FES PPE Ensemble RFI Responses 22 Sept 26.pdf

Questions and Answers

For

Fire and Emergency Services (F&ES)

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Dated 22 Sept 2026

1. SOW Section 6 references “DuPont" Nomex, “DuPont” Spandex, Neoprene and "DuPont" Kevlar. However, DuPont no longer owns or manufactures these products; Arclin does.

RESPONSE: Brand names are cited as examples of salient characteristics. Equivalent materials that meet NFPA standards and SOW performance specifications are acceptable.

SOW Section 6 will be amended to remove outdated manufacturer references.

2. SOW Section 6.12 references “a proprietary high-lubricity slick face cloth…” [emphasis added].

a. Does the Government intend to require proprietary/sole-source material, or can this section be revised to describe the required performance characteristics (high-lubricity, slick face cloth, etc.) to allow competitive offerings?

RESPONSE: The Government does not require proprietary or sole-source materials. SOW Section 6.12 will be amended to remove the word "proprietary" and describe the required performance characteristics (e.g., high-lubricity, slick face cloth) to ensure open competition. Equivalent materials meeting these performance standards are acceptable.

3. SOW Section 6.12 specifies that the hydro-entangled nonwoven fabric be "composed of basofil®, meta-aramid, and para-aramid fibers." However, the spunlace fabric in products such as Titanium and Glide do not contain Basofil - only meta-aramid and para-aramid fibers.

RESPONSE: The Government will accept alternative aramid-blend thermal liner batt compositions. The SOW will be amended to remove the specific requirement for "basofil®" fibers. Any thermal liner utilizing a certified meta-aramid/para-aramid blend that meets the SOW performance thresholds (e.g., TPP and THL) and is certified to NFPA standards is acceptable.

4. SOW Section 7.6.2 references Trapezoidal Tear Strength. We recommend the Government confirm the tear strength with the textile OEMs based on recent changes in testing methodologies that may affect the requirement.

RESPONSE: The Government acknowledges the evolution of textile testing standards. The trapezoidal tear strength requirements will be reviewed and verified against current ASTM testing methodologies (such as active ASTM D5587 standards). If necessary, an amendment will be issued to align SOW Section 7.6.2 with active, standard industry testing baselines.

5. SOW Section 7.7.4 references moisture barrier tear strength numbers. We recommend the Government confirm the current tear strength with the textile OEMs.

RESPONSE: The Government will review and verify moisture barrier tear strength metrics against active OEM technical data sheets and NFPA 1970 testing methodologies, and amend SOW Section 7.7.4 if adjustments are warranted.

6. SOW Section 8.1. Body

The design we propose allows full freedom of movement due to the shoulder-seam design which does not require the use of back-shoulder expansion panels. Will this design satisfy the intent of the requirement in the SOW?

RESPONSE: Yes, this design is acceptable. An alternative shoulder-seam construction that provides full upper-body mobility and prevents coat rise without back-shoulder expansion panels satisfies the intent of the requirement.

7. SOW Section 8.3. Inside Coat Pocket.

The internal coat pocket we propose is constructed of black Nomex lined with moisture barrier. Will this satisfy the intent of the requirement in the SOW?

RESPONSE: Yes, this is acceptable. An inside pocket constructed of flame-resistant meta-aramid (Nomex®) lined with an NFPA-compliant moisture barrier meets the intent of the

SOW.

8. SOW Section 8.16 Cargo/Hand Warmer Pockets.

The hand warmer pocket we propose is lined on one side (front). Will this satisfy the intent of the requirement in the SOW?

RESPONSE: No, single-sided lining is NOT acceptable. To protect DAF Firefighters (both Military and DAF Civilian personnel) operating in extreme cold weather (ECW) environments globally (such as Alaska and northern-tier installations), hand-warmer pockets must be lined with flame-resistant meta-aramid Nomex® fleece on both sides of the pocket cavity to ensure necessary thermal insulation and cold-injury prevention.

9. SOW Section 10.2 OCONUS/OCONUS Timelines

What is considered a maximum order?

RESPONSE: A maximum order limitation will be defined in the formal solicitation (RFP) under Section I / FAR Clause 52.216-19 (Delivery-Order Limitations). The RFI phase does not establish binding delivery minimums or maximums.

10. Material Equivalency and Performance Requirements

Page 6 of the specification identifies specific materials and, in certain instances, references “or equivalent” language. Please confirm whether alternate materials will be considered acceptable provided they meet or exceed the stated performance requirements, including but not limited to Thermal Protective Performance (TPP), Total Heat Loss (THL), Ret, applicable NFPA 1970 requirements, and any other performance criteria identified in the specification.

Additionally, please clarify whether the specified PBI outer shell construction is intended to require a true ripstop grid, or whether technologies such as Flex7 with Enforce technology, or an equivalent construction meeting the stated performance requirements, would be acceptable.

Given the transition from NFPA 1971 to NFPA 1970 and the related lowering of TPPs on average for the same composites, please confirm whether the Air Force will allow a garment composite with a different Thermal Protective Performance (TPP) value than currently stated in the specification, provided the composite is certified to the applicable NFPA 1970 requirements and continues to meet the Air Force’s intended balance of thermal protection, total heat loss, mobility, comfort, and operational performance.

RESPONSE: 1. Alternate Materials & Weaves: Equivalent materials meeting or exceeding stated SOW specifications are acceptable. Non-ripstop outer shell constructions (such as

Flex7 with Enforce technology or equivalent) are acceptable provided they meet or exceed all stated physical, mechanical, tensile, tear, and thermal performance thresholds.

2. SOW vs. NFPA TPP/THL Requirements: Proposed composites must meet or exceed the specific, higher TPP and THL ratings mandated in the SOW, not merely the NFPA baseline minimums (e.g., TPP ≥ 35 / THL ≥ 253 W/m²). While the ensemble must be fully certified to NFPA 1970 for all standard design and test criteria, the DAF’s higher TPP and THL requirements represent critical operational baselines and will NOT be reduced.

11. Thermal Liner Availability and Certification

The specification appears to identify Omni Synergy 2L from Norfab as the required thermal liner. This material no longer appears on Underwriter’s Laboratories listings for recognized materials for NFPA 1970. Please confirm whether this material remains the required thermal liner for this program and whether alternative thermal liner systems may be proposed if they are currently certified to NFPA 1970 and meet or exceed the stated performance requirements.

Please also clarify whether the reference to Basofil-based technology is mandatory or whether more current thermal liner technologies may be offered when they provide equivalent or improved performance, certification status, durability, and wearer comfort

RESPONSE: Norfab Omni Synergy 2L and Basofil-based fibers are not sole-source mandates. Any modern, certified NFPA 1970 thermal liner system (e.g., advanced meta-aramid and para-aramid spunlace composites) meeting or exceeding the SOW’s specific physical, TPP, and THL thresholds is fully acceptable.

12. Coat Construction Requirements

The specification appears to require both underarm gussets and a bi-swing back construction, along with a 3-inch storm flap. Please confirm whether these features are mandatory construction requirements or whether an alternate coat pattern or configuration may be proposed if it meets the same functional, ergonomic, and protective performance objectives.

RESPONSE: Alternate ergonomic coat patterns are acceptable. Offerors may propose proprietary or alternative mobility designs that achieve equivalent upper-body range of motion, ergonomic flexibility, and coat-to-pant overlap protection without requiring both specific cut features.

13. Liner Attachment Method

Please confirm whether a snap-in liner attachment system is required, or whether alternative liner attachment methods may be offered if they provide secure retention, ease of inspection, ease of removal, maintainability, and compliance with all applicable performance and certification requirements.

RESPONSE: Alternative liner attachment systems are acceptable. Systems utilizing heavy-duty zippers, hook-and-loop fasteners, or snaps are acceptable provided they ensure secure retention, ease of inspection/cleaning per NFPA 1850, and prevent liner displacement or bunching during active firefighting operations.

14. Front Facing Moisture Barrier Construction

Please clarify whether the front facings must utilize a three-layer moisture barrier construction as specified, or whether an alternative construction, such as neoprene-coated polycotton, may be proposed if it achieves the same moisture-blocking function and meets or exceeds applicable durability and performance requirements

RESPONSE: The Government does not mandate a specific number of physical layers for the front-facing moisture barrier, provided all critical performance, statutory, and environmental compliance baselines are achieved. The SOW will be amended to remove the “three-layer” specification constraint, thereby allowing alternative 2-layer or composite structures. To be deemed acceptable, any proposed front-facing moisture barrier must be 100% Berry Amendment compliant (10 U.S.C. 4862), certified non-fluorinated / PFAS-free under active NFPA standards (matching or exceeding the performance profile of the current GORE-TEX CROSSTECH® Innovate baseline), and fully meet or exceed the SOW’s specific physical, mechanical, thermal, and fluid-penetration resistance thresholds.

15. Wristlet Color and Performance Equivalency

Please confirm whether wristlets are required to be black, or whether alternate wristlet colors and materials may be acceptable if they provide equivalent or improved performance, durability, comfort, and compliance with applicable requirements.

RESPONSE: Alternate colors and equivalent materials are acceptable. Wristlets must satisfy all mandatory NFPA flame and heat resistance standards; wristlet color (e.g., natural, grey, or black) will not be used as an evaluation or disqualifying factor.

16. Closure and Attachment Alternatives

Please confirm whether an alternate trim configuration may be proposed to address stored-energy considerations while also improving long-term repairability and reducing maintenance costs. This clarification is particularly important where current reflective trim adhesive systems may present compatibility challenges with newer non-fluorinated outer shell materials.

RESPONSE: The Government mandates the use of heat-applied segmented reflective trim (e.g., 3M™ Scotchlite™ Fire Coat Comfort Trim or equivalent). Standard solid sewn-on reflective trim configurations will not be accepted. The reflective trim must be heat-applied and segmented to mitigate stored-energy heat hazards, eliminate thread-rot failure, prevent moisture and steam trapping, enhance garment flexibility, and ensure durable adhesion to non-fluorinated outer shell fabrics. SOW Sections 8.15 and 9.5 will be clarified to reflect this mandatory requirement.

17. Berry Amendment Compliance

Due to industry standards requiring advanced materials for Fire Fighter hood construction for particulate blocking, most hoods have material from a TAA complainant country. Also, there is confusion regarding non-textiles used in the final product and Berry allowance.

Does the non-textile items have to be made in America or does that prevent the entire garment from being regarded as Berry Compliant. I.e. Magnets, hook and dees, etc…

RESPONSE: Non-textile hardware must comply with DFARS 225.7002. While all textile fabrics, fibers, yarns, and knit materials must be 100% domestic under 10 U.S.C. 4862, certain non-textile findings (e.g., metal snaps, D-rings, magnets, zippers) may qualify under commercial item or qualifying country exceptions pursuant to DFARS 225.7002-2. Offerors must explicitly identify any non-domestic components within their technical proposals.

18. DEMO Set of turn out gear submission:

When does the Gov estimate they will want the demo sets to be built and shipped for evaluation?

RESPONSE: Demonstration / evaluation sets are NOT required with RFI submissions.

Detailed instructions, required quantities, sizing ranges, and delivery schedules for evaluation/field trial sets will be specified in the formal Request for Proposals (RFP).

19. Care and Cleaning 1851 requirements:

Is the Air Force interested in a combined solution for 1851 care and cleaning to be offered with submission? Lion has a robust Care and cleaning program which has 10 different ISP locations to support the Air Forces contract. Lion can quote anything from 1 – 7 years of garment support with each set procured. This would increase the life of the garments and provide an all-in-one solution for the customers.

RESPONSE: No, the Government will not include NFPA NFPA 1850 care, cleaning, and maintenance services in this procurement. The Department of the Air Force already maintains two active, enterprise-wide contracts dedicated to Advanced Inspection, Cleaning, and Repair. Offerors must scope and price their proposals strictly for the manufacturing, warranty, and delivery of the PPE ensembles.

20. General Questions:

Throughout the SOW it uses the word “Shall” in most all the item descriptions.

Does this indicate It is mandatory to have these characteristics as described with no alternative? Most docs use the word “Should” where there is room for an acceptable change. Just want to be clear on the verbiage and what it means WRT the SOW

RESPONSE: In accordance with defense drafting standards, the term “Shall” denotes a legally binding, mandatory requirement. While the final SOW will incorporate “or equivalent” language across general design and material descriptions to permit commercial design variations, mandatory performance baselines and program-directed safety features.

21. Business Classification:

Please clarify whether the Air Force intends for this requirement to be competed on a full-and-open basis, including participation by large business manufacturers.

RESPONSE: The acquisition strategy remains under evaluation. Market research collected through this RFI, and the Small Business “Rule of Two” determination will establish whether the solicitation is set aside for Small Business under NAICS 339113 or conducted under Full and Open competition.

22. Protective Hoods

The Air Force has requested that a Berry-compliant protective hood be included as part of the turnout gear set for procurement. However, the number of hoods that meet Berry Amendment requirements appear to be limited, while several available options meet Trade Agreements Act (TAA) requirements. Would the Government consider allowing a TAA-compliant hood if it provides enhanced particulate-blocking performance and is PFAS-free?

RESPONSE: DoD acquisitions of clothing and textile articles are governed by the statutory mandates of the Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. 4862). Unless the Air Force seeks and receives an approved Domestic Non-Availability Determination (DNAD) from the Secretary of the Air Force, particulate-blocking hoods must be 100% Berry Amendment compliant.

TAA-only compliant hoods cannot be accepted absent a formal DNAD.

23. Statement of Work Timing and Submission Requirements

The RFI does not clearly state when the Government intends to request the turnout gear specification referenced in the Statement of Work. Please clarify whether the specification build must be included as part of the 15-page RFI submission. If the specification is not required at this stage, please confirm when the Government would like to receive it for review by the manufacturer or prime contractor.

RESPONSE: Turnout gear technical specification builds, and CAD patterns are NOT required within the 15-page RFI response. Full technical specification builds and formal proposals will be requested under the subsequent Request for Proposals (RFP).

24. Please clarify whether a small business set-aside is anticipated, whether the NAICS code assignment is final, and the basis for the 750-employee threshold for NAICS 339113.

RESPONSE: NAICS 339113 (Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing) is the designated standard for structural firefighter PPE. The Small Business Administration (SBA) updated the small business size standard for NAICS 339113 to 800 employees. The final set-aside determination and NAICS will be decided upon conclusion of market research analysis.

25. SOW Section Coat 8.1 Body: Will a coat that contains more or less panels be allowed/considered if it does not restrict movement or increase coat rise.

RESPONSE: Yes, variable body panel configurations are acceptable. Coats utilizing more or fewer body panels will be considered acceptable provided they satisfy NFPA sizing requirements, prevent coat-to-pant hem separation during standard operational movements, and maintain required thermal and structural integrity.

26. SOW Section Pant 9.2 Pant rise: Will a pant be allowed/considered that doesn’t have a pant rise of 3 to 7 inches but maintains the proper coat to pant overlap, identified in NFPA 1550 .

RESPONSE: Yes, alternate pant rises are acceptable. Pant rises falling outside the 3-to-7-inch range are acceptable provided the ensemble system ensures mandatory coat-to-pant overlap across all standardized body movements in compliance with NFPA 1550 and NFPA 1970.

27. Is it the intent to have the garments labeled to the NFPA optional wording regarding

PFAS.

RESPONSE: Yes. In alignment with active NFPA 1970 standards and DAF occupational safety mandates, garments must incorporate clear labeling certifying that outer shells, moisture barriers, and thermal liners are manufactured without intentionally added PFAS.

28. Section 8.12 of the specifications in the SOW state Drag Rescue Device (DRD) made of Kevlar. Please explain the rationale for this restrictive requirement and whether a Kevlar blend material (specifically, a Kevlar Nomex blend material) is acceptable? If Kevlar only, please explain why the specification is restricted to Kevlar.

RESPONSE: Kevlar/Nomex aramid blends are acceptable. SOW Section 8.12 will be amended to permit any high-strength certified aramid webbing blend meeting or exceeding NFPA 1970 tensile strength, deployment, and thermal exposure performance requirements.

29. Section 8.16 of the specifications in the SOW appear to require an “expandable cargo pocket (between the outer shell and cargo pocket) . . . [that] shall be accessed from the rear of the pocket and both sides lined with flame-resistant meta-aramid Nomex® fleece.”

Is a Titanium 2-layer thermal material an acceptable alternative to meet this requirement?

If not, please explain the rationale for this specific requirement and why the material is limited to Nomex fleece when other suitable material alternatives are available under NFPA 1970 approved configurations.

RESPONSE: No, standard thermal liner composites (such as Titanium 2-layer) are NOT acceptable substitutes for flame-resistant meta-aramid Nomex® fleece. While standard thermal liners meet NFPA thermal protection standards, they do not possess the high-loft knit nap required to trap dead air and insulate wet, bare hands against skin contact-frostbite in sub-zero climates. To ensure the physiological safety of DAF Firefighters operating in extreme cold weather (ECW) environments globally, hand-warmer pocket cavities must be lined with flame-resistant meta-aramid Nomex® fleece (or a certified equivalent high-loft FR fleece) on both sides of the pocket. Standard flat-woven or spunlace thermal liner materials are rejected for this specific hand-warming application.

30. Section 8.16 of the specifications in the SOW require “[a] 1/2-inch Kevlar® rope . . .

inserted into the bottom hem of the flap to provide reinforcement and create a firm edge for easy lifting with a gloved hand.” Would a 1/2-inch closed cell silicone foam material be acceptable for this requirement, provided it remains NFPA 1970 compliant? If not, please explain the rationale for the restrictive dimension and material specificity of this requirement, including why the dimensions and material are being restricted to meet the easy lifting objective when other suitable alternatives are available to meet this objective that are NFPA compliant.

RESPONSE: No, a 1/2-inch closed-cell silicone foam material is not an acceptable substitute. The requirement for a 1/2-inch Kevlar® rope remains unchanged to ensure firefighter safety, consistent pocket accessibility, and structural longevity of the garment.

While closed-cell silicone foam may meet the thermal performance baselines of NFPA 1970, it cannot replicate the critical mechanical and tactile functions of the specified aramid rope core. The rationale for the restrictive material and dimensional specificity includes the following factors:

• Resistance to Compression (Tactile Mechanics): Firefighters operating in zero-visibility or high-stress environments rely on tactile feedback while wearing bulky, low-dexterity structural firefighting gloves. A 1/2-inch Kevlar® rope provides a dense, unyielding cylindrical core that creates a rigid mechanical “lip.” When a gloved hand sweeps the coat, this ridge acts as a positive hook that cannot be flattened. Conversely, closed-cell silicone foam consists of gas-filled cells; under the pinch or pull pressure of a heavy structural glove, foam collapses and flattens out, causing the glove to slip and impeding immediate pocket access.

• Column Stiffness and Edge Stability: The pocket flap must maintain a crisp, straight, horizontal edge across its entire span to prevent the heavy-duty hook-and-loop closures from warping or wrinkling the pocket assembly. Kevlar® rope provides excellent linear column stiffness that keeps the flap taut against the coat body. Closed-cell silicone foam is highly compliant and elastomeric; it lacks the necessary structural memory, which can lead to the flap buckling, curling, or drooping over time.

• Flex Fatigue and Tensile Strength: Pocket flaps on structural turnout gear undergo thousands of high-velocity “rip and pull” cycles over their service life. Kevlar® aramid fibers possess extraordinary tensile strength and infinite flex-fatigue resistance, ensuring the internal core will never snap, tear, or degrade from repeated bending. Silicone foam has relatively low tear strength; repeated flexing and localized stress at needle puncture lines can cause the foam to fracture internally, rendering the edge useless.

• Dimensional Consistency Under Load: A 1/2-inch rope diameter is the optimized thickness determined by human factors engineering to reliably catch the crease of a structural glove thumb or finger ridge. Because Kevlar® does not compress, it guarantees this 1/2-inch dimension remains constant under load. A 1/2-inch foam strip would effectively compress down to a fraction of that thickness when grabbed, failing to meet the “easy lifting” objective.

To ensure the safety of personnel and the reliable deployment of tools stored in structural pockets, the prescriptive geometry and material constraints of the 1/2-inch Kevlar® rope must be maintained.

31. Section 8.19 of the specifications in the SOW require the flashlight hook to “be triple riveted with double thickness arashield reinforcement in a vertical position to accept the clip of a flashlight.” Would a 4-layer outershell strap sewn to the outershell be acceptable to meet this requirement? If not, please explain the rationale for the specificity of this requirement, including the specific mechanism to attach the flashlight hook when other suitable alternatives are available to meet this objective that are NFPA compliant.

RESPONSE: Yes, a reinforced 4-layer outer shell sewn strap is acceptable. The Government will accept heavy-duty sewn outer shell strap reinforcement meeting equivalent load-bearing and tear-out retention thresholds as an acceptable alternative to triple-riveted Arashield reinforcement.

32. Section 9.12 of the specifications in the SOW require “[a] 1/2-inch Kevlar® rope . . .

inserted into the bottom hem of the flap to provide reinforcement and create a firm edge for easy lifting with a gloved hand.” Would a 1/2-inch closed cell silicone foam material be acceptable to meet this requirement, provided it remains NFPA 1970 compliant? If not, please explain the rationale for the restrictive specificity of this requirement, including why the dimensions and material are being restricted to meet the easy lifting objective when other suitable alternatives are available to meet this objective that are NFPA compliant.

RESPONSE: No, a 1/2-inch closed-cell silicone foam material is not an acceptable substitute. The requirement for a 1/2-inch Kevlar® rope remains unchanged to ensure firefighter safety, consistent pocket accessibility, and structural longevity of the garment.

While closed-cell silicone foam may meet the thermal performance baselines of NFPA 1970, it cannot replicate the critical mechanical and tactile functions of the specified aramid rope core. The rationale for the restrictive material and dimensional specificity includes the following factors:

• Resistance to Compression (Tactile Mechanics): Firefighters operating in zero-visibility or high-stress environments rely on tactile feedback while wearing bulky, low-dexterity structural firefighting gloves. A 1/2-inch Kevlar® rope provides a dense, unyielding cylindrical core that creates a rigid mechanical “lip.” When a gloved hand sweeps the coat, this ridge acts as a positive hook that cannot be flattened. Conversely, closed-cell silicone foam consists of gas-filled cells; under the pinch or pull pressure of a heavy structural glove, foam collapses and flattens out, causing the glove to slip and impeding immediate pocket access.

• Column Stiffness and Edge Stability: The pocket flap must maintain a crisp, straight, horizontal edge across its entire span to prevent the heavy-duty hook-and-loop closures from warping or wrinkling the pocket assembly. Kevlar® rope provides excellent linear column stiffness that keeps the flap taut against the coat body. Closed-cell silicone foam is highly compliant and elastomeric; it lacks the necessary structural memory, which can lead to the flap buckling, curling, or drooping over time.

• Flex Fatigue and Tensile Strength: Pocket flaps on structural turnout gear undergo thousands of high-velocity “rip and pull” cycles over their service life. Kevlar® aramid fibers possess extraordinary tensile strength and infinite flex-fatigue resistance, ensuring the internal core will never snap, tear, or degrade from repeated bending. Silicone foam has relatively low tear strength; repeated flexing and localized stress at needle puncture lines can cause the foam to fracture internally, rendering the edge useless.

• Dimensional Consistency Under Load: A 1/2-inch rope diameter is the optimized thickness determined by human factors engineering to reliably catch the crease of a structural glove thumb or finger ridge. Because Kevlar® does not compress, it guarantees this 1/2-inch dimension remains constant under load. A 1/2-inch foam strip would effectively compress down to a fraction of that thickness when grabbed, failing to meet the “easy lifting” objective.

To ensure the safety of personnel and the reliable deployment of tools stored in structural pockets, the prescriptive geometry and material constraints of the 1/2-inch Kevlar® rope must be maintained.

33. Section 9.16.1 of the specifications in the SOW require the ends of the suspender system to terminate with elasticized webbing suspender attachments and leather ends.

Would elasticized webbing terminating with snap tabs constructed of a woven aramid fabric be acceptable? If not, please explain the rationale for the specificity for this requirement, including why alternative fastener types would not be suitable if they are NFPA compliant and otherwise meet the objectives of the SOW.

RESPONSE: Yes, woven aramid snap tabs are acceptable. Suspender ends terminating with heavy-duty aramid webbing snap tabs or leather reinforcements are both compliant and acceptable.

34. Section 9.16.2 of the specifications in the SOW require “6 to 8 suspender attachment points configured with either 2 or 4 loops in the rear and 4 in front.” Would a 4-point suspender harness be acceptable to meet this requirement? If not, please explain the rationale for the specificity of this requirement, including whether fewer attachment points would be acceptable if they otherwise meet the objectives of the SOW and are NFPA compliant.

RESPONSE: Yes, 4-point suspender systems are acceptable. SOW Section 9.16.2 will be amended to permit either traditional 4-point harnesses or 6-to-8-point attachment configurations, provided they maintain secure load distribution and NFPA compliance.

35. Section 7.12.3 of the SOW states that “[a] complete users information guide shall be included with each coat and each pair of pants IAW NFPA 1970.” Please confirm whether USAF would consider a hang tag affixed to every garment with a QR code directing to an online user manual to be compliant with this requirement?

RESPONSE: Yes, a durable hang tag featuring a functional QR code is acceptable, provided the digital destination directs the end-user to the complete, unedited NFPA 1970 user information guide and complies with NFPA delivery, legibility, and retention guidelines.