13 May 2026_Industry Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F)
- Solicitation number
- FA8533-25-R-0002
About this file
This is an Industry Questions and Answers document dated May 7, 2026, addressing clarifications to RFP Amendment 0006 for the Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F) solicitation FA8533-25-R-0002. The document provides Government responses to industry inquiries regarding pricing structure, contract line item numbers (CLINs), period of performance, and solicitation compliance requirements.
Key clarifications include: CLIN 1017 (Material F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester) is a material CLIN intended to procure materials for CLINs 1008 and 1009, to be ordered shortly after Option I exercise, functioning as a long lead item despite not being classified as such; Long Lead Items (LLI) are defined as components, equipment, or materials requiring procurement or initiation 8 months or more in advance of the main production phase, with CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020 designated for material and long lead items; offerors must propose add-on factors for these CLINs rather than detailed material costs, with specific costs determined at the order level using Government-estimated values not disclosed to offerors; the LRIP quantity is confirmed as 4 units per RFP Amendment 0003; option periods maintain 12-month performance periods with deliveries potentially extending beyond; completed RFP and all amendments must be submitted together, whether consolidated or separately; prototype evaluation will occur between 290 and 320 days after basic contract award without anticipated delays to Option I execution; and material/long lead CLINs will be evaluated using offeror-proposed add-on factors applied to Government-estimated costs. The Government declined a two-week proposal extension request and confirmed that source selection information legend must appear on all proposal pages regardless of CUI marking removal.
View the file
Other files
Show all 50
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| File Name | Background | Question | Government Response | Column1 | |
| May+7+2026_Industry+Questions+and+Answers | a. CLIN 1017 is bundled with the 5 LLI CLINs (1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020) in many RFP sections and Government responses. | ||||
| b. In its latest response, the Government stated: “The Government has incorporated CLIN 1017 (Material F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester) to be exercised anytime during Option 1. CLIN 1017 is NOT a Long Lead Item CLIN.” | i. If CLIN 1017 is not a long lead item then what type of CLIN is it? |
ii. Is CLIN 1017 intended to buy materials for CLIN 1009 (83 testers), CLIN 2008 (210 testers), or both?
iii. When in Option Year 1 does the Government plan to release this CLIN (required for IMS planning)? i. CLIN 1017 is a material CLIN. The Government anticipates it to be ordered well enough in advance of the production CLIN to account for the lead times and allow for on-time delivery per the Government's required delivery schedule.
ii. It is intended to procure materials for CLINs 1008 and 1009. It is essentially performing as a long lead item CLIN, but it could not be classified as such because the Government is not ordering it within the Basic contract period.
iii. The Government anticipates issuing the order for CLIN 1017 shortly after Option I exercise.
May+7+2026_Industry+Questions+and+Answers – LLI CLINs The Government responded as follows in Line 7 of the response:
“4.c.i. The Government expects offerors to account for material under appropriate CLINs. The only discrete material costs that should be excluded from an offeror's proposal are the long lead items/material related to CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020.”
“4.c.ii. The Government does not anticipate that all offerors will have a defined list of long lead items purchases at the time of proposal submission. As such, offerors are required to propose only add-on factors for CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020. The specific material costs for these CLINs will be determined at the order level.”
The Government also responded as follows in Line 8 of the response:
“The Government expects offerors to exclude long lead items/material from their FFP CLINs as those items/material will be accounted for under CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020.” i. If LLI material should be removed from the FFP CLINs but should not be included in the LLI CLINs, where should it be included?
ii. Does the Gov’t expect contractors to deduct the add-on costs in the LLI CLINs from the production FFP CLINs?
iii. Can the Gov’t provide an example how the LLI CLINs need to be quoted? i. The Government will negotiate each LLI/material order prior to issuance. A request for order proposal will be provided with instructions on the materials costs to propose. The material add on factors incorporated into the contract will be used during the negotiations of these LLI/material CLINs. For those material costs that are not classified as LLI, then they shall be accounted for under the appropriate CLINs.
ii. Not necessarily. Should there be material not classified as LLI, that is to be accounted for under the appropriate CLIN. That cost would also include the add on factors.
iii. In accordance with Section L-900, paragraph II.E.1.k., offerors are to propose add-on factor(s) to account for indirect costs such as overhead, G&A, and/or cost of money and fee. See Section M-900, paragraph II.F.c.for how the Government will calculate the material/LLI CLIN prices.
May+7+2026_Industry+Questions+and+Answers – Period of Performance The Government’s response to the question in Line 10 addressed the Base Contract Year and the first Option Year.
In Option Year 1 response, it appears the Gov’t is listing an incorrect quantity of LRIP units (10).
| The government also responded that: “The Government will be placing an order for the desired CAT-F solution testers but understands a percentage of testers may not be delivered during Option I.” | i. Please confirm the correct number of LRIP units |
| ii. Based on the above statement that the Government “…understands a percentage of testers may not be delivered during Option I”, can the Government confirm that the Period of Performance for each Option year may be longer than 12 months? | i. Correct; the LRIP quantity is 4 each as noted in RFP Amendment 0003. |
ii. The option periods will have periods of performance of one year each; in other words, orders may be placed for that option period within its associated 12-month period. That statement is to address the fact that the individual orders placed during the 12 month option period may have deliveries extending beyond that one year period.
| May+7+2026_Industry+Questions+and+Answers | In answer to a question, the government stated that, 'The Government is currently working on a conformed copy of the RFP; however, the Government is not guaranteeing this prior to proposals being due. Offerors are to ensure any clauses or provisions with fill in information addressed in RFP Amendments are completed on the amendment itself." | i. May fill-in information (including the Schedule/Section B information) be provided in one integrated file associated with the basic RFP FA8533-25-R-0002 SF33 rather than distributed among the 6 SF30 amendments (as would be the case for an updated conformed copy of the RFP)? This would facilitate the government's use of this integrated file in executing the awarded Basic contract. | |
| ii. DFARS and FAR clauses that were in the original RFP but have been Reserved in subsequent amendments do not have to be addressed, correct? | i. The information is to be provided on the RFP and each amendment. If an offeror chooses to create a single document, that is acceptable; however, the completed RFP and all associated RFP amendments are to be provided. |
Ii. Correct; if any clauses/provisions have been noted as reserved or deleted, they do not need to be addressed.
May+7+2026_Industry+Questions+and+Answers In answer to a question, the government stated that, "Between 390 and 320 days after award, the Government will conduct a prototype evaluation of each vender’s solution which requires O-level testers and the software and hardware TPS for the requested MDS requirements under CLINs 0007, 0008, 0009." i. If the government conducts this evaluation past 365 days after the Basic contract award, will this delay the execution of the Option I so there could be a time gap between the Basic and Option I contract performance? There was an inadvertent typographical error in the response. Instead of "Between 390 and 320 days..." it should read "Betwen 290 and 320 days..."
The Government does not anticipate delays and does not expect a time gap between the Basic and Option I because of an evaluation.
| N/A | N/A | A proposal extension of 2 weeks is requested to properly address PoP and LLI concerns. | A proposal extension will not be granted at this time. |
| RFP Amendment FA8522-25-R-0002-0006 |
7MAY2026 Responses to Questions Long Lead Material - Rows 7 and 8 The current instructions, provided in the Government’s 7 May 2026 responses to question, appear to create a patent ambiguity and material solicitation defect because offerors are being directed to exclude long lead items/material from FFP CLINs, while the RFP otherwise requires FFP CLINs to be proposed as fully burdened unit prices inclusive of profit. Will the Government amend the RFP before proposal submission to state the controlling pricing instruction?
Examples of apparent ambiguity and material solicitation defect:
- Criteria used by offerors to determine which items constitute long lead can very greatly by company: 60 days, 90 days, and 180 days lead time are common thresholds for long lead definition; in accelerated procurement.
- Material/Labor mix will also result in high variances. Offerors that build more components such as cables internally could have substantially less material and associated long lead than those that use external sources such as small business vendors in their build approach.
- As demonstrated in Figure A, identically-priced offers can generate widely varied evaluated prices based merely on the offerors’ differing assessments of long-lead or how much of the build is performed internally. In the case of CLIN 1017, as all material is excluded, the differences are limited to material content only.
| - Long Lead Item/Material Exclusion favors higher long lead/material content with lower evaluated prices. Resultant long lead CLINs would increase the ratio of cost plus to fixed price work and, potentially, reduce fixed price value to a fraction of cost plus. | If offerors are required to exclude long lead items/material from FFP CLINs, will the Government amend the RFP to provide a mandatory definition of “long lead items/material” so that offerors are not forced to compete using materially different pricing assumptions? | Long Lead Items (LLI) are defined as components, equipment, or materials that must be procured or initiated 8 months or more in advance of the main production phase. | ||
| Does the Government expect Contractors to exclude all material from CLIN 1017? If not, can the Government provide more specific instructions for material to be excluded? | Material is not to be excluded from CLIN 1017; this CLIN is the CLIN that will be used to order the material with longer lead times for CLINs 1008 and 1009. | |||
| The Government has stated that it does not anticipate all offerors will have a defined list of long lead item purchases at proposal submission. Given that statement, will the Government please clarify how offerors should determine what "long lead items/material" to exclude from their FFP CLINs? How can offerors submit compliant, comparable, and meaningful FFP prices if each offeror must independently determine criteria for what material to exclude? | The Government has stated it does not anticipate that all offerors will have a defined list of long lead items purchases at the time of proposal submission. Offerors are required to propose only add-on factors for CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020. The specific material costs for these CLINs will be determined at the order level. | |||
| Section M states that CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020 will be evaluated by applying offeror add-on factors to a Government-estimated cost that is not disclosed to offerors. Will the Government disclose the Government-estimated material value for each such CLIN before proposal submission? | The Government does not plan to disclose the Government-estimated material value for any material/long lead item CLINs. | |||
| If the Government does not disclose those values, how will the Government ensure that Total Evaluated Price reflects each offeror’s actual proposed solution rather than an undisclosed Government plug value? | It is not the Government's intention to calculate an evaluated price for these CLINs specific to each offeror's approach as a material list is not expected to be fully identified at the time of initial proposals. Thus, the Government is utilizing a Government-derived estimated cost based on similar acquisitions which will be applied to each offeror's proposed add-on factors, in lieu of receiving detailed estimated BOMs from each offeror based on their specific approach. | |||
| How will the Government ensure that the material value each offeror excludes from its FFP CLINs is correlated to the material value the Government adds back through the long lead/material CLIN evaluation? | The Government is not obtaining price breakouts or detailed BOMs for FFP CLINs as price realism is not an evaluation factor on this source selection; further detailed BOMs are not being requested for the material/long lead item CLINs as the Government will consider a Government-estimate for the direct material costs. As stated above, the value to be applied to each offeror's proposed add-on factors will be the Government's estimated cost that will be the same value applied to all offerors; any difference in TEP for the LLI CLINs will be due to each offeror's proposed add-on factors. | |||
| How will the Government prevent an offeror from materially lowering its evaluated FFP price by excluding more material from FFP CLINs than the Government adds back through the undisclosed Government-estimated value? | Price realism is not an evaluation factor in this source selection, which would be how FFP prices could be evaluated as being unrealistic. | |||
| How will the Government evaluate an offeror whose proposed technical solution does not require separate long lead procurement, or requires materially less long lead material than the Government-estimated value? | Offerors shall be evaluated solely in accordance with Section M-900. | |||
| How will the Government determine whether an offeror’s FFP CLIN prices are understated, materially unbalanced, or based on an interpretation of the exclusion instruction that differs from other offerors? | Price realism is not an evaluation factor on this source selection; thus the FFP CLINs will not be evaluated to determine if the prices proposed are unrealistic. Balance, which includes a review of if the prices appear overstated or understated by the application of cost/price analysis techniques, will be evaluated in accordance with Section M-900 paragraph II.F.3. |
RFP Amendment 0007 will address the potential differing interpretation of long lead items.
| Does the Government agree that, without a common definition, disclosed evaluation value, and offeror-specific reconciliation, the current construct may produce Total Evaluated Prices that are not comparable across offerors and may not provide a rational basis for best-value tradeoff? | RFP Amendment 0007 will include Note 16 to instruct offerors that material required to be procured 8 months or more in advance of production to meet the Government's required delivery will be excluded from the appropriate production CLIN and included on the appropriate material/long lead item CLIN. | |
| To cure this apparent defect, will the Government remove the instruction to exclude long lead items/material from FFP CLINs and instead require complete, fully burdened FFP unit prices inclusive of all material? Alternatively, if the Government retains separate long lead/material CLINs, will the Government remove the undisclosed Government-estimated material value from the TEP calculation and evaluate only disclosed, proposed, and supportable cost/price elements? | The Government's approach removes the potential of restricting competition to only those potential offerors with detailed designs already in place. As stated in previous Q&A responses, the Government acknowledges that offerors may not have fully developed BOMs for purposes of proposal submittal and evaluation. The Government desires maximum competition in order to obtain the best value. | |
| If the Government declines to amend the RFP, disclose the Government-estimated material values, or require an offeror-specific reconciliation, how does the Government intend to support a finding that the solicitation provides a fair, reasonable, and legally sufficient basis for evaluating competing offerors? | All offerors shall be evaluated against the evaluation criteria stated in Section L-900 and M-900 for the basic award as well as Section L-901 and M-901 for the downselect. All evaluation findings will be thoroughly documented and reviewed in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated August 2022. | |
| Because this issue affects proposal compliance, pricing structure, evaluated price, and the best-value tradeoff, will the Government extend the proposal due date by at least two weeks after issuance of the Government’s response and any conforming RFP amendment? | A proposal extension will not be granted at this time. | |
| Removal of CUI markings | Given the removal of CUI markings from the RFP documentation, can the Government confirm that should submittal documentation not contain any CUI then the following Section L-900, Volume III (A)(5) requirement would not have to be applied? |
5. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 CUI Each page should still contain this legend as the proposals are considered and are being safeguarded as source selection information.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .