remain applicable. The UA shall be capable of transitioning from vertical flight to forward flight in approximately 60 seconds and completing the landing process after transition from forward flight to vertical flight in less than 90 seconds. These requirements are intended to support safe and effective shipboard operations by minimizing the time the UA remains in vertical flight during launch and recovery. Offerors shall describe the proposed system’s transition and recovery performance in their proposals and provide sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with the requirements specified in SOW Section

19.7.

12.

(Q) Statement of Work Requirement 19.10 “The UA shall be capable of VTOL without reliance on fixed rail launchers, catapults, arresting gear, nets, launch hooks, recovery wires, or external support equipment such as recovery towers or secondary UA.” Does the constraint against “external support equipment” include C2 antennas and GCS? If the goal is to achieve a small packout, are there any packout volume requirements or limits on the quantity of transportation cases? Is the prohibition against “secondary UA” an “essential physical characteristic” within the meaning of FAR 11.102(a)(2)(i)(C)? How does the government intend to evaluate solutions that provision/include external support equipment for launch and recovery as is authorized within Statement of Work 19.1.

(A) No. The requirement does not include C2 antennas or Ground Control Stations (GCS), as this provision is intended to address recovery equipment. There is no specific quantity limitation on the number of transport cases; however, the Contractor should configure the equipment in the smallest practical loadout due to the limited storage space available. The proposed configuration will be evaluated based on the available storage space and the Contractor should provide the dimensions and overall footprint of the proposed transport cases and equipment.

13.

(Q) Statement of Work, Task 3.3: is the contractor expected to provide IMSAR NSP-3 or should be contractor assume this is provided as GFE? If the contractor is expected to provide

IMSAR NSP-3, is one unit expected, and is the government open to a solution that provides

IMSAR NSP-5 as a "equivalent" wide area search capability? If the government is open to

NSP-5, how would the government evaluate the greater capability of NSP-5 at higher cost?

(A) The Government is open to considering other options, provided that they meet the applicable technical and operational requirements. The price is an evaluation factor. The evaluation of offers will be based on best value using comparative evaluation authorized under RFO FAR12.203(c)(2).

14.

(Q) Our company abides by IACO that all training and manual materials are done in

English. We would like to request that this requirement follow the same international standard.

(A) All training materials and system manuals shall be provided in English and Spanish.

15.

(Q) Jump is not an industry term Shield AI follows. Shield uses heavy fuel powered

Sequence for take-off. Is there a specific performance parameter this Jump requirement supports?

(A) The Government does not have a separate performance parameter associated with the term

‘Jump.’ The proposed aircraft must meet the VTOL capability and associated requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A

16.

(Q) Our company has normal net 30 payment term based on production date our ready to ship date and delivery date. Is INL is open to payment term flexibility.

(A) This is not acceptable as payments are governed by FAR 52.212-4(g) Invoice. The

Government will handle invoices according to the Prompt Payment Act (31 U.S.C. 3903) and 5 CFR part 1315.

17.

(Q) Our proposed solution area domain search payload has be discussed with INL this payload complies with the characteristics and performance of the PT-6. Our proposed solution is comes integrated into the maritime configuration of V-BAT and provides the same capabilities without an additional external payload. We request that we are allowed to sub our proposed solution payload to meet and or exceed the requirements of the PT-6 .

(A) The Overwatch PT-6 is the baseline wide-area search payload requirement. An alternative payload may be proposed if it provides equivalent or superior wide-area search capabilities and meets all applicable technical and operational requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A.

18.

(Q) To support compliant shipboard integration and pricing, please identify the specific

ECUNAV/COGUAR vessel class(es) and, if available, hull(s) from which Group 3 UAS VTOL launch and recovery will be required. Please also confirm whether the requirement is intended for one designated aviation-capable vessel or for operation across multiple

ECUNAV/COGUAR vessel classes.

(A) The Government anticipates that the Group 3 UAS will provide a flexible operational capability for operations from designated Ecuadorian Navy and Coast Guard maritime platforms and is not intended to be limited exclusively to a single vessel or vessel class. For planning, integration, and pricing purposes, the following vessels should be considered as reference platforms for embarked

VTOL operations:

o Ecuadorian Navy: Multipurpose Vessel capable of conducting maritime interdiction operations; steel hull; approximate length: 58.3 m; approximate beam: 12 m.

o Ecuadorian Navy: Multipurpose Vessel capable of conducting maritime interdiction operations; steel hull; approximate length: 115 m; approximate beam: 6.5 m.

o Ecuadorian Coast Guard: Coast Guard vessel capable of conducting maritime interdiction operations; steel hull; approximate length: 50 m; approximate beam: 9 m.

The proposed solution shall demonstrate compatibility with the operational and integration conditions of the platforms designated by the Government. The reference platforms identified above are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, and the UAS may also be employed from other suitable

Ecuadorian Navy and Coast Guard maritime platforms, as designated by the Government. Specific hulls and final vessel assignments may be provided to the Contractor as necessary to support system integration and operational requirements.

The intent is to establish an embarked VTOL capability that can be employed flexibly from designated maritime platforms, while also maintaining the capability to operate from land-based facilities using BLOS/SATCOM.

19.

(Q) Please provide the available host-vessel planning data needed to validate shipboard integration, including usable flight-deck dimensions, obstacle/clearance criteria, deck loading limits, tie-down provisions, available hangar or protected storage, electrical power, GCS location, RF/communications constraints, and any launch or recovery limitations.

(A) The Government will provide, as applicable, the available technical information necessary to assess system compatibility with the designated naval platforms. The Government anticipates that operations may be conducted from the following surface vessels:

Vessel

Type

Usable

Flight

Deck

Dimension

/ Available

Deck Area

Clearence

Obstacles

Deck

Loading

Limit

Tie-Down

Provisions

Hangar /

Protected

Storage

Electrical

Power

Observation

Multiple

Purpose

Vessel

17 m x 11 m

No obstacles

10 tons 81 tie-down points on deck

Hangar

(not climate-controlled)

220 V -

Missile

Corvette

12.2 m x

8.32 m

No obstacles

10 tons 4 tie-down points

Storage only

440 V /

110 V

No hangar available

Coast

Guard

Patrol

Vessel

Available deck area:

5.8 m x

5.6 m

Rubber boat

10 tons Main deck Storage only

220 V /

110 V

No flight deck available

Information regarding the location of the Ground Control Station (GCS), RF/communications constraints, and any additional launch and recovery limitations will be provided, as applicable, to support assessment of system compatibility and operational requirements. The deck area identified for the Coast Guard Patrol Vessel is provided for reference only and does not constitute a designated flight deck.

20.

(Q) The SOW specifies VTOL launch/recovery with the vessel underway up to 25 knots and identifies wind limits, but does not state a minimum sea-state or deck-motion condition. Please identify the required sea state and/or allowable deck heave, pitch, and roll for acceptance testing, and confirm whether those conditions are intended to apply concurrently with the vessel-speed and wind requirements.

(A) The applicable sea-state condition for operations in Ecuador is Sea State 3. The specific deck-motion conditions applicable to acceptance testing, including allowable heave, pitch, and roll, will be determined based on the selected naval platform, applicable safety conditions, and the operational concept. The Offeror shall provide the operational limits of its system for wind, deck motion, sea state, and other relevant environmental conditions. These limits, together with the applicable sea-state, deck-motion, vessel-speed, and wind conditions, will be evaluated by the Government based on the selected platform, safety considerations, and the operational concept.

21.

(Q) Please confirm the intended embarked concept of employment for the three-aircraft

UAS. Must all three aircraft, associated GCS equipment, payloads, spares, consumables, tools, and support equipment be capable of deployment aboard the host vessel simultaneously, or may the contractor propose a smaller embarked detachment with aircraft rotation and sustainment from the Manta shore facility?

(A) The proposed system shall comply with the three-aircraft operational capability and all applicable deployment, embarked operations, equipment transportation, and sustainment requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A. Offerors shall describe their proposed deployment, sustainment, and aircraft rotation concept as part of their proposal, provided that the proposed concept remains fully compliant with all applicable requirements of the SOW and Appendix A.

22.

(Q) If the designated host vessel supports manned aviation, please confirm whether UAS operations must be conducted concurrently with embarked helicopter operations. If concurrent operations are required, please identify the planned flight-deck/hangar allocation, aviation deconfliction constraints, and any restrictions applicable to UAS fueling, maintenance, storage, launch, or recovery.

(A) When the designated naval platform has the capability to conduct manned aviation operations, UAS employment shall be compatible with the safety and coordination procedures established for the vessel’s aviation operations. Concurrent UAS and helicopter operations are not necessarily required and, when applicable, will be subject to flight-deck availability, aviation deconfliction procedures, weather conditions, and safety requirements established by the competent naval authority.

The Offeror shall account for the procedures, equipment, and operational limitations necessary to ensure safe and coordinated UAS operations with other embarked aircraft, including any applicable restrictions on UAS fueling, maintenance, storage, launch, and recovery.

23.

(Q) SOW 19.18 states that the UA shall utilize JP-5, while Appendix A requires a heavy-fuel engine compatible with JP-5, JP-8, and Jet A. Please clarify which fuel requirement governs and identify the aviation fuel expected to be available at the Manta operating location and aboard the intended host vessel(s). Please also confirm whether a manufacturer-approved configuration using locally available aviation fuel is acceptable when OEM compatibility is documented.

(A) The proposed UA shall utilize a heavy-fuel engine compatible with the fuel sources specified in the SOW and Appendix A, including JP-5, JP-8, and Jet A. The Contractor should propose a mature, proven engine configuration that can operate with these readily available fuel sources and should not require a specialized or non-standard fuel. The Government does not intend for the

Contractor to develop or modify an engine specifically to accommodate the required fuel. The proposed engine and fuel system should be based on an existing, proven design with demonstrated operational use.

24.

(Q) To support the delivery plan, sustainment concept, and 2,000+ flight-hour spares/consumables requirement, please identify the shore-side hangar, warehouse, maintenance, secure payload storage, and GCS spaces that will be made available at the

ECUNAV/COGUAR UAS Squadron in Manta. Please identify any space, environmental-control, security, power, or access limitations that offerors should incorporate into their proposed solution.

(A) The Government will provide, as applicable, available information regarding shore-side facilities in Manta that may be made available to support UAS operations. The proposed solution shall include a sustainment concept capable of supporting the required operational and maintenance activities associated with more than 2,000 flight hours. The Offeror shall identify in its proposal the infrastructure and facility requirements necessary to operate, maintain, and sustain the system, including requirements for GCS operations, aircraft and payload storage, spare parts, tools, consumables, electrical power, environmental controls, security, and access.

The Offeror shall also identify and account for any additional infrastructure or equipment required to support system operations, including, as applicable, electrical generation, power converters or transformers, plug or power adapters, connectors, or other specialized equipment necessary to interface with the available facilities. The proposed requirements shall be considered in conjunction with the facilities made available by the Government and the operational concept.

25.

(Q) SOW 19.20 requires engine replacement on an underway vessel without OEM assistance or special alignment fixtures, while Section 16 requires warranty and onsite support. Please clarify the intended maintenance concept, including which organizational/intermediate maintenance tasks must be executable by ECUNAV/COGUAR personnel, which tasks may be performed by contractor/OEM personnel in Ecuador, and which depot-level actions may be performed outside Ecuador.

(A) The intended maintenance concept is to maximize the ability of trained ECUNAV/COGUAR personnel to perform operational, preventive, and phased maintenance tasks necessary to maintain system availability. The maintenance concept should maximize the maintenance activities that can be performed at the operator/maintainer level without routine reliance on Contractor/OEM personnel, including, where applicable, engine removal and replacement in accordance with the requirements of

SOW Section 19.20.

Higher-complexity maintenance activities requiring specialized equipment, facilities, or expertise may be performed in Ecuador by authorized Contractor/OEM personnel or, when appropriate, through depot-level support outside Ecuador. The Offeror shall provide a maintenance matrix identifying the maintenance tasks associated with each maintenance level, including the applicable training, tools, equipment, spare parts, consumables, and technical support requirements. The proposed maintenance concept should minimize reliance on depot-level maintenance and international shipment whenever practicable.

26.

(Q) The stated mission objectives emphasize long-range persistent maritime ISR, vessel detection/tracking, targeting support, and interdiction across the Ecuadorian littoral, Galápagos, and the mainland-to-Galápagos corridor. Please confirm whether the Government will consider an alternate shore-to-sea/BVLOS architecture that meets or exceeds the stated

ISR, sensor, C2, and target-handoff objectives and demonstrates materially greater range, endurance, or area coverage at comparable total mission cost (ie Fixed wing Group 3 with 600+ nm range launch/recovery shore based)

(A) The Government may consider a shore-to-sea/BVLOS alternative; however, shipboard VTOL capability is required.

27.

(Q) Please confirm whether real-world ship-based VTOL launch/recovery is a mandatory pass/fail technical threshold for each proposed aircraft configuration, or whether the comparative best-value evaluation may consider an alternate architecture that is demonstrably superior against the Government's persistent maritime ISR mission objectives but does not rely on shipboard VTOL as the primary launch/recovery method.

(A) Shipboard VTOL launch and recovery constitutes a required operational capability for the intended maritime employment of the system and is a mandatory requirement. This capability must be demonstrated by the proposed aircraft configuration. The Government may consider alternative architectures as part of the overall best-value evaluation; however, no alternative architecture may eliminate, replace, or substitute the required shipboard VTOL capability.

The system is intended to provide complementary employment from both maritime platforms and land-based locations, including BLOS/SATCOM operations. Accordingly, compliance will be evaluated against the full operational concept and not solely against a particular mode of employment.

28.

(Q) SOW 19.13 requires an altitude ceiling of at least 15,000 feet Above Mean Sea Level, while Appendix A states an operating altitude of 15,000 feet density altitude. Please clarify which altitude criterion is the contractual minimum requirement for proposal evaluation and acceptance testing.

(A) In accordance with SOW Section 19.13, the aircraft must have a service ceiling of at least

15,000 feet MSL. The 15,000-foot operating altitude identified in Appendix A as Density Altitude

(DA) is not intended to establish a lower altitude requirement. As the system will be operated over water, density altitude limitations are not expected to be a limiting operational factor.

29.

(Q) SOW 19.21 requires Ku-band BVLOS C2/streaming with up to 9 Mbps and AES-256 encryption. Appendix A states 10-80 Mbps downlink, 1-10 Mbps uplink, AES-256 capable with

AES-128 default, and a VPN to update from 128 to 256. Please clarify the minimum required throughput and whether AES-256 must be the operational default configuration at delivery and acceptance.

(A) The minimum communications performance shall be determined by the mandatory requirements established in the SOW and Appendix A. The proposed system shall provide sufficient

BLOS data-link capacity to support all required mission functions, including command and control, sensor data transmission, and real-time video streaming. The system shall support AES-256 encryption. The final configuration and implementation of encryption shall comply with applicable

Government cybersecurity, information assurance, and communications security requirements at the time of delivery and acceptance.

30.

(Q) SOW 3.8 calls for pilot basic operations and Train-the-Trainer instruction in Spanish for up to 10-12 ECUNAV officials, while Appendix A requires a minimum of 12 personnel certified as both Pilots and Maintainers. Please clarify the required student quantity, certification standard, course outcomes, and whether all 12 personnel must receive and pass both pilot and maintainer qualification tracks.

(A) The required training quantity is a minimum of twelve (12) ECUNAV/COGUAR personnel.

In accordance with Appendix A, the twelve (12) personnel shall be trained and certified as both UAS

Pilots and UAS Maintainers. Accordingly, each of the twelve (12) personnel shall complete both the pilot and maintainer qualification tracks. The Contractor shall provide the training necessary for the designated personnel to achieve the required pilot and maintainer qualifications, including the applicable operational, safety, and maintenance competencies for the UAS. Certification shall be based on the successful completion of the applicable training and qualification requirements established by the Contractor for each discipline. The training shall be conducted in Spanish, as specified in SOW Section 3.8 and within Appendix A.

31.

(Q) The RFQ requires F.o.b. Destination and states that the U.S. Government will assist with customs clearance and duty-free entry, while SOW 5.9 requires Delivery Duty Paid (DDP)

Manta, Ecuador. Please clarify which delivery term governs and identify the contractor's responsibility for import clearance, duties/taxes, storage, customs brokerage, and risk of loss through final Government acceptance.

(A) Contractors shall refer to question #2

32.

(Q) Please clarify the required payload architecture and pricing allocation among the three

Fully Integrated Payload Sensors (CLIN 002), two Overwatch PT-6 payloads (CLIN 003), and the required IMSAR NSP-3 or equivalent wide-area search/SAR/MTI capability. Please identify which payloads must be installed concurrently, which may be swappable, the minimum equivalency criteria, and the applicable CLIN for the SAR/WAS capability.

(A) The system shall support the required payload configurations specified in the SOW and

Appendix A, including concurrent operation of the EO/IR payload with either the required Wide Area

Search (WAS) or active SAR capability, as applicable. The proposed solution shall provide a flexible payload architecture capable of supporting multiple payloads and allowing the required payloads to be integrated, operated, and swapped as necessary to support the mission requirements. Ideally, the aircraft should be capable of operating the PT-6 and NSP-3 payloads simultaneously, subject to the aircraft's available payload capacity, power, weight and balance, and other applicable integration requirements.

The proposed solution shall demonstrate its ability to support the required payload configurations and associated mission capabilities in accordance with the SOW and Appendix A.

33.

(Q) The SOW requires international military airworthiness/qualification, real-world ship-based VTOL operations under specified authorities, proven military/law-enforcement use, current/past users, and at least five years of Western Hemisphere operations and training.

Please identify the minimum evidence required with the quotation for each of these requirements and confirm whether qualifying evidence may be provided through the proposed

OEM/platform provider when the offeror is the prime integrator.

(A) The required evidence demonstrating compliance with these requirements shall be provided with the proposal for evaluation.

34.

(Q) Brand-Name Hardware (Overwatch PT-6) - Section 19.22 through 19.24 and CLIN 003 specify the inclusion of a brand-name payload— specifically the Overwatch PT-6—for Wide

Area Search (WAS) and automated target cueing. Under FAR 11.104 (Brand Name or Equal) and FAR Part 12 commercial item acquisition policies: Brand Name or Equal Clarification:

Will the Government clarify whether CLIN 003 is a "brand-name or equal" requirement, and confirm that offerors may propose functionally equivalent Wide Area Search (WAS) and automated target detection capabilities?

(A) The Government may consider functionally equivalent payloads or configurations in lieu of the referenced make or model, provided that the proposed payload meets or exceeds the minimum technical, operational, and performance requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A. Offerors proposing an equivalent payload shall provide sufficient technical information to demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements.

35.

(Q) Integrated AI/ML Software Equivalent: Will the Government accept integrated solutions where Wide Area Search (WAS), automated target detection, tracking, and cross-cueing are executed via high-definition primary EO/IR gimbals (e.g., Trillium HD59, Hoodtech

Alticam 06, or equivalent) integrated with advanced on-board AI/ML computer vision and multi-source intelligence software, in lieu of requiring a secondary physical PT-6 hardware payload?

(A) The system should be capable of supporting multiple payload configurations and concurrent operation of the EO/IR payload with the required Wide Area Search (WAS) or active SAR capability, as applicable. Functionally equivalent payloads or configurations may be proposed, provided that they meet or exceed the applicable minimum technical, operational, and performance requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A. An integrated EO/IR system with AI/ML-enabled wide-area search functionality may also be proposed as an alternative configuration, provided that it meets or exceeds the applicable requirements for the required WAS capability and supports the required mission functions.

36.

(Q) Data & Interface Availability: If the Government maintains the requirement for the brand-name Overwatch PT-6 under CLIN 003, will the Government provide all offerors with standard Interface Control Documents (ICD), mechanical/electrical integration data, and protocol specifications necessary to integrate the PT-6 payload into competing ground control stations and airframes on an equal and timely basis?

(A) The Government intends to define the required payload based on the applicable technical and performance requirements rather than limiting the requirement to a specific make or model.

Accordingly, the PT-6 payload referenced in the solicitation may be satisfied by the PT-6 or a functionally equivalent payload, provided that the proposed payload meets or exceeds the applicable requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A.

Offerors proposing an equivalent payload shall provide sufficient technical information and interface data to demonstrate compatibility and compliance with the required system architecture and mission capabilities.

37.

(Q) Operational Quantity Alignment: SOW Table 2 / Appendix A specifies three (3)

Unmanned Aircraft (CLIN 001) and three (3) primary EO/IR sensors (CLIN 002), but only two (2) Overwatch PT-6 payloads (CLIN 003). Will the Government confirm that

Group-3 airframes capable of executing primary EO/IR missions without a secondary PT-

6 payload mounted satisfy the Government's baseline operational flight requirements?

(A) The third aircraft is intended to be incorporated into the operational rotation with a swappable payload configuration. The two PT-6 payloads may be transferred between the three aircraft as needed. Therefore, the third aircraft may operate without a dedicated PT-6 payload when the PT-6 is installed on one of the other two aircraft. If required, a PT-6 payload can be swapped onto the third aircraft to support the applicable mission.

38.

(Q) Technical Evaluation, Shipboard Ergonomics & Redundancy (FAR 52.212-2)

Under the Comparative Evaluation procedures set forth in Section 52.212-2, the Government will evaluate technical quality superiority, operational suitability, and system safety among competing offers: Compact Footprint & Deck Handling Safety: SOW Item 19.19 specifies a

Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight of up to 225 lbs., while Appendix A requires transport cases to support safe handling by no more than two personnel. To ensure compliance with occupational safety and military human factors engineering standards (e.g., MIL-STD-

1472 / OSHA two-person lift thresholds of ~100 lbs. max per case) on pitching maritime vessels: 1. Will the Government confirm that no individual packed transportation case shall exceed standard two-person lift limits (100 lbs. max per case) for shipboard handling? 2. Will offerors providing a compact system footprint (~100 lbs. MTOW class) with quick-detach modular wings packed across lightweight cases—ensuring safe two-person assembly/disassembly without mechanical deck cranes—receive favorable consideration under the Technical evaluation factor?

(A) The SOW does not establish a specific maximum weight for individual transportation cases or a specific two-person lifting threshold, such as 100 lbs. per case. In accordance with Appendix A, the

UAS and associated equipment shall be capable of being safely assembled and disassembled by a maximum of two (2) personnel, and the aircraft in its fully assembled configuration shall be capable of being hand-carried by a maximum of two (2) personnel.

The Contractor shall identify in its proposal the weight, dimensions, and overall footprint of the transportation cases and associated equipment and shall account for the available storage and handling conditions associated with the intended operational environment, including shipboard operations. The

Government may consider the proposed system’s overall configuration, handling characteristics, storage footprint, and operational suitability as part of the overall technical evaluation. However, the

Government does not establish a specific transportation-case weight threshold or an additional technical preference for a particular aircraft weight class beyond the requirements specified in the

SOW and Appendix A.

39.

(Q) Multi-Mission Modular Airframes (VTOL / CTOL): Given that shore-based operations will be headquartered at Eloy Alfaro International Airport in Manta, Ecuador, will the Government consider multi-mission modular airframes capable of converting between VTOL (for shipboard operations) and CTOL (Conventional Take-Off and

Landing for runway/shore operations) as a positive technical discriminator? Will offerors providing convertible VTOL/CTOL functionality—allowing the end-user to remove

VTOL modules during runway missions to improve aerodynamic efficiency and endurance—receive favorable consideration?

(A) The Government does not intend to consider VTOL/CTOL convertible functionality as a positive technical discriminator. The requirement is strictly for a VTOL-capable aircraft, and proposed configurations should meet the VTOL requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A.

40.

(Q) Critical System Fault-Tolerance: Will the Government consider critical component redundancy—specifically engine redundancy (dual-engine configuration capable of single-engine return-to-base), navigation system redundancy, and redundant control surface/aileron actuators—as a positive technical discriminator under the Technical evaluation factor? Will offerors providing full fault-tolerant airframe redundancy to prevent catastrophic asset loss during over-water missions receive favorable consideration relative to single-point-of-failure platforms?

(A) The Government may consider critical system redundancy and fault-tolerance capabilities;

however, engine redundancy is not a requirement and therefore will not be considered a technical discriminator. Proposed systems should meet the mandatory reliability, safety, and operational requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A.

41.

(Q) Flight Performance & Operational History Specifications: Altitude Ceiling (Section

19.13 & Appendix A): Section 19.13 specifies an altitude ceiling of at least 15,000 ft Density

Altitude (DA). For maritime domain awareness and low-altitude coastal/ocean interdiction where lower operational altitudes optimize optical sensor resolution, will the Government accept commercial Group-3 platforms with a certified operational ceiling of 10,000 ft MSL/DA or more that meet all payload, range, and 10+ hour endurance requirements?

(A) The proposed system shall comply with the minimum service ceiling requirement specified in

SOW Section 19.13 and the applicable altitude requirements in Appendix A. The Government will evaluate proposed systems based on their compliance with the applicable payload, range, endurance, and operational requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A.

42.

(Q) Airworthiness & Fielded History (Sections 19.4 & 19.5): To allow the Government to evaluate advanced, modern commercial Group-3 UAS technology that fully satisfies all payload, NDAA, and VTOL performance criteria: 1. Will the Government clarify whether an offeror can satisfy Section 19.5 by providing extensive, documented OEM flight-test logs and successful maritime operational flight demonstrations (including demonstrations conducted with non-NATO allied military or sovereign maritime authorities), in lieu of a 5-year fielded operational history? 2. Will the Government confirm that an offeror satisfies Section 19.4 if the proposed Group-3 VTOL platform has successfully demonstrated real-world shipboard VTOL performance and holds flight approvals from sovereign non-NATO allied military or government civil aviation authorities?

(A) Offerors shall provide the evidence required by Sections 19.4 and 19.5 of the SOW.

Documented OEM flight-test data and successful maritime flight demonstrations may be submitted as supporting evidence of system maturity and performance; however, such evidence does not replace any mandatory qualification, airworthiness, operational-history, or user-experience requirements specified in the SOW.

The Government will consider the overall maturity, demonstrated performance, operational reliability, and relevant experience of the proposed system in evaluating its suitability for the intended mission.

43.

(Q) In-Country Testing & Demonstration Requirements (PR-01 & PR-02). Moving-Vessel

Speed Baseline (Item 19.8): For SOW Item 19.8, does "moving vessel speed of up to 25 knots" refer specifically to vessel speed over the water (Speed Over Ground)? Will the full 25-knot moving-vessel launch and recovery capability be a mandatory demonstration requirement during Item PR-02 (In-Country Testing & Commissioning in Manta, Ecuador) prior to final acceptance?

(A) The “moving vessel speed of up to 25 knots” specified in SOW Item 19.8 refers to vessel

Speed Over Ground (SOG). The UAS shall meet the moving-vessel launch and recovery capability specified in SOW Section 19.8, including operations from a vessel moving at speeds of up to 25 knots. For operational safety and acceptance testing, the launch and recovery maneuver will be conducted at a vessel speed determined to be safe and appropriate by the Government, based on the proposed system’s operational limitations, vessel conditions, and applicable safety considerations. The acceptance test speed will not necessarily be 25 knots.

44.

(Q) Payload Swapping Timeframe ("Rapid" - Item 19.25): SOW Item 19.25 specifies that the system shall support "rapid field swapping of payloads." To ensure a clear and objective testing standard during Factory Acceptance Testing (PR-01) and In-Country

Commissioning (PR-02), will the Government confirm whether a payload swap completed within 30 minutes or less by two personnel satisfies the "rapid" requirement, consistent with the assembly timeframe in Appendix A?

(A) The Government considers a payload swap completed within 30 minutes by two personnel to be an acceptable timeframe for removing and replacing a payload. However, the Government does not intend to define “rapid” as a specific pass/fail timeframe. Payload replacement is expected to be a maintenance/technician-level task and is not intended to be performed as an immediate or emergency operation.

45.

(Q) ECUNAV Surface Vessel Parameters (Item PR-02): Item PR-02 requires in-country flight testing from an Ecuadorian surface vessel on open water. To enable offerors to evaluate flight deck boundary limits, obstacle clearances, and ship-motion envelopes:

1. Could the Government identify the class or model of the Ecuadorian Navy

(ECUNAV) surface vessel(s) designated for PR-02 testing? 2. Could the Government provide usable landing zone dimensions (length x width), freeboard height above the waterline, and any superstructure height restrictions or obstacles adjacent to the landing zone?

(A) Contractors shall refer to question #19. The dimensions identified above represent available deck areas for reference and do not necessarily constitute designated flight decks or approved landing zones. The Government will determine the applicable vessel and operational configuration for PR-02 testing.

46.

(Q) Engine Fuel Requirements (Section 19.18 & Appendix A). Section 19.18 specifies that the aircraft engine must utilize heavy fuel (JP-5, JP-8, Jet A). To maximize competition under

FAR Part 12 and allow the Government to evaluate proven, highly reliable commercial Group-

3 UAS platforms: Will the Government amend Section 19.18 to allow offerors to propose commercial UAS engines operating on high-efficiency commercial or aviation gasolines

(MOGAS/AVGAS 100LL), which are more widely available worldwide, or platforms capable of supporting multi-fuel configurations?

(A) The Government will maintain the fuel requirements specified in Section 19.18 of the SOW and Appendix A. The proposed UAS shall comply with the applicable heavy-fuel engine and fuel compatibility requirements specified therein. Ecuadorian Navy vessels may have JP-1 available onboard for embarked operations. The Government recognizes JP-1 compatibility as an operationally desirable capability for shipboard operations, provided that such compatibility is supported by the engine manufacturer/OEM. The availability of JP-1 onboard certain vessels does not modify, replace, or waive the fuel requirements specified in the SOW and Appendix A.

47.

(Q) Given that primary shore operations will be based out of Eloy Alfaro International

Airport in Manta, Ecuador, and deployed across various ECUNAV coastal and patrol assets (many of which utilize standard gasoline for small craft or generators), will the

Government confirm if gasoline-powered systems with minimal fuel footprints are acceptable, provided they satisfy all payload, range, 10+ hour endurance, and safety criteria?

(A) The proposed UAS shall comply with the fuel and engine requirements specified in Section

19.18 of the SOW. Any proposed aviation engine and fuel configuration must meet the applicable safety requirements and all required performance parameters, including the payload, range, and endurance requirements specified in the SOW.

48.

(Q) Ecuadorian Tax (VAT) & Local Subcontracting Structure (CLIN 009 & CLIN 010)

If a U.S. Prime Contractor is not registered in Ecuador, but utilizes a fully registered

Ecuadorian logistics/subcontractor partner for DDP import clearance and local delivery under

CLIN 010, will the local subcontractor's tax structure allow the U.S. Government to utilize

CLIN 009, or will the Prime's proposal be evaluated under the "Contractors Not Registered In

Ecuador" rules?

(A) Contractors shall refer to question #1

49.

(Q) Administrative & Proposal Formatting. Could the Government please confirm if there are any specific page limits, font size, margin, or file formatting restrictions for Volume 1 (Price) or Volume 2 (Technical)?

(A) There are not limitations on formatting and number of pages. Contractors shall refer to the

RFQ section (vii) for delivery instructions.

50.

(Q) Restrictive Sensor and Payload Callouts: Hardware-specific payload requirements, including secondary wide-area search sensors, may warrant review to ensure they do not unnecessarily disadvantage software-defined, edge-AI commercial alternatives that can offer equal or superior operational capabilities at lower cost. Aren’t these restrictive technical specifications?

(A) The Government has reviewed the concern regarding the sensor and payload requirements.

The SOW requirements in Sections 19.12, 19.22, 19.23, and 19.25 establish required operational capabilities and are not intended to prescribe a particular manufacturer, make/model, or proprietary payload architecture. The requirements for concurrent EO/IR and WAS or SAR operations, automated detection and tracking, and modular payload integration are based on the Government’s operational need to detect, track, identify, and support the targeting of maritime contacts in real time.

Section 19.25 also requires modular architecture supporting rapid payload exchange, including EO/IR, SAR, ELINT, and SIGINT, without OEM or Contractor intervention. Where applicable, the SOW expressly provides for equivalent sensor and search capabilities. Accordingly, offerors may propose different technologies and payload configurations, provided they demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the solicitation.

51.

(Q) Organizational Experience Criteria: Mandatory past performance thresholds, including specific NATO/Western Hemisphere deployment operational definitions, may warrant review to ensure they do not unnecessarily narrow the pool of qualified U.S. small business manufacturers and prime vendors or unintentionally discourage consideration of newer, fully tested technologies. Isn’t this a restrictive requirement?

(A) The Government has reviewed the concern regarding the organizational experience criteria.

The requirements in Sections 19.2, 19.4, and 19.5 are intended to ensure that the proposed UAS has demonstrated relevant…