Industry Day Questions and Answers.pdf

Industry Day Q&A

Overview

• The earliest RFI/RFP for a platform would be no earlier than December 2026?

o Yes, that is correct

• We reference utilizing FAR 15 and FAR 16?

• Will technical requirements be submitted with the RFP release or earlier?

o No, will be done at order level

• Is an FCL/top secret FCL required?

o Will not be required

• Can we elaborate on the basic and option years?

o 10-year contract, 3 – 1-year basics, 7- 1-year options

• Has funding been obligated/POM’d and what year is the funding planning on starting?

o Funding is available for this effort

• Will sample Task Orders be provided?

o No

• Will the Air Force fund the design, prototyping, and testing phases after a Delivery Order is awarded through CLINS defined in that order?

o Yes, will be done on the order level and dependent on the effort

Breakout Session Day 1

Stratom

• Designing and “prototyping” was mentioned, is production included in this contract vehicle?

o Yes, production will be included

• Is funding obligated to this opportunity?

o Funding is available

• Will there be any small business set asides in the multi-award or in the task orders?

o No

• Is the EWAAC opportunity going to be running parallel to this vehicle or will it get rolled into NGAME?

o EWAAC is a separate contract vehicle not affiliated with NGAME.

• Is there a projected number/cap on the number of awards?

o This is no cap on number of awardees on the basic

• How will we look at CMMC level 2 compliance, will it be on a self-certification or an audit?

o Must be level 2 compliant

CVI

• Are the requirements going to be build-to-print or are these new developments?

o Will vary depending on the requirement and the IPT needs

• Is there a need for carts with running gears, trailers, etc.?

o The need is for a materiel handling equipment that is used to handle, transport, load/unload, build up munitions.

• Is there a nitrogen requirement?

o No

• Is there a requirement for carriages that can hold and transport systems?

o No

• Nuclear certification?

o This will be dependent on the requirement at the task order level. There is no nuclear certification for vendors. Nuclear certification of an item is performed by the government.

• What is the order/award process flow?

o See overview slides for order/award flow

Booz Allen

• Will there be studies/white paper request requirements released under NGAME?

o No not at this time

• How do we approach industry bringing ideas/requirements to the Government that could then be requested to be developed?

o This is not captured on NGAME

• Will task orders be awarded in multiple phases or divided out to different vendors to provide parts to the overall requirement? Ex: One contractor gets the design;

another gets the prototyping and First Article Testing (FAT).

o This will be determined on the task order level based on the requirement

• Will the equipment being procured be a 1 to 1 replacement of legacy equipment or will there be multi-capable advancements that replace multiple pieces as equipment?

o Will be based on the requirements at the task order level

• Do we own most of the TDP software on the systems that could support upgrades to the platforms?

o It will depend on the item under the MMHE umbrella

• Do we have a specific requirement for the contractors to use in terms of the “digital environment” that was stated in the SOO? We essentially bring this digital environment with us and give you guys access to it and all the data, or do you guys have something organic that you intend to use or have us use (data models, deliverables, etc.)

o No specific requirement, but will be determined at the task order level

• Are we currently creating a digital environment to standardize artifacts?

o Plans in development, but no planned date to finalize plan at this time

• What is the biggest driver for modernization efforts through the NGAME vehicle?

o Parts obsolescence, aging MMHE fleet, and need to modernize equipment for new systems coming online

• Is maintenance the biggest pain point in sustainment of this equipment?

o No, with the age of equipment it is no longer sustainable

• Are there any incentives/specific upgrades to the equipment we are trying to target?

E.g. Pushing for things like electrification over hydraulics etc.?

o No

DGI

• Is there a set aside type that is most preferable to us?

o No

• What systems do we envision being replaced?

o See potential efforts that could be included in our overview slides

• Do we envision any maintenance or repair depot requirements for this equipment as we manufacture it?

o No

McNally

• Are we looking for solutions that reduce the touchpoints between where munitions are stored and where they are loaded onto the plane/improvement in the safety and efficiency of the process?

o No

• How will task orders be coming out, will it be solutions relative to the type of equipment or by bomb/plane type?

o It will be based on the requirements received from the field

GS Engineering

• Where do we see the highest risk in successfully executing this contract?

o Getting a capable vendor base to execute task orders

• How can we help streamline solicitations?

o Follow instructions and timelines laid out by the team

• Are there opportunities in this contract for technology integration and not full redesigns?

o Yes, dependent on the requirements at the task order level

• How do we envision balancing the rapid prototyping with the nuclear certification requirements?

o Nuclear certification requirements will be on the government to satisfy.

• How will we differentiate between vendors? What determines a high performing vendor? How will vendors be rated?

o No differentiation will be identified between the capable vendors selected at the basic level.

• Will the small munitions trailer be on NGAME or EWAAC?

o Small munitions will be on EWAAC

Greene Machine/Collins

• Will we give more consideration towards incumbents?

o no

• Will NGAME replace the MMHE contract at Eglin?

o Two separate contracts not related

• Will the 110 and 141 requirements be modifications or a design build?

o Effort will be on EWAAC

• Will we order production units or just one offs/design build prototypes?

o It will depend on the requirement needs

• Can we number the attachments on the RFP?

o Not at this time

• Can we make sure the RFP is editable?

o It will not be editable

Oshkosh

• Is there a final decision on whether foreign participation is allowed in this opportunity?

o No foreign participation will be allowed

Breakout Session Day 2

Mettle Ops

• Does the Government have a preference on how Primes assemble teams at the delivery order level?

o The Government at the IDIQ level does not have a preference for teams or when they are created

• What has the team seen in issues/lapses in the self-scoring matrix?

o None at this time

• Does the Government want to see single work efforts showcasing each category for the Self-Score?

o As long as your submitted work efforts effectively demonstrates proficiency to meet the guidelines, you can submit one effort per category or one that satisfies both. Keep in mind there is a page limit on the proposal

• Does the Government foresee more rapid prototyping efforts or deliveries at a larger quantity of existing and improved versions of MMHE?

o It will be determined on the requirements

• Is there an intention for new equipment to be modular or autonomous, or are we looking to just procure a new fleet?

o It will be determined on the requirements

D&D Machinery

• On Page 10 of the Overview Slides, the MAC III is mentioned. Can you expand on that requirement? (This is the OEM for the MAC II) o This was just a potential effort that can be a task order level effort

Nobles Worldwide

• Could the team provide more details on the technical side of the requirements such as the loaders?

o No

• What can potential vendors be doing to prepare for the RFP until it is released?

o Potential offerors should review the draft documents on SAM.gov and review their current/previous works to confirm completion of Category 1 and 2

PDI

• Is there a limit on the number of vendors for NGAME?

o There is no limit to the number of vendors that can be awarded under the

NGAME contract

• How will the process of orders work after vendors are onboarded to NGAME, do all contractors get the chance to quote and then also do all contractors receive a full drawing package associated with that specific solicitation?

o If onboarded, all vendors will have the opportunity to propose

• On the items on Page 10 of the Overview Slides, is there an estimated total quantity?

o These items are just a few examples of items that could possibly be procured under the NGAME contract and are not all-inclusive nor finalized

• Is there a Draft Statement if Work posted before the RFP?

o No, there will not be a Draft Statement of Work for the basic contract

• What is a FOPR?

o A FOPR is a Fair Opportunity Proposal Request. It is a type of solicitation under Far Part 16, similar to a Request for Proposals (RFP)

• Should CMC Level 2 certification be included in the proposal submission?

o We will determine if you are level 2 compliant after submission of proposal

• Is there a way to make the Section M more clear on Page 3 regarding the self-scoring matrix?

o We will review and make changes, if necessary, before final RFP release

Growler ME

• Is there a specific reason for the five-year limit on past performance in the Draft Section L?

o IAW FAR guidance

• Are there any specific criteria to what would constitute decisions regarding on-boarding and off-boarding of contractors?

o On-boarding is based on self-score matrix, Off-boarding will be based on performance

Lockheed Martin o Regarding an anticipated solicitation released of 30 June 2026 and a proposal due date of 1 August 2026. As 1 August 2026 falls on a Saturday, a non-business day for Federal Government offices, we seek clarification on how the deadline will be interpreted. Please confirm whether the due date will be automatically adjusted to the next Federal business day (i.e., Monday 3 August 2026) or if the original calendar date of 1 August 2026 would remain the official deadline.

o This is just a tentative date that is subject to change. If the close date does fall on a non-business day, then it will be shifted to the next business day o Industry Day Chart #11 stated Focus Area Category 1 Criteria as "examples of design, development, prototypes, projects, and efforts." Section M states Category 1 is met "when the offeror provides work samples describing an Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) manufactures and delivers MMHE..." Is Production and Delivery (e.g. DD250 record) required to be compliant with Category 1?

o Yes, evidence of production and delivery (like a DD250) is almost certainly required to be compliant with Category 1 as defined in Section M.

o Slide #9 of the Industry Day Charts identified FMS as an End Customer. Will this result in country-specific requirements (e.g. CE/ATEX)?

o No, since no FMS is allowed o There have been several recent Sources Sought, RFI and 3rd Party Studies on

MMHE, notably last year's Market Survey hosted by MILTECH. Certain requirements and characteristics of a 4K Jammer were discussed as part of this survey and feedback on how responses were received would be beneficial towards providing a better Jammer. Will we receive feedback from the MILTECH-hosted market survey?

o No, this effort is not being accomplished through MilTech but by the USG.

o For the Potential NGAME candidates on Slide 10, can you provide current Air Force

Inventory numbers?

o We cannot provide this information o Are the MAJCOMS and FMS interested in hybrid or all-electric powertrains for the powered MMHE?

o This is dependent on the requirement owner and their specific equipment o Please confirm Small Business 19% in draft RFP. Recent NGAGE MAC IDIQ required

30% Small Business content o Small Business goals for 2026 have not been released for RAF. We will adhere to the current goals once published.

o What are plans for follow-on production and sustainment efforts with designed SE?

Please explain the transition plan from closeout of project under NGAME to gaining Program Office approval for use on aircraft / inclusion in system technical data enabling follow-on orders and sustainment.

o A follow-on contract or new effort for production will follow or be added under the NGAME umbrella. The closeout of a project under NGAME is not the end but rather the beginning of a formal handoff. The process is deliberately rigorous to ensure that any new equipment introduced to the fleet is safe, effective, fully documented, and logistically supportable for its entire service life.

o What is the anticipated RFP FOPR Turn-Around-Time (RFP release to Response Due Date)?

o Once the RFP is released, there will be a 30-45 return for proposal due date.

o Are there any restrictions on subcontracting non-US companies when replying to

FOPRs? Will the FOPR designate "US-only"?

o Subcontracting nor Prime will be allowed/accepted o Will the MHU-174 be competed as a FOPR under the NGAME MAC? Similar question for the Next Gen 16k Bomb Loader discussed at last year's Requirements Symposium? If not, what is the future plan for these MMHE?

o All requirements will be filled on a as need bases by the IPT. Once this contract expires, we will evaluate if we need to complete a follow-on contract o Will the contract allow primes to choose the best teammates and suppliers for each order at the time of order proposal (recommended)?

o It will be the Prime’s decision on who is selected for their team, as long as they are not FMS.

o Will all offerors be required to bid on every task order? Will the MAC require some level of minimum participation for bidding task orders?

o It will be up to the contractor if they choose to bid. It will not be required for the selected companies to bid if they do not wish to bid.

o Providing sample Task Orders and Criteria allows industry insight on how to best choose teammates. Will the USAF either provide samples or explain the intended competitive approach? What is the approach?

o No sample task orders will be provided. All requirements needed will have detailed descriptions and criteria needed for each effort.

o How did the Air Force calculate the MAC Ceiling at ~$920M? Can this information be shared with industry? What amount is in the 5-Year POM?

o No, this information can’t be shared o Looking at discriminating technologies and autonomy program changes at the Army, with a new focus on "vehicle agnostic autonomy." Are the MAJCOMS and FMS interested in connected MMHE and / or autonomous MMHE? Should we expect to see this requirement in future FOPRs?

o We have no insights to MAJCOM/FMS requirements until they send them to us o Our company has been widely transitioning to agile-driven development practices across the organization to be more efficient and reduce development timelines; will this MAC be structured in such a way to accommodate model-based acquisition?

o Yes, modern Multi-Award Contracts (MACs) are increasingly structured to accommodate and even encourage model-based acquisition and agile development practices. The DoW is shifting towards frameworks that prioritize flexibility, speed, and continuous improvement, which aligns with both agile and model-based methodologies.

o For those NGAME projects requiring incorporation into the F-35 Program, what collaboration do you expect to see from the Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin? At what point will they be brought into the development activities?

o Right now, there are no plans for joint program collaboration o During execution of the MAC, will there be opportunities for companies to give technology presentations on Next Gen MMHE they wish to see in a future FOPR?

o No, we will not accept any presentation. Any new equipment or capability can be submitted when a requirement is released.

o Are you collaborating with Navy PMA-260 & Global Strike on next generation MMHE to encourage cross-services use?

o No not at this time o Are there expectations of timeline for design efforts?

o No o Has the Air Force implemented a SysML or MBSE modeling approach to describe any existing MMHE? Can the Air Force provide a sample of an existing SysML or MBSE models for industry to leverage in developing our MBSE modeling approach?

o The USG is broadly adopting Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE), at this time we cannot provide specific details on its application to existing Munitions Material Handling Equipment (MMHE), nor can we provide a sample SysML or MBSE model.

Eglin AFB has an existing MMHE contract.

o Will it be allowable for companies competing on MAC FOPRs to be on one or more teams? Will this be true for Small Businesses? Will this be true for Large Businesses? Why? Will Primes be allowed to be both a MAC awardee and teammate on another awardees team?

o Whoever is selected for the NAC contract can propose and work with whom they desire but will not be able to work as a team with selected vendors chosen for the contract as that would limit competition with the vendors selected.

o At this stage, can you help identify and prioritize potential FOPRs expected early in the MAC?

o FOPRs will be released according to the IPT needs. All FOPRs to be released will be posted on sam.gov

TLD

o Does the USAF have any initial operational capability (IOC) dates for the items listed under NGAGE, i.e. 4K bomb lift, 7K bomb lift, MHU-110/-141, etc.

o Not at this time o Does the USAF have a forecasted order of release for the above projects, or do you expect these RFPs to overlap?

o There is no forecasted order of release for orders, we will release order requirements as needed per our IPT needs.

o NGAME priorities cover a wide range of equipment types—can multiple past projects be submitted under a single work sample? …are ongoing projects acceptable?

o Yes, all past and current work can be submitted.

o Is Category 2 work (technical data, engineering data, and supporting documentation) for other AGE/equipment items outside MMHE acceptable? i.e. a manual for a mil-spec AGE item which is not MMHE-related?

o We will only accept work for MMHE equipment only.

Claroty o The SSS specifically asks for experience with Assessment and Authorization (A&A) under RMF using NIST 800-53 rev5 security controls and asks for familiarity with NIST SP 800-82 (Industrial Control Systems) as it applies to Munitions Material Handling Equipment. Will those cyber security requirements and skills be mandatory in the selection criteria of the primes? Are there any compliance reports or other security reporting that NGAME will require the primes to provide?

o Yes, contractors will be expected to act as the driving force behind the RMF process and expected to deliver the needed compliance reports.

o Will the Government require Secure Remote Access protocols that meet zero-trust standards for third-party maintenance and diagnostics to help ensure that 'incidental services' do not introduce outside threats to the munitions network?

o Yes, it will be required to have/provide Secure Remote Access protocols that meet Zero-Trust standards.

o Will NGAME require primes to provide automated SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) for all embedded firmware to ensure no high-risk vulnerabilities are introduced into the materials handling chain especially nuclear? Will they require ongoing evaluations of the platforms and reporting to you?

o Yes, as required per each order requirement o The SSS emphasizes Digital Engineering and Simulation. What role will digital engineering play in the process? Will digital twins of the manufacturing process be a significant decision maker in the selection of the awardees? Do you envision Virtual Prototyping, testing alternative components in a simulated environment if the original part is no longer manufactured.

o Yes, the use of digital twins, including those for manufacturing processes will be a significant factor in the selection of awardees for government contracts. A contractor's proficiency in digital twin technology demonstrates alignment with the DoW's digital transformation goals, making them a more competitive.

o To what extent does the Government want the 'Digital Twin' of these assets to include a live 'Cyber Profile' that reflects the real-time vulnerability posture and risk score of the physical asset? Are you looking for risk simulation and asset visibility as part of your digital engineering goals?

o The government is moving towards a future where the digital twin is an indispensable tool for ensuring the cybersecurity and resilience of its most critical assets o Since the scope emphasizes the development and testing phases (DT/OT/QT&E), will the Government require a Cyber-Physical System (CPS) security assessment as part of the First Article Testing (FAT) to ensure new designs are resilient against OT-specific threats before production?

o A thorough cybersecurity evaluation will be an essential component of the approval process for new designs in the near future.

o The Ordering Guide lists "Lack of adhering to digital domain" as a reason for a vendor to be off-ramped. It mentions that vendors can be off ramped for failing to adhere to the 'digital domain'. Will the final RFP include specific technical benchmarks for the primes to meet adherence, such as a requirement for automated asset visibility, real-time vulnerability tracking, or the delivery of machine-readable SBOMs for all MMHE control systems?

o Yes, the requirements (RFP/FOPR) will have all the instructions needed for the requirement.