Attachment 13 - Solicitation Questions and Answers.pdf

2025-08-05

Rapid Advanced Capability Transition (ReACT) Multiple Authority Announcement (MAA)

Closed call for Proposals

Q&A for Solicitation FA2385-25-S-9761, Automated Air-to-Air Refueling (A3R)

Question Answer

Is it possible to consider other contract types besides Cost Plus, potentially including Firm Fixed Price, or Time and Material?

Yes

The RFP is clear that the proposal is for Boom Automation. However, the background section and KPP's still discuss relnav solutions including "CRONUS RelNav should not be GNSS dependent" and "detect and recognize a receiver entering the 1 NM boundary," When the proposal states it is solely focused on boom automation, does that imply a much closer proximity (~50ft) with approaches for the two aircraft to coming into proximity of each other being covered elsewhere?

In boom automation, the tanker needs to assess the position and orientation of the aerial refueling receiver aircraft (or formation of receiver aircraft). This assessment happens in phases and respondents are responsible for all. The quality of the assessment can vary – as the range shrinks the quality of the assessment needs to increase.

• The tanker uses boom automation sensing to identify that receivers have entered its airspace in order to give them permission to move forward to the tanker and to direct receivers to appropriate positions around the tanker

• Once the receiver is at astern or contact, boom automation uses the assessment of the receiver’s pose to maneuver the tanker’s boom into the receiver’s receptacle.

• The tanker is also using the assessment to evaluate the suitability of the refueling

2025-08-05 action. Is the receiver stable and ready for refueling? Does a disconnect need to be executed? Does a breakaway need to be executed?

Is the solutions space intended to cover both tanker to piloted aircraft, and tanker to UAS aircraft? For a UAS, it is possible that different technologies are required to keep a similar conops, such as the receiver aircraft station keeping relative to the tanker.

Yes, the boom automation system may be employed against either a crewed or uncrewed receiver. A boom automation tanker is not responsible for flying the receiver whether it is crewed or uncrewed. It does need to provide guidance to the receiver. It will need to operate a Pilot Director Light (PDL) system. It will need to tell receivers where they should go around the tanker and evaluate that those directives have been followed.

Are there still opportunities to also participate in relnav proposals, allowing for comprehensive solutions?

Not at this time

What the contractor must provide? Specifically, under 3.6. Proof of Concept Flight Demonstration Phase, as I read it, the contractor must provide the tanker test platform? Elsewhere it says Hardware Deliverables only includes sensing and communication hardware. So, if the government will not provide the test platform, then our only likely option is as a subcontractor to the major prime.

If the vendor’s white paper is selected to submit a proposal, then the vendor can propose either contractor owned or government owed assets for flight testing. If government owned assets are proposed, schedule risks should be taken into consideration.

Can I confirm the due dates for attachments 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12? Are they due the same day as the white paper, August 11th?

Only White Papers are due on 11 Aug.