Industry Questions and Answers_1 May 2026.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 1, 2026, addressing clarifications and responses to contractor inquiries regarding the Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F) solicitation FA8533-25-R-0002. The document provides government responses on critical topics including cost pricing methodology, contract line item (CLIN) requirements, technical data availability, and proposal submission formats across multiple RFP amendments and attachments.
Key clarifications include: Long Lead CLINs (1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 3020) do not require surge build assumptions and will have provisional indirect burden rates applied during contract execution with reconciliation of actual costs; Material and Long Lead CLIN costs will not be double-counted in Total Evaluated Price calculations; the bidder's library contains all available government technical data, with no additional TPS Requirements Documents or Interface Control Documents available for F-16, F-15, or A-10 platforms; warranty applies to all Full Rate Production (FRP) units and LRIP units after government acceptance; major subcontractors are defined as those with proposed value equal to or greater than $2.5M for cost-type CLINs; the O-Level and I-Level tester software must be fully compatible and interoperable; and previously deleted DAFFARS clauses regarding ombudsman, ozone-depleting substances, health and safety, contractor installation access, and common access cards have been incorporated into contract requirements via Attachment 15 rather than clause language. An open issue regarding SOO version discrepancies between the September 10, 2025, and March 31, 2026, versions—specifically regarding surge capability clarification, launcher nomenclature corrections, and nuclear capability requirements for the F-16—remains under government review with resolution pending in subsequent Q&A postings. For proposal development purposes, contractors should use October 1, 2027, as the base contract start date.
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 |
| SOO |
RFP Att 6
| "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | A surge CLIN may drive additional material up front in order to meet the truncated build timeline and may drive a different number than a non-surge situation. | Do the Long Lead CLINs need to assume a surge build or non-surge? A surge CLIN may drive additional material up front in order to meet the truncated build timeline and may drive a different number than a non-surge situation. | Long Lead CLINs do not require a surge. The Long Lead CLINs are to help mitigate supply chain issues during LRIP and FRP. | |
| Bidder's Library | Should this data be provided it would assist with alleviating some tech data uncertainty. | The bidder's library does not contain TPS Requirements Documents (TRDs) or Interface Control Documents (ICDs). Does the Government have this data available and intend to make it available to offerors for F-16? | All available technical data the Government possesses is in the Bidder’s Library. | |
| Bidder's Library | Should this data be provided it would assist with alleviating some tech data uncertainty. | The bidder's library does not contain TPS Requirements Documents (TRDs) or Interface Control Documents (ICDs). Does the Government have this data available and intend to make it available to offerors for F-15? | All available technical data the Government possesses is in the Bidder’s Library. | |
| Bidder's Library | Should this data be provided it would assist with alleviating some tech data uncertainty. | The bidder's library does not contain TPS Requirements Documents (TRDs) or Interface Control Documents (ICDs). Does the Government have this data available and intend to make it available to offerors for A-10? | All available technical data the Government possesses is in the Bidder’s Library. | |
| SOO | ||||
| SRD_1.29.13 | Does the warranty requirement apply to both LRIP and FRP or just FRP units? | Warranty will apply to all FRP and will apply to LRIP units after Government accepts testers for end user usage. | ||
| RFP Att 9 | ||||
| B/C/D/E009 | CDRLs B/C/D/E009 currently reference an End of Year Report. Previously this was for updates including the Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan. Please clarify the intended use of CDRL B/C/D/E009? | B/C/D/E009 CDRL was created to provide the Government with an annual document which contains a summary of year’s activities and a single source to provide all updates to previously summitted documents. | ||
| RFP+Attachment+4_Sections+L-900_+L-901_+M-900_M-901_09+Apr+2026 | ||||
| Subfactor I: Systems Engineering | To ensure compliance of format to the requested documentation for submittal. | Please confirm whether the Contractor is required to submit the Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan and Program Protection/Systems Security Engineering Plan as separate, stand‑alone documents, or can it be incorporated directly into the technical proposal narrative? | Per Section L, Subfactor I: Systems Engineering, the Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan and Program Protection/Systems Security Engineering Plan will be incorporated into the technical proposal narrative. | |
| Will the PCO authorize primes to “make” items such as sub-assembles and limited cable production (when included in higher level drawing as a part of a kit) under the long lead procurement CLINs when necessary to meet either surge or regular ARO requirements? When and How will the Government provide the authorization? | The contractor will request through the PCO and the PCO will provide authorization, if approved, with an Authorization Letter if a situation arizes that requires the prime to "make" any items needed. | |||
| Will the PCO negotiate the Delivery times when the Full Rate Production Orders are placed at a higher quantity than were indicated for the the long lead (or material) CLINs? | Orders for LRIP and FRP will be issued with the contractual ARO delivery schedule. | |||
| When and how will the PCO notify the contractor of the intended order quantity for each full rate production CLIN to ensure adequate Long Lead material is authorized? | The estimated quantity on each FRP CLIN is the Government’s intended order quantity. Actual ordered quantities will be identified on the individual orders. | |||
| It is understood that the Long Lead CLINs have a 12 Month PoP. Given the PoP of the CLINs, it's assumed these would be awarded at the beginning of the Option Period to allow for the maximum time to procure the Long Lead items. | When does the Government intend to award the Long Lead CLINs? | Long Lead Item CLINs option years are indicated on FA8533-25-R-0002-0003. |
CLIN 1018 for ordering Long Lead items for Option Year II LRIP and FRP.
CLIN 2020 for ordering Long Lead items for Option Year III LRIP and FRP.
CLIN 2021 for ordering Long Lead items for Option Year III and IV LRIP and FRP.
CLIN 2022 for ordering Long Lead itemsfor Option Year III LRIP and FRP.
CLIN 3020 for ordering Long Lead itemsfor Option Year IV LRIP and FRP.
| L-900.III.B | ||
| Volume I, Completed RFP, 1. General | Section L requires Offerors to provide a Completed RFP which includes the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the RFP Schedule. |
Therefore, Offerors previously requested the Government provide a conformed/consolidated RFP. The Government responded, "A conformed copy of the RFP cannot be provided. Please refer to the RFP as well as RFP Amendments.
| Accordingly, will the Government please confirm that Offerors may generate their own Schedule B format, consolidating Schedule B data from the RFP and Amendments 0001-0003, in response to the RFP requirement to provide the "proposed prices associated with the contract line items" in their Volume I response? | Offerors shall use the Schedule B from each applicable document (original RFP and all RFP amendments) for purposes of providing the proposed prices associated with the contract line items. | |
| RFP Amendment FA8522-25-R-0002-0003, Attachment 4 _Sections L-900_L-901_M-900_M-901_9 Apr 2026 | ||
| E. Volume IV, Cost/Price: 1.e., 1.f., 1.i, and 1.j. | There appears to be an inconsistency regarding the dollar threshold for a major subcontractor. Section L-900 states, "equal to or greater than $2,500,000", "value exceeding $2.5M", and "over $2.5M". | |
| Will the Government please clarify which is correct? | A major subcontractor is one whose proposed value is equal to or greater than $2.5M for cost-type CLINs. | |
| RFP Amendment FA8522-25-R-0002-0003 | ||
| Section I Clauses and Attachment 15 | Amendment 0003 deleted DAFFARS clauses 5352.201-9101 Ombudsman, 5352.223-9000 Elimination of Use of Class I Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS), 5352.223-9001 Health and Safety on Government Installations, 5352.242-9000 Contractor Access to AF Installations, and 5352.242-9001 Common Access Cards (CAC) for Contractor Personnel. |
However, the Attachment 15 - DAF Contracting Compass Parts excerpts reflect the same requirements language as the deleted DAFFARS clauses.
Will the Government please clarify its intent regarding removal of the referenced DAFFARS clauses; addition of the same language via Attachment 15; and how it affects Contractor requirements during contract execution? Due to the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul becoming effective, this effort has been updated to reflect the updated clauses and provisions. One of the changes is the removal of the DAFFARS clauses and provision. Per current DAF guidance and policy, the requirements these previous clauses and provision levied on contractors are still applicable; however, they are no longer in clause/provision form. In order to ensure these requirements are captured within the contract, the requirements are to be incorporated into the requirements documents or within a separate attachment. The separate attachment is the approach chosen.
Contractors will still have to perform to these requirements.
RFP Amendment FA8522-25-R-0002-0003 and 4/22/2026 Responses to Questions
| Schedule B Note | Regarding the CPFF type Material & Long Lead CLINS 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 3020. Will the Government please confirm that during contract execution the awardee's provisional indirect burden rates (OH, COM, G&A), current at the time, plus fixed fee will be applied in accordance with CPFF practices? | The Government intends to apply the offeror's awarded add-on factors when calculating the estimated cost for executing an order with these CLINs. During and after performance, the actual costs will be billed and reconciled; if provisional rates exist, they would be submitted at that time. | |
| RFP Amendment FA8522-25-R-0002-0003 |
and 4/22/2026 Responses to Questions Sections L&M Regarding the CPFF type Material & Long Lead CLINS 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 3020.
1). Request the Government provide details on the application on Long Lead CLINs to the TEP calculations for evaluation within Secs L-900 & M-900.
2). Request the Government confirm that the Material & Long Lead CLINS costs and pricing are not double counted in the TEP calculations since CAT-F testers material costs are already part of the FFP CLINs. 1) Section M, II. Proposal Evaluation, F. Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal Factor, 5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) identifies that CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020 are included in the TEP. Subsection c. of the TEP description identifies that the add-on factors resulting from the cost realism analysis will be multiplied by the Government-estimated cost per period to calculate the evaluated price per CLIN.
2) The Government does not expect offerors to "double count" the material costs among CLINs. The Material and Long Lead CLINs are provided for the material items that must be ordered in support of the LRIP and production CLINs for tester kits (CLINs 1008, 1009, 2009, 2010, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 3011, 4005, 4006, and 4007).
RFP Amendment FA8522-25-R-0002-0003 and 4/22/2026 Responses to Questions
| Schedule B Note | Regarding the CPFF type Material & Long Lead CLINS 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 3020. Will the Government apply the same evaluation methodology to offerors that do not require Long Lead Material? | Yes, the Government will apply the same evaluation methodology. | |
| 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. | The Government is doing more in-depth research into this question. At this time, this question will remain open and will be addressed in the next Q&A posting. |
| RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002 | a. Note 14 in the original RFP states the schedule dates for the Basic and Option Contracts: |
00XX Basic 13 Aug 2027- 12 Aug 2028 10XX Option I 13 Aug 2028- 12 Aug 2029 20XX Option II 13 Aug 2029- 12 Aug 2030 30XX Option III 13 Aug 2030- 12 Aug 2031 40XX Option IV 13 Aug 2031- 12 Aug 2032
| b. In answers to recent industry questions, it was stated that, “These are estimated dates only.” And “The anticipated award date is unknown at this time.” | i. Should these dates nevertheless be used to generate the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and costing (which is sensitive to out-year rate projections)? | ||
| ii. Would the Gov’t prefer to use January 1st 2028 as the start date for the base contract? | For purposes of proposal development, recommend potential offerors use 1 October 2027 | ||
| SOO III. O-Level Handheld Tester | a. The RFP requires that “The offeror shall propose a prototype plan that details how the offeror will modify a Non-Developmental Item (NDI) to meet a Critical Design Review (CDR) of the O-Level Handheld Tester within 10 months of contract award.” | ||
| b. The Prototype Plan was deleted from the SOW template and is not called for in Sections L or M. | Where in the proposal is the Prototype Plan to be described? | A prototype plan is not a separate requirement for purposes of the proposal; however, the proposed Statement of Work to be submitted for Subfactor II shall address the requirement. | |
| Industry Questions and Answers_22 April 2026 – Response #6.v | a. The answer provided to question 6.v, “Does the Government require that the software for the I-Level tester be fully compatible and interoperate with the O-Level tester?” was “MOSA design”. | ||
| b. It is feasible/possible for two different testers (O-Level and I-Level) to be based on acceptable MOSA designs without being designed for compatibility and interoperability. | Does the Government require that the software for the I-Level tester be fully compatible and interoperate with the O-Level tester, yes/no? | Yes | |
| Industry Questions and Answers_22 April 2026 – Response #6.vi | a. The answer provided to question 6.vi, “Does the Government prefer that the I-Level tester and O-Level tester software be compatible and interoperable to improve sustainment?” was “MOSA design”. | ||
| b. It is feasible/possible for two different testers (O-Level and I-Level) to be based on acceptable MOSA designs without being designed for compatibility and interoperability. | Does the Government require that the software for the I-Level tester be fully compatible and interoperate with the O-Level tester, yes/no? | Yes | |
| N/A | Point of Contact for GDIT non-government advisor | Mr. Adam Schmitz, Adam.Schmitz@gdit.com |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .