QandA.docx

Questions and Answers

AFSOC-OTA-26-001

1. Am i correct to assume that this line in the solicitation:

"Any other capability or service required to enable the rapid development, demonstration, or deployment of solutions that enhance AFSOC mission readiness"

Allows a company to respond with our SensorOS capability (end-to-end solution for LAAD) ISO of AFSOC mission requirements/capability gaps versus services/support focused?

To clarify, this Prototype OTA is not intended to solicit or select a specific “end-to-end” solution (to include SensorOS or any other company’s proprietary platform) as the objective of the effort. The language you referenced is written broadly to allow flexibility in the types of support, capabilities, and services that may be needed to enable rapid development, demonstration, or deployment of solutions aligned to validated AFSOC mission needs and capability gaps.

In other words, the purpose of this OTA is to provide AFSOC a rapid innovation pathway (concept-to-demo-to-fielding), rather than to procure a predetermined system. If a future prototype effort identifies a requirement where your offering is relevant, the awardee may absolutely choose to work with your company as part of execution, but that would be driven by AFSOC mission requirements as they are defined during the effort, not by the solicitation being an open call for complete standalone solutions.

2. While the solicitation mentions "Design, fabrication, integration, and operational employment... [and] additive and subtractive manufacturing," It appears to be heavily services oriented. Can you tell me if the intent to be able to leverage Advanced Manufacturing and Additive Manufacturing from organizations that are not GOCO?

Yes — the intent is to be able to leverage advanced manufacturing (additive and subtractive), design, fabrication, integration, and related technical capabilities from industry, and that includes organizations that are not GOCO. That said, advanced manufacturing is only one segment of the overall contract requirements and intent. This vehicle is structured as an innovation pathway and is generally services/support oriented to enable rapid development, demonstration, and deployment against validated AFSOC needs. The specific mix of “services vs. manufacturing” will ultimately be driven by the task orders (i.e., what AFSOC is trying to prototype/solve on a given effort).

3. The solicitation mentions "Place of Performance: Work will be performed primarily off-site of Hurlburt Field, Florida, at the contractor's facilities or designated range spaces. In some cases, work may be conducted at government sites or during field events. Contractor facility should be within 3 miles of Hurlburt field and the designated range spaces within 55 miles of Hurlburt Field." While our company plans to have factories throughout the U.S., we are currently only located in Torrance, CA. Will this be an issue or do you foresee our inability to respond to parts requests?

The 3-mile (facility) and 55-mile (range) requirements are tied to operational requirements and the need for rapid iteration with AFSOC teams, aircraft, and field events. These are requirements at the time of proposal submission. AFSOC has current needs and must be able to leverage those spaces immediately.

4. Related to the following solicitation statement, “Offerors shall demonstrate, at the time of proposal submission, their ability to support classified efforts, including current or planned facility clearance (FCL) status, personnel clearance eligibility, and processes for safeguarding classified information. Specific security requirements will be defined on a per-task-order basis.” While this appears to be written broadly enough to indicate that we may be eligible with our FCL in the works, could you confirm/deny if that is the case?

The language is intentionally broad because security requirements will vary by task order. In general, having an FCL “in the works” may be acceptable for tasks that are unclassified or that can be structured to allow performance while clearances are being finalized. However, for any task order requiring classified performance, the awardee will need to meet the specific security requirements established for that task (facility, personnel clearance eligibility, safeguarding processes, etc.). Your approach should clearly articulate your current status, timeline, and how you would support classified work when required.

5. Prototype OTA in-kind contribution / resourcing As a reminder, Prototype OTAs commonly require meaningful participation beyond government funding (often described as cost share or in-kind contribution). This can include internally funded labor/engineering, use of company facilities and equipment, materials, test support, and other non-cash contributions that demonstrate the performer has “skin in the game” and can execute rapidly. Where applicable, that approach should be clearly described in your submission and is typically managed/validated at the task-order level.

6. Does the space have to be owned by the Prime, or is it okay if the Prime does not own the space and teams with someone whose space fits the requirement?

No, it does not need to be owned by the Prime, however the Prime must have full control of the facility.

7. Would the government identify if this is going to be a single award or multiple award OTA?

The government is not committing to a specific award structure in advance. Depending on the quality of submissions and the government’s needs, we may make a single award or multiple awards under this solicitation.

8. We understand this has to be within a designated range of 55 miles, would a facility in Panama City be acceptable as we calculate that to be around ~65 miles of Hurlburt Field, FL.

The range requirement is 55 miles as stated in the solicitation and is a requirement at the time of proposal submission. If your facility is approximately 65 miles from Hurlburt Field, that would not meet the stated requirement as written.

9. The notion of technical merit triumphs over relevant experience and past performance within the evaluation criteria. May the government please identify if not having any relevant experience or past performance be a gating factor in the evaluation of proposals?

Lack of relevant experience or past performance is not automatically a “no-go,” but it may impact evaluation. Offerors should focus on clearly demonstrating technical merit, the ability to execute quickly, and how they will manage risk and deliver outcomes. Where direct past performance is limited, provide analogous examples, key personnel experience, partners/subcontractors, and a credible execution plan to show capability.

10. Section 2 of the Performance Work Statement includes the following for scope of contractor support:

Design, fabrication, integration, and operational employment of tactical unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to support prototyping, experimentation, and mission validation activities

Could you provide any additional information on the types of UAS that this would entail? For example, would this entail Group 1-2 (< 55 lbs) small UAS, or would this require larger Group 4+ UAS?

In general, the intent of that language is to preserve flexibility to support AFSOC prototyping and experimentation across a range of UAS applications, rather than prescribe a single air vehicle class up front.

At this stage, the solicitation is not limited to (or exclusively focused on) any one UAS “Group.” Specific size/class (e.g., Group 1–2 vs. larger platforms) will be determined at the task-order level based on the validated mission need, concept of employment, required payload/endurance, range/event constraints, and airworthiness/operational approvals.

If you’re considering a submission, I’d recommend framing your capability in terms of what UAS classes you can realistically design/integrate/employ, your pathways for compliance (airworthiness, range safety, approvals), and how quickly you can iterate from prototype to field demonstration.

11. What is the expected amount to be awarded under this OTA and in each of the subsequent WOs? How many vendors are expected to be awarded and will an OTA grant be linked to a WO grant?

The government is not committing up front to a specific dollar value per awardee, a specific number of awardees, or a guaranteed volume of work orders. The intent is to establish an OTA pathway to enable rapid prototyping and experimentation, with specific scope and funding determined at the work-order/task-order level as needs are defined.

If multiple awards are made, each awardee may be eligible to compete for and/or be issued work orders based on the government’s requirements and the awardee’s demonstrated ability to perform. An OTA award establishes eligibility to receive work under the vehicle; work orders are not guaranteed and are driven by mission needs and available funding.

12. What does “designated range spaces” mean and how does it differ from the vendor facility requirements? Since we are based in LA, will a proposal to setup such deployable facility if/once we are awarded an OTA and simultaneously a WO be considered? Similarly re security clearances (FTL and personnel clearances will be processed if awarded, currently all our DoW work does not require such clearance).

“Designated range spaces” refers to the private range space provided by the contractor as part of performance (i.e., range access/space the vendor controls and makes available to support testing, demonstrations, experimentation, and mission validation activities). This is distinct from the contractor’s facility requirement, which exists to support rapid iteration, integration, and day-to-day execution near Hurlburt Field.

Both are important: the facility enables fast-turn engineering and integration; the range space enables testing/events/demonstrations in the local area.

The place-of-performance requirements (including the contractor facility within 3 miles and designated range space within 55 miles) are requirements at the time of proposal submission. AFSOC has current needs and must be able to leverage those spaces immediately.

If your approach depends on standing up a local/deployable footprint only after award, that would generally not satisfy the requirement as written unless you can credibly demonstrate the capability/footprint is in place and available at submission (e.g., an established local presence/partner arrangement that meets the distance constraints).

Security requirements are defined on a per-work-order basis. Unclassified work may be executable without cleared facilities/personnel; however, any work order requiring classified performance will require the awardee to meet the specific security requirements established for that task (facility clearance status/eligibility, personnel eligibility, and safeguarding processes).

If your current posture is “in work / to be processed after award,” you should clearly describe your plan, timeline, and how you will support classified tasks if/when required — understanding that some tasks may not be executable until the requisite clearances are in place.

13. When the government says the contractor facility must be 3 miles from Hurlburt Field, does this distance start from the front gate of the address, back gate, or center of the airfield? Any clarity here would be appreciated.

The distance is from either gate at Hurlburt Field