7 May 2026_Industry Questions and Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F)
- Solicitation number
- FA8533-25-R-0002
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document addressing industry inquiries regarding RFP FA8533-25-R-0002 for the Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F) program. The Q&A addresses critical discrepancies identified between three versions of the Statement of Objectives (SOO) dated 5 August 2025, 10 September 2025, and 31 March 2026. Industry raised concerns that the final SOO reverted to the original version, losing substantive corrections made in the September 2025 revision, including clarifications on surge capability, corrections to launcher designations for the A-10 and F-15 platforms, removal of incorrect nuclear capability requirements for the F-16, and other technical specifications. The Government confirmed that RFP Amendment 0006 will incorporate an updated SOO with all corrections from the September 2025 version preserved.
The Q&A also addresses administrative and contractual matters including: submission requirements for SF33 and SF30 forms with associated amendments; contact information for four non-government advisor companies (DCS Corp, GDIT, HX5, Sumaria Systems, and P E Systems) supporting proposal evaluation; removal of incorrect CUI markings from RFP Attachment 4; treatment of long lead item (LLI) material costs under CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020 as cost-plus-fixed-fee with Government-estimated material values and offeror add-on factors for indirect costs; clarification that the Contract of Account Form (Attachment 7) applies only to cost-type CLINs; and confirmation that the acquisition structure consists of a 1-year Base Year plus 4 one-year Option Years with a total Period of Performance exceeding 12 months per option year due to EMD, LRIP, and FRP phase sequencing. The document emphasizes that contractors must exclude LLI material from firm-fixed-price production CLINs and are required to submit component bills of material only for cost-reimbursable CLINs.
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 |
| Industry Questions and Answers_22 April 2026. | a. In line 45 of the Industry Questions and Answers_22 April 2026, the government stated that, “The SOO posted with RFP Amendment 0003 captures all changes to date. For configuration management purposes, RFP Amendment 0004 will incorporate the same SOO with the only update being the addition of a version date.” |
b. There are 3 revisions of the SOO: SOO dated 5 Aug 2025 (provided in the original RFP), SOO dated 10 Sep 2025 (provided in February 2026) and SOO dates 31 Mar 2026 (provided in the final RFP release in April 2026).
c. The second revision of the SOO (10 Sep 2025) includes major corrections and changes following several Q&A sessions. However, the third revision of the SOO (31 Mar 2026) reverted back to the original version (5 Aug 2025) and all the corrections/changes disappeared. There are many changes that were lost including the following examples:
1. Surge: The 10 Sep SOO added clarification regarding the surge and the following statement was added to para XII: “The purpose of the surge capability is to increase production speed of the required quantity of testers already specified, there is no expectation of increased tester quantity with any surge capability.”. This statement that clarifies the Surge CLINs is not included in the third revision of the SOO (31 Mar 2026).
2. SRD 1.2.1.9 & 1.2.1.18: The 10 Sep SOO corrected an error in the original SOO and removed the LAU-128 from the A-10. These errors are back in the third revision of the SOO.
3. SRD 1.2.2.22: The 10 Sep SOO corrected a typo and replaced the LAU-120 (incorrect nomenclature for F-15 launcher) with LAU-106 (correct F-15 launcher). This error is back in the third revision of the SOO.
4. SRD 1.2.3.1.10 and SRD 1.2.3.3.9: the 10 Sep SOO corrected an error in the original SOO and removed the SCRIU requirement - industry was told that the nuclear capability was removed from the F-16 during Q/A. This error is back in the third revision of the SOO. Did the F-16 regain the nuclear mission?
| There are many more such errors, leading to the assumption that the 31 Mar 2026 SOO incorrectly used the 5 Aug 2025 SOO as a baseline, instead of the updated 10 Sep 2025 SOO. Supporting this assumption is the description of the Surge CLINs in Section B of RFP Amend. 2 that aligns with #1 above: The price needed for CLIN xxxx is for expedited delivery of the yyyy O-Level Handheld Tester Kits only, it is not to include the unit production cost. | Please provide an updated SOO or confirm that that all changes in the 10 Sep 2025 SOO are actually erroneous and that the 31 Mar 2026 SOO is accurate. | RFP Amendment 0006 will incorporate the updated SOO | |
| On the topic of the RFP, I would like to request an updated SF33 given Block 14 can only hold up to 4 Amendments as it stands and there are 5 Amendments to list. |
Additionally, for added clarity, does the Government expect Offerors to manually incorporate the changes from the Amendments into the RFP doc (i.e copy over new CLINs into the original RFP Section B, delete/add clauses that Amendments updated in Section I of the original RFP) or does the Government just expect Offerors to include the Amendments as a whole into the final submittal (i.e. include other sections from Amendments outside of the SF30)? For purposes of the proposal, an offeror-signed copy of the SF33 and each SF30 will need to be provided. For purposes of Schedule B, offerors can choose to submit the entire RFP and each entire amendment or just the relevant portions of them.
A conformed copy of the RFP is being worked; however, it is not guaranteed this will be completed prior to proposal due date. Should it be available prior to proposal deadline, any inadvertent errors will not be a reason for proposal extension.
RFP Section K-900. The RFP provides the names of the companies that will provide non-government advisors to assist in the evaluation of proposals. Please provide the names and email addresses of the official designated Points of Contact (POCs) for these companies. DCS Corp: Christina Jayroe, Director of Contracts, cjayroe@dcscorp.com GDIT: Adam Schmitz, Director of Contracts, Adam.Schmitz@gdit.com HX5: Jennifer Smith, VP, Finance & Contracts Sumaria Systems: Michelle Beuchter, Contracts Manager, mnixon@sumaria.com P E Systems: Patrick Morris, Director of Contracts, patrick.morris@pesystems.com
| RFP Attachment 4_Sections L-900_L-901_M-900_M-901_14 April 2026. | a. The Answers to the last industry Question included, “This [CUI] was an inadvertent marking. The RFP documentation will have these incorrect markings removed via RFP Amendment 0004.” | |||
| b. The referenced RFP Attachment 4 is still labeled as CUI | Should RFP Attachment 4 be treated as CUI. | RFP Amendment 0006 will incorporate RFP Attachment 4 with CUI markings removed. | ||
| RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002. | Section L, Volume I, Completed RFP, requires that the “Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP… Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.” | Will a current and complete RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002 be released with updates to the SF 33 form and the Schedule/Section B? | 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. | |
| Long Lead Items | a. Not all material purchases will be for long lead items. |
b. An answer to an industry question stated, "The estimated value for direct material costs will be applied as the same value for all offerors..."
| c. Different contractors will have different materials and different long lead items depending on their designs and schedules | 4.c.i. How is pricing for materials that are not long lead items to be provided? |
| 4.c.ii. How can contractors pricing for materials be equitably compared for different designs, different Bills of Material, and different Long Lead Item purchases to generate valid Total Evaluated Price comparisons? | 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.
| d. LLI is CPFF CLINs and production is FFP CLINs and contractors are expected to reduce the FFP CLINs by the amount of the LLI CLIN. | ||
| d.1. Contractors are not required to provide CBOM for FFP CLINs but are required to do so for any CPFF CLIN | How does the Gov’t plan to address this discrepancy? | a. 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. |
b. Section L-900 III. Volume Organization, E. Volume IV Cost/Price, 1.i.m. Material states "...offerors shall submit a [CBOM] presenting proposed amounts…". The Government is applying a Government-estimate for LLI values on CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020; therefore, offerors are not proposing a direct material cost on these CLINs and as a result would not have items to identify on the CBOM for these CLINs.
| Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model | Attachment 6, “Cost Format A_Mat'l & LongLead” tab has cells G12, G25, G38, G51, G64, and G77 blacked out. | Please confirm that this is an error and that these cells should have a yellow background and should be used for the direct LLI material proposed as part of the LLI CLINs? | No, this is not an error. Section L-900 III. Volume Organization, E. Volume IV Cost/Price, 1.i.k. CLIN Structure and Fee Structure states that offerors are to propose add-on factor(s) to account for indirect costs. Section M-900 II. Proposal Evaluation, F. Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal Factor, 5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP), c. states that a Government-estimated cost (not disclosed to the offeror) will be applied per period. |
| Period of Performance (POP) | a. The timing of the EMD phase, followed by LRIP and then FRP extends beyond the option year. Example related to option year 1: |
• F-16 O-Level EMD (1001) exercised at start of Option year 1
• F-16 O-Level EMD completed in the first 6-9 months
• LRIP starts after EMD with 12 months ARO delivery
• FRP of 83 needs to start after LRIP is delivered and used for a short while so as a minimum, can only start 7-10 months into Option year 2 and delivered 7-10 months into Option year 3 i. Can the Government confirm the above notional timeline or explain if it is different? A proposal extension may be required depending on the answer to this question.
ii. When is the Gov’t anticipating exercising the F-16 O-Level LLI (1017) before EMD is completed or after?
iii. If exercising prior to completion of EMD, will the Gov’t take responsibility for those items purchased under the LLI CLIN that may not be required by the time the EMD phase is complete? i. Government Notional Timeline, awarded to a maximum of 2 vendors:
*Basic Year •Each vendor will have 10 months to demonstrate their solution and provide documentation.
•The Draft Documents are listed in the base year CDRLs.
•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.
•CLINs 0010, 0011, and 0012 are I-Level Fault Isolation Tester Digital Design Documentation.
•The Government will conduct a review/evaluate of the vendors’ O-Level prototypes, I-Level digital design, and the draft documents listed in the base year’s CDRLs.
*Option I •One or both vendors will enter Option I where the USAF plans to place an order for:
•F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester (LRIP) 10 complete kits •F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester Kits - 83 complete kits •Vendors can use the government provided Material CLIN to expedite the parts needed to complete these deliveries.
•Any new documentation required shall be delivered and all previous Draft Documentation for the Basic Year will be updated.
•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.
•Governments schedule was developed by information gathered doing Industry Day and Industry Demo.
ii. 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.
iii. The Government does not take responsibility for any surplus or unneeded Material/productions items ordered by the vendor.
| b. The Government previously stated that the Period of Performance (POP) for each contract year is 12 months. The above example (if correct) indicates that the POP for option year 1 will be 31-34 months. Even if the above example is incorrect, the POP will be greater than 12 months as the EMD phase needs to be completed before production can start. | v. Please confirm that the contract will allow for longer POP than 12 months for each of the option years. | CAT-F Acquisition Contract is 1 Base Year (12 Months) and 4 (12 month) Option Years. | |
| Attachment 7 Total Resources Volume | Attachment 7 Total Resources Volume | Please confirm this is only for “all Cost-Reimbursable CLINs”. | Yes, the TRV applies for all cost-type CLINs (CPFF and CRNF). |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .