Industry Questions and Answers_22 April 2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 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 for the Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F) RFP FA8533-25-R-0002, dated April 22, 2026, containing government responses to contractor inquiries across multiple RFP amendments. The CAT-F procurement requires development, manufacturing, and sustainment of a common armament tester for F-16, F-15, and A-10 aircraft platforms capable of testing Preload, Clean Wing, and Fault Isolation Requirements at both O-Level and I-Level maintenance. The contract will be awarded as up to two IDIQ contracts with a mix of Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), Firm Fixed Price (FFP), and Cost Reimbursement-No Fee (CR-NF) pricing arrangements, with a basic contract period of one year plus four one-year option periods. The Department of the Air Force Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center at Robins Air Force Base is executing this acquisition with an estimated contract value maximum of $420,430,000.
The Q&A document addresses critical contracting and technical clarifications including: Production Readiness Review timing during the basic contract year with draft documentation acceptable; labeling proposals as CUI does not convey government IP rights; Earned Value Management System tailoring permitted with government approval; Production CLINs can execute in parallel rather than sequentially per government ordering intent; Material and Long Lead Item CLINs (1017, 1018, 2020-2022, 3020) will utilize government-estimated material costs with contractor-proposed add-on factors for overhead, G&A, and fee; I-Level testers must execute O-Level testing capabilities but O-Level TPSs need not run on I-Level systems; prototype demonstrations will occur at USAF CONUS location (likely Eglin AFB) as a CDR event; Volume II written technical proposal page limit increased to 130 pages; proposal due date established as May 14, 2026 at 4:30 PM EST per RFP Amendment 0004; and the Final Downselect evaluation will assess updated documentation through CDR rather than initial proposal submissions.
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 Answers and SOW template | The Answers to Industry Questions of 6 March allude to a Production Readiness Review (PRR) in lines 13, 14, and 17 apparently occurring during the initial contract Basic Period. |
b. The SOW Template in the SOO has the PRR occurring during the EMD phase which is typical in DoD programs
| c. It is not clear how a PRR could be conducted prior to completion of most of the tasks to be performed during the first EMD phase of the program which does not occur until the Option I period | Please clarify during which contract year of the program is the initial PRR is to occur. | The Government will use a Production Readiness Review (PRR) to evaluate required documentation during the basic contract year, understanding that some documents will be drafts. The PRR will help the government understand the Offeror’s full solution and determine the best option, even though the O-Level and I-Level solution will be incomplete. | ||
| RFP Section L., III. Volume Organization, A. General, Paragraph 5 | Section L directs that, “Each page [OF THE PROPOSAL] should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet: SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104; CUI.” | |||
| b. It is our understanding that the federal government does not automatically gain ownership of information designated by contractors as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in their proposal. Labeling the information as CUI gives the government the authority to control the distribution of the information, but ownership of intellectual property (IP) rights are determined by the contract resulting from the IP rights offered to be conveyed in the proposal. | Please confirm that labeling the entire proposal as CUI does not confer IP rights to the government of all the information in the proposal, and that such rights are only those offered and accepted in accordance with Subfactor IV: Intellectual Property Rights. | Labeling as CUI does not confer IP Rights. | ||
| Industry+Questions+with+Answers_06+Mar+2026 | The Answers to Industry Questions of 6 March line 25 indicates that an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) is to be incorporated into the CAT-F Contract | Does this EVMS need to comply with all the 32 Guidelines of the SAE EIA-748 Earned Value Management Systems Standard, or can it be tailored as appropriate to provide the necessary program management information? | Tailor as appropriate but must obtain Government (COR and/or PCO) approval (after contract award) | |
| L-900. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – INITIAL SOURCE SELECTION, CAT-F SYSTEM DESIGN; C. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, Subfactor I: Systems Engineering and Industry+Questions+with+Answers_06+Mar+2026. | The Answers to Industry Questions of 6 March line 30 indicates that the Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan (TDRMP) is to be delivered in the proposal and will be evaluated therein. | Is there still a requirement for a “final” TDRMP to be delivered after the contract award as stated in Section L? | Yes, as referenced in Section L, Subfactor I, Systems Engineering, a final plan is to be delivered after contract award. | |
| Industry+Questions+with+Answers_06+Mar+2026, Line 5 | Governments States: “The CAT-F I-Level Functional and Fault Isolation Tester must be able to execute legacy I-Level (Backshop) requirements for the F-16, F-15, and A-10 fighter aircraft. The I-level tester must be able to perform O-level testing capabilities. The O-level tester does not need to be integrated into the I-level tester for functionality.” | |||
| b. Per SOO Scope The CAT-F I-Level Functional and Fault Isolation Tester must be able to execute legacy I-Level (Backshop) requirements for the F-16, F-15, and A-10 fighter aircraft and shall incorporate the O-Level Handheld tester in its design.” | i. Does the Government require that the I-Level tester incorporate the O-Level tester design as part of its architecture? |
ii. Does the Government prefer that the I-Level tester incorporate the O-Level tester design as means to improve interoperability?
iii. Does the Government require that the I-Level tester use O-Level tester cables?
iv. Does the Government prefer that the I-Level tester use O-Level tester cables as means to improve logistics?
v. Does the Government require that the software for the I-Level tester be fully compatible and interoperate with the O-Level tester?
| vi. Does the Government prefer that the I-Level tester and O-Level tester software be compatible and interoperable to improve sustainment? | i. No; ii. No preference ; iii. No; iv. Where appropriate; v. MOSA design; vi. MOSA design | |||
| RFP Amendment_ FA8533-25-R-0002-0002; L-900.III.A; L-900.III.C.2, SF IV; M-900.II.D.1, SF IV | Noting that CAT-F Amendment 002 removed the requirement for Section J, Attachment 15, both the Section L Instructions and Section M Evaluation Criteria did not change. Please consider an increase in Volume II page count from 125 pages to 130 pages to accommodate the required and evaluated detailed content that must now be transferred from the removed Attachment 15 to the Subfactor 4 Narrative. | 130 page count accepted. The RFP Amendment 0003 will reflect this change. | ||
| RFP Amendment_ FA8533-25-R-0002-0002; L-900 | L-900.II.A and B | Should proposals be submitted to the attention of Oya Harrison and Alexis Davis or should distribution also include Adam Hudson? | The propsals should be sent to the PCO and Buyer as referenced in SAM.gov. | |
| RFP _FA8522-25-R-0002 | Note 14: Performance Period/CLIN | Will the Government please confirm that the Estimated Period of Performance dates specified in Note 14 are still accurate, or provided updates? | These are estimated dates only. | |
| RFP Amendment_ FA8533-25-R-0002-0002 | Section K | RFP Amendment 0002 added General Dynamics One Source, LLC (GDOS) to the K-900 Use of Non-Government Advisors list. However, General Dynamics One Source, LLC is unable to identify their correct point of contact to support the required Non-Disclosure Agreement. Therefore, GDOS has asked this offeror to request the Government provide the GDOS point of contact it has coordinated with for this effort. | ||
| Accordingly, please provide the point of contact name, telephone and email address for the General Dynamics One Source, LLC Non-Government Advisor. | Mark Trudel at mark.trudel@gdit.com | |||
| RFP+Attachment+4 L-900.III.E.1.k (table) | Understanding the differences between the CLINs will support a compliant bid. The Technical Data CLIN reads as the labor to assemble the data for transfer, but how does that differ from the DATA, EMD and IP rights CLINs, which account for the cost of the data? Option Years 1-4 contain a CPFF Technical Data CLIN (1015, 2017, 3016, 4013) described in Section L&M as "Offerors shall propose labor categories, direct and indirect labor rates, material costs, and/or add-on factors as identified in RFP Attachment 6, Excel Cost Model." | Can the Government clarify what is the intent of these technical data CLINs and how they differ from the existing Data CLINs (0017, 1014, 2016, 3015, 4011), and are IP License Rights CLINs (1013, 2015, 3016, 4012) in the same year? In the explanation, can the Government expand on what they believe is driving it as a cost-type CLIN? | CLINs 0017, 1014, 2016, 3015, and 4011 are “Data” CLINs. They are Informational CLINs only. They list the CDRLs/ELINs that are applicable to that CLIN. The ELINs are to be priced for the labor and effort required to prepare, format, and deliver the applicable CDRL deliverable. |
CLINs 0016, 1013, 2015, 3016, and 4012 are “IP License Rights” CLINs and are to be priced for the Government to acquire IP License Rights.
CLINs 1015, 2017, 3017, 4013 are “Technical Data” CLINs. They are to be priced for the development and delivery of Technical Manuals in Government format.
| RFP+Attachment+4 L-900.IV.E.1.i | Clarification on required and acceptable submission, Elemental Cost Breakouts. Referencing a table outside of the attachment. Will Format A&D satisfy that reference, or do they need an artifact submitted in addition to the RFP attachment? The RFP requires “Elemental Cost Breakouts” to be provided in an .xlsx file with live formulas, using the “Format A” and “Format D” worksheets found in Attachment 6, and points to Table 15‑2 of FAR 15.408 for submission guidance. | 1) How should Formats A and D be used in relation to the requirements of Table 15‑2—are they intended to be the complete submission, or should a separate Excel workbook be prepared in addition to the attachment? | Offerors must complete the Formats A and D within RFP Attachment 6; RFP Attachment 6 is expected to be a complete submission for an offeror's elemental cost buildup. Offerors may revise the structure of the elemental cost buildup within these worksheets to be consistent with their approved accounting system. If an offeror needs to submit additional information, it can be included within their cost volume. |
| 2) If a separate workbook is expected, what is the preferred method for including it in the proposal (e.g., embedded within the written volume, submitted as an independent file, or another format)? | |||
| RFP+Attachment+4 L-900.IV.E.1.l | Clarification on required and acceptable submission, ODC cost data, analysis, and schedules. Referencing a table outside of the attachment. Will Attachment 7 in its current format satisfy that reference, or do they need an artifact submitted in addition to the RFP attachment? Other Direct Costs (ODCs) require supporting analysis and schedules, reconciling to RFP Attachment 7, Total Resources Volume and in .xlsx file format with live working formulas. Attachment 7 provides sample requirements for Labor and Material/CBOM data. Referencing a table outside of the attachment. Will Attachment 7 in its current format satisfy that reference, or do they need an artifact submitted in addition to the RFP attachment? | How and where does the Government intend for offerors to submit the ODC supporting analyses and schedules in Attachment 7? | Attachment 7 has been revised to capture ODCs. It was incorporated in RFP Amendment 0003. |
| RFP+Attachment+4 L-900.IV.E.1.j | Clarification on required and acceptable submission, Material (CBOM) cost data. The Total Resources BOE Material Summary references the required data and organization of CBOM costs. The paragraph goes on to mention "This summary should be an unburdened version of the Priced Bill of Material, which offerors shall provide separately in Volume IV Cost/Price." | How and where does the Government intend to complete the "Priced Bill of Material," and how should it be included in offerors' proposal? How does this request relate to the material cost/price data seen in Attachment 6? | IAW Section L, II. Volume Organization, E. Volume IV Cost/Price, 1. Format and Specific Content, k. Total Resources Volume identifies that the offeror shall provide a BOE Material Summary within Attachment 7, Total Resource Volume. The material summary provided there should be an unburdened version of the Priced Bill of Material. Offerors may use their format to develop the information required in Attachment 7 and in the Priced Bill of Material. |
| RFP Attachment 6 Excel Model_15 Cost Format B & D_SUB tabs | Ensure compliant submittal of RFP Attachment 6. | Can the Government confirm that the only major subcontractors (total value > $2.5M) are required to complete the "Cost Format B…SUB" and "Cost Format D_SUB..." tabs in Attachment 6 are for sole source, cost-type contracts? | Sections L&M have been revised to include language with directions on submitting subcontractor proposals. It was incorporated into RFP Amendment 0003. |
| K-900 (b)(2) Use of Non-Government Advisors | Ensure compliance with RFP. | Can the Government provide Point of Contact information for the non-government advisor General Dynamics One Source, LLC? | Mark Trudel at mark.trudel@gdit.com |
| RFP+Amendment_FA8533-25-R-0002-0002.pdf Block 14. Item 2. | Identify start date of contract. | With the validity extending out from 240 days to 730 days, can the Government provide the current anticipated award date? | The anticipated award date is unknown at this time. |
| RFP Section B | As identified in Section B of the RFP and in RFP Attachment 6 (Excel Cost Model), estimated quantities are shown for EMD, LRIP, and FRP within the same ordering period (e.g., CLIN 1001 F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester EMD, CLIN 1008 F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester LRIP, and CLIN 1009 F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester FRP). This CLIN structure creates an undue risk for the contractor because it permits the Government to order all three CLINs simultaneously, preventing the contractor from performing the work in the intended sequence. |
While the Government may intend to order (and allow the contractor to complete/deliver) the EMD CLIN first, then the LRIP CLIN, and finally the FRP CLIN, the current structure in Section B allows the Government to place orders against all three CLINs at the same time, creating a concurrency risk against firm‑fixed‑price production CLINs.
Question: Will the Government amend the CLIN structure to eliminate this risk to the contractor, or alternatively include a clause documenting the intended ordering sequence and exit/entry criteria for the EMD, LRIP, and FRP CLINs (e.g. developmental test must be successfully completed prior to LRIP and operational test must be successfully completed prior to FRP)? The Government intends to place orders in the first Option Year on:
CLIN 1008 - F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester (LRIP) 10 kits CLIN 1009 - F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester Kits (FRP)
The Government does not intend to amend CLINs.
| RFP Section B | Will the Government please confirm whether the quantities identified in RFP Section B for each CLIN are the Best Estimated Quantities (BEQ) or the CLIN maximums? | The quantities listed in Schedule B are the Government's estimated quantities. The Government does not anticipate ordering more than these quantities; as such they are performing as if they are "maximums". The Government does not anticipate changing the CLINs to ensure flexibility in ordering. |
| RFP; Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model_15 Sep 2025 | As noted in prior Q&A responses, the Government has requested that offerors propose prices based on the estimated quantities listed for each CLIN in Section B, and the Government intends to award without further discussion (while reserving the right to conduct discussions if necessary). |
Because the latest RFP and its associated documentation do not specify minimum or maximum quantities for each CLIN in Section B, and given the Government’s Q&A responses, there is an implicit understanding that the Government may order quantities significantly lower or higher than the estimates provided to the contractor for pricing.
This approach could lead to the following unintended consequences:
a) The contractor provides unit pricing that reflects economies of scale for a quantity of 210 against CLIN 2008, but the Government orders only 10 units, exposing the contractor to high risk of negative financial impacts; or
b) In an effort to avoid the risk described in (a), the contractor prices each CLIN for a quantity of 1, thereby not benefiting from economies of scale and ultimately increasing the total price offered to the Government.
| Question: To avoid the aforementioned unintended consequences, will the Government confirm the minimum and maximum quantities for each CLIN identified in RFP Section B, or alternatively include requirements for range pricing? | The Government does not have identified minimums nor maximums. The quantities listed in Schedule B are the Government's estimated quantities. The Government does not anticipate ordering more than these quantities; as such they are performing as if they are "maximums". The Government does not anticipate changing the CLINs to ensure flexibility in ordering. The Government understands the risks as discussed in the question. | |||
| RFP | Will the Government provide insight into the quantities and/or estimating assumptions that were used when determining the estimated total contract value maximum of $420,430,000.00? | The Government does not intend to provide ths information at this time as it could jeopardize the expected adequate price competition. | ||
| RFP | Will the Government please confirm what quantities will be documented in Section B upon award? | The quantities on the resultant award(s) will be those identified in the RFP and all amendments issued through time of award. | ||
| -FA8533-25-R-0002-0003; | ||||
| -RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026 | The RFP Amendment 3 stipulates a due date of 14 May 2026, 3:30 PM EDT, however RFP Attachment 4 Sections L & M (Page 30) states 4:30 PM Eastern Standard Time. Can the Government please confirm the correct time for submission? | This was an inadvertent clerical error. The proposal due date is 14 May 2026 at 4:30 PM EST. This will be updated via RFP Amendment 0004. | ||
| RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026 | Handling of CUI that is disseminated in a public forum causes IT challenges to the recipient at the point of download because it is not identified as such prior to opening. Further, it is unclear who the controlling agency is in this instance. | CUI Markings have been added to some of the RFP documentation. Given the absence of a CUI designation indicator and it being posted on SAM.GOV., can the Government confirm whether this documentation truly contains CUI and should be protected as such? | This was an inadvertent marking. The RFP documentation will have these incorrect markings removed via RFP Amendment 0004. | |
| FA8533-25-R-0002-0003 | Prior RFP issuances noted "FAR 16.504-5(a)(4)(ii)". | Please confirm the FAR references within Note 9 as "FAR 16.504-5(b)" does not appear to be identifiable references. | FAR 16.504-5(b) as noted in RFP Amendment 0003, Note 9 is correct. This is the new reference per the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) Part 16, effective for Department of War (DOW) as of 16 March 2026. | |
| FA8533-25-R-0002-0003 | Please clarify what is meant by the below Note being added to Section B. Further, what "spreadsheet(s)" are being referred to in this Note? |
| "Rates within the spreadsheet(s) attached to the resultant contract(s) will be used as add-on factors to the raw material costs. Quotes will be requested from the contractor for Material and Long Lead item CLINs prior to issuance of the Delivery Orders." | The Government is requiring offerors to propose add-on factors such as overhead, G&A, and/or COM, plus fixed fee which will be applied to a gov estimate plug number that represents the material cost associated with the Material/Long Lead Item CLINs (1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020). The proposed add-on factors will be utilized in performance. A portion of the RFP Attachment 6, specifically the proposed material add on factors from the "Cost Format B_PRIME Rates" tab will be incorporated into the contract for negotiating the Material and Long Lead Item CLINs. | |
| FA8533-25-R-0002-0003 | Is the intent of the below language for an Awardee(s) to refresh and/or negotiate material quotes prior to issuance of a Delivery Order? |
| "Rates within the spreadsheet(s) attached to the resultant contract(s) will be used as add-on factors to the raw material costs. Quotes will be requested from the contractor for Material and Long Lead item CLINs prior to issuance of the Delivery Orders." | This CLIN is being established with government estimate values for the material costs plus add-on factors proposed by offerors. The intent is to award the specific material costs at the order level. | ||
| FA8533-25-R-0002-0003 | To ensure Offerors have the correct deviation language for review. | Please provide Offerors with copies of the following Deviations: |
-DEVIATION 2026-O0050
-DEVIATION 2026-O0048
-DEVIATION 2026-O0037
-DEVIATION 2026-O0036
-DEVIATION 2026-O0035
-DEVIATION 2026-O0025
-DEVIATION 2026-O0015
| -DEVIATION 2026-O0011 | All of the Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy (DPCAP) Class Deviations associated with the RFO can be pulled from the following website: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars_far_overhaul_class_deviations.html | |||
| FA8533-25-R-0002-0003 | Given the revision to DFARS 252.217-7027, is it the Government's intent to award the Base Period as a UCA? | It is not the Government's intention to award the base period as a UCA. This clause is required in all indefinite delivery contracts. The clause fill-ins will be updated to reflect "TBD" or "TBD should an UCA be required" via RFP Amendment 0004. | ||
| FA8533-25-R-0002 | To ensure Offerors have a clear understanding of what will ultimately be ordered against these CLINs in execution. | Please confirm that CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 3020 are intended to support procurement for both LRIP and Full Rate Production (FRP) CLINs? | CLIN 1017 is Material F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester. |
CLIN 1018 is Long Lead Items F-15 O-Level Handheld Tester.
CLIN 2020 is Long Lead Items F-16 I-Level Handheld Tester.
CLIN 2021 is Long Lead Items F-15 I-Level Handheld Tester.
CLIN 2022 is Long Lead Items A-10 O-Level Handheld Tester.
CLIN 3020 is Long Lead Items A-10 I-Level Handheld Tester.
-FA8533-25-R-0002-0003;
-RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026;
-RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model 20 Mar 2026 -Table 1 CLIN and Fee Structure, Page 21
| -Cost Model Tab "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary)" | A "Long Lead Items" CLIN was not included for F-16 O-Level. Please confirm or provide details to confirm whether CLIN 1017 (Material - F-16 O-Level) is intended to include F-16 O-Level long lead items for both Option Period 1 and Option Period 2? | Long Lead CLIN is not appropriate for ordering material for the F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester. LRIP and FRP are being done in Option I. The Government has provided CLIN 1017 for industry to use for an initial order of material for the production items. | |
| -FA8533-25-R-0002-0003; |
-RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026;
-RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model 20 Mar 2026 -Table 1 CLIN and Fee Structure, Pages 19+21
| -Cost Model Tab "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary)" | With CLIN 1017 being in the same Option Period as the Production CLINs, it is unclear how much lead time will be allotted between ordering the Long Lead Items CLIN and the LRIP/Production CLINs. | Given CLIN 1017 (Material - F-16 O-Level) is in Option Period 1, how does the Government intend for long lead items to be procured in support of F-16 O-Level Production CLINs 1009, 2008, and/or 1008? | Long Lead CLIN is not appropriate for ordering material for the F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester. LRIP and FRP are being done in Option I. The Government has provided CLIN 1017 for industry to use for an initial order of material for the production items. |
| -FA8533-25-R-0002-0003; |
-RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026;
-RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model 20 Mar 2026 -Table 1 CLIN and Fee Structure, Page 21 -Cost Model Tab "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary)" To allow for long lead items to be procured ahead of production, can the Government move CLIN 1017 (Material - F-16 O-Level) into the Base Period or add a F-16 O-Level long lead items CLIN to the Base Peroid? The Government does not anticipate changing the Schedule B to provide long-lead item CLINs in the basic contract period as CLIN 1017, for Material for the F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester, is an exception to the advance procurement strategy. This CLIN allows the vendor to order materials prior to the government ordering the testers and kits under CLIN 1008 (LRIP) and CLIN 1009. However, since the materials and the final products are ordered within the same fiscal year, it is not considered an advanced procurement situation, and therefore the term "Long Lead" is not used in the CLIN description.
-FA8533-25-R-0002-0003;
-RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026;
-RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model 20 Mar 2026 -Table 1 CLIN and Fee Structure, Pages 21, 23, and 26
| -Cost Model Tab "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary)" | The description for the Long Lead Items CLINs contain the descriptor "Tester" without "TPS Kits". | Please confirm that CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 3020 are applicable to the Handheld Tester and TPS Kits? | These CLINs are applicable to the vendor's complete CAT-F solution, to include the TPS and TPS kits, and labeled for Maintenance Level and MDS . |
| -FA8533-25-R-0002-0003; |
-RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026;
-RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model 20 Mar 2026 -Table 1 CLIN and Fee Structure, Pages 21, 23, and 26 -Cost Model Tab "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary)" It is unclear if CLIN 2021 is intended to support 3010 & 4005. If it only supports CLIN 4005, it is believed CLIN 2021 should be in Option Period 3. Are the Long Lead CLINs intended to be exercised in the Option Period prior to its respective Production CLINs?
Note, CLIN 2021 (F-15 I-Level Long Lead) is in Option Period 2, CLIN 3010 (F-15 I-Level LRIP) is in Option Period 3, and CLIN 4005 (F-15 I-Level FRP) is in Option Period 4. Correct; CLIN 2021 is Long Lead Items for all F-15 I-Level Handheld Testers. The Government's intention is to order the long lead CLINs (1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020) as follows:
CLIN 1018, Long Lead Items-F-15 O-Level Handheld Tester, will be ordered in Option I for Option II CLINs:
CLIN 2009, F-15 O-Level Handheld Tester Kits (LRIP) CLIN 2010, F-15 O-Level Handheld Tester Kits
CLIN 2020, Long Lead Items-F-16 I-Level Fault Isolation Tester, will be ordered in Option II for Option III CLINs:
CLIN 3009, F-16 I-Level Fault Isolation Tester Kits (LRIP) CLIN 3011, F-16 I-Level Fault Isolation Tester Kits
CLIN 2021, Long Lead Items-F-15 I-Level Fault Isolation Tester, will be ordered in Option II for Option III & IV CLINs:
CLIN 3010, F-15 I-Level Fault Isolation Tester Kits (LRIP) CLIN 4005, F-15 I-Level Fault Isolation Tester Kits
CLIN 2022, Long Lead Items-A-10 O-Level Handheld Tester will be ordered in Option II for Option III CLINs:
CLIN 3007, A-10 O-Level Handheld Tester Kits (LRIP) CLIN 3008, A-10 O-Level Handheld Tester Kits
CLIN 3020, Long Lead Items-A-10 I-Level Fault Isolation Tester, will be ordered in Option III for Option IV CLINs:
CLIN 4006, A-10 I-Level Fault Isolation Tester Kits (LRIP) CLIN 4007, A-10 I-Level Fault Isolation Tester Kits
| RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026 | Given Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not required from the Offeror or its Subcontractors, can the Government remove "(v) commercial item determination support, if applicable" from the subcontractor requirements in Volume IV - Cost/Price? | The Government included this language to allow primes the option to provide commercial item determination support if that is relevant to their proposal. | |
| RFP Attachment 3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 31 Mar 2026 | It is unclear what the Government intends. Please state what O-Level Capabilities the I-Level Tester must perform. | Can the Government clarify the verification method and extent to which the "I-Level tester must be able to perform O-Level testing capabilities"? | The I-level tester must be able to exercise the same testing capabilities as the O-level, such that the O-level is not required to verify any particular test. |
| RFP Attachment 3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 31 Mar 2026 | It is unclear if the O-Level TPS(s) are required to run on the I-Level Tester. | Does the I-Level Tester need to run the same TPS(s) as the handheld? | No |
| RFP Attachment 3 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 31 Mar 2026 | Per the RFP documentation, it is fully understood that the I-Level Tester must meet the environmental requirements within the SRD and should be qualified for flightline use. However, we are seeking further definition for the specific O-Level capabilities that the I-Level Tester must additionally be capable of performing. Specifically, do the O-Level TPSs need to run on both testers. | Does the I-Level Tester need to be qualified for Flightline use? | The requirements are specified in the SRD. O-Level TPSs do not need to run on both testers. |
| RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026 | With Critical Technology Demonstration (CTD) being removed, please confirm which milestone (i.e. CDR, DR) is now tied to prototype demonstrations and when (ARO) the demonstrations should be performed? Further, please provide location where prototype demonstrations shall be performed? | Prototype demonstration/Government evaluation will be conducted at a USAF CONUS location. |
The evaluation Milestone will be considered a CDR event.
Evaluation will be conducted at a USAF CONUS location. The Location is likely to be at Eglin AFB, FL but as a backup plan if we cannot get on the Aircraft due to an unforeseen situation, ACC indicated they would be able to support at a different location.
RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026 Please clarify what is meant by the following language:
| "Offerors shall propose add-on factor(s) to account for indirect costs such as overhead, G&A, and/or cost of money and fee." | The Government is requiring offerors to propose add-on factors such as overhead, G&A, and/or COM, plus fixed fee which will be applied to a government estimate value that represents the estimated material cost associated with the Material/Long Lead Item CLINs (1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020). The add-on factors will be put on contract for the awardee(s) to be used in contract performance for these CLINs. | ||
| RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model 20 Mar 2026 | |||
| Cost Model Tab "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary)" | It is unclear if Offerors are to include the material quote costs against the CLINs in Attachment 6, or only indirect costs. | Please detail what costs need to be captured in Attachment 6 for CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 3020 (i.e. material, indirect, etc.) | Offerors must propose add-on factors for these CLINs. The proposed add-on factors will be applied to Government-estimated material cost values that are a budgetary estimate only; the Government-estimated material costs will not be disclosed to the offeror. |
| RFP Attachment 4 Sections L-900 L-901 M-900 M-901 09 Apr 2026; |
'-Section M-900, II Proposal Evaluation, F. Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal Factor, 5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP), paragraph (c), Page 41; and -Section M-901, II Proposal Evaluation, F. Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal Factor, 5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP), paragraph (c), Page 53 Per the below language, please confirm the evaluated price within the TEP for CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 3020 will be determined solely by the Government and said prices within the TEP will be the same for all Offerors.
| "The Government will multiply the add-on factors resulting from the Government’s cost realism analysis by the Government-estimated cost (not disclosed to the Offeror) per period. These values will yield the evaluated price per CLIN" | No, the evaluated prices for CLINs 1017, 1018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 3020 may not be the same for all offerors. The estimated value for direct material costs will be applied as the same value for all offerors, but the "add-on factors resulting from the Government's cost realism analysis" will be the result of evaluations unique to each offeror. | |
| RFP Attachment 3_STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 31 Mar 2026. | a. It is noted that in the RFP0003 that, “ATTACHMENT 3, Statement of Objectives (SOO), dated 10 Sep 2025, is hereby replaced in its entirety with ATTACHMENT 3, Statement of Objectives (SOO), dated 31 Mar 2026.” |
b. However, it appears that the version of the SOO that was modified and replaced was the original SOO dated 10 Sep 2025 provided in the original RFP in September 2025, not the SOO provided in RFP Amendment 0002 in February, 2026 which has the same title (including the 10 Sep 2025 nomenclature), but which was has an internal production date of February 13, 2026. It is understandable that someone could have used the September version to make changes on, rather than the February version, since both files have the same title.
c. An example of the consequences of this is in the SOO introductory material, paragraph XII. The September SOO version says, “XII. Surge Capability Plan. The offeror shall propose a Surge capability plan that details its minimum and maximum ability to satisfy a surge production requirement.”
d. The February SOO version says, “XII. Surge Capability Plan. The offeror shall propose a Surge capability plan that details its minimum and maximum ability to satisfy a surge production requirement. 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.”
| e. The April SOO version reverts to the language of the September version; “XII. Surge Capability Plan. The offeror shall propose a Surge capability plan that details its minimum and maximum ability to satisfy a surge production requirement.” It is unlikely that ATS intended to delete the clarifying language in the RFP0002 version. Many other such instances have been identified in the RFP0003 SOO file, so it is extremely difficult to assess which changes are actual modifications to the requirements, and which additions/deletions are carryovers from the original September RFP wording and not meant to be actual changes like the example above. | Please provide a final SOO, including all its attachments, reflecting changes to the February RFP0002 SOO, not the original September RFP SOO so that all potential bidders are proposing against the same valid SOO requirements. Otherwise, all bidders would be forced to assume that all changes to the SOO reflected in the RFP0002 version are no longer valid. | 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. | ||
| Section L. III. Volume Organization A. General and paragraph 3. | a. General section says that Volume II has 130-page limit, but paragraph 3. Still states that, “3. The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal is 125 pages.”. | i. Please confirm that the page limit for Volume II is now 130 pages. | Confirmed. | |
| RFP Attachments. | a. RFP Attachment 15 is Intellectual Property Rights. A new attachment, DAF Contracting Compass Parts_27 Mar 2026, has been added, but it is also labeled Attachment 15. | Should the DAF Contracting Compass Parts_27 Mar 2026 file be labeled as Attachment 16. | This is incorrect. The original Attachment 15, Intellectual Property Rights was deleted in its entirety in RFP Amendment 0002. | |
| SRD_1.23.4 Integrated Master Plan (IMP). | a. SRD 1.23.4 requires an Integrated Master Plan for this procurement, but in answer to a prior question on this, the government stated that an IMP is not required. | Please confirm that an IMP is not required for this program. | An Integrated Master Plan (IMP) is not required for the CAT-F Proposal. The Integrated Master Plan for the Tester shall be developed IAW MIL-STD-881F after award and be delivered under the DATA CLIN. The IMP Documentation is a requirement in SRD and shall be identfied in your SOW. | |
| SRD_1.25.2.1 Intellectual Property Rights. | a. SRD 1.25.2.1 states that, “The contractor will provide their Intellectual Property Plan.” The Intellectual Property (IP) Rights Template has been deleted by the government as a proposal submittal. There is no CDRL identified in the RFP entitled Intellectual Property Plan. | Is an Intellectual Property Plan required and, if so, when and in what format is it to be delivered? | Yes the vendor will provide DI-MGMT-81453C, CDRLs A/B/C/D/E007 which covers the Intellectual Property Plan requirement as indicated in Subfactor IV: Intellectual Property Rights. | |
| L-901. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – FINAL DOWNSELECT, CAT-F ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT (EMD), PRODUCTION; Subfactor III: Sustainment Plan; Subfactor IV: Fielding Plan; and Subfactor V: Product Familiarization Plan. | a. RFP Section L-901 states that, “Data required to support the Final Down select, CAT-F Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), Production will be generated by the contractor during the course of System Design of the basic contract effort. The Government may utilize all Contract Data Requirements List(s) (CDRLs) delivered in System Design beginning with contract award through the presentation material provided at CDR. This will comprise all data to be evaluated as described in M-901 Evaluation Basis for Award – Final Down select, CAT-F Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), Production.”. |
b. This appears to be the appropriate approach to down select from the Basic contract to Option I, i.e., consider the performance of the contractors during the Basic contract including the merits of the data provided in program reviews and CDRLs.
c. However, this basis of the down select seems to conflict with subsequent statements that the evaluation of the Sustainment Plan, Fielding Plan, and Product Familiarization Plan for the down select will also consider the merits of these plans as “… set forth in the offeror’s initial SOW submitted and evaluated in accordance with L-900 and M-900 …” c.1. Subfactor III: Sustainment Plan. The plan set forth in the offeror’s initial SOW submitted and evaluated in accordance with L-900 and M-900 and updated after contract award in accordance with Technical Report – Sustainment Plan, DI-MISC-80508B, CDRL A005.
c.2. 2 Subfactor IV: Fielding Plan. The plan set forth in the offeror’s initial SOW submitted and evaluated in accordance with L-900 and M-900 and updated after contract award in accordance with Technical Report – Fielding Plan, DI-MISC-80508B, CDRLs A/B/C/D/E00G.
c.3. Subfactor V: Product Familiarization Plan. The plan set forth in the offeror’s initial SOW submitted and evaluated in accordance with L-900 and M-900 and updated after contract award in accordance with Technical Report- Product Familiarization Plan, DI-MISC- 80508B, CDRLs A/B/C/D/E00H.
d. Sections L-900 and M-900 do not contain any direct L-900 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS or M-900 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD pertaining to these plans, and the SOW template only provides the CDRL requirements for submission of these plans during the Basic contract period. i. It is recommended that references to these plans being evaluated for Option I down select based on information provided in the proposal for the Basic contract be deleted, and that the evaluation be based solely on the quality of the plans submitted as the required CDRLs during the Basic contract period and associated material provided during program reviews.
ii. Should the government actually intend that these plans be evaluated as submitted in the proposal for the Basic contract as part of the downs elect process for the subsequent Option I contract, it is necessary to include the relevant instructions (Section L) and evaluation criteria (Section M) for these plans in the Basic Request for Proposal (RFP), along with the description of the weighting of the assessment of the proposal information compared to the information provided during the Basic contract period
iii. Please clarify whether or not initial versions of these plans are to be submitted with the Basic contract proposal as part of the down select process from the Basic to Option I contact.
iii.1. If not, change the L-901 / M-901 wording of the relevant subfactors to read: Subfactor xx: xx Plan. The plan will be evaluated in accordance with Technical Report xxx.
| iii.2. If yes, please provide the appropriate Sections L-900 and M-900 instructions and evaluation criteria for these plans, and indicate the evaluation weighting of the initial plans and the CDRL plans. | The Option I downselect evaluation criteria will be applied to the documentation updated over the course of contract performance up to the CDR event, as specified in L-901 and M-901. When referencing updated documentation, it is the the Government's expectation that the awardees going into the down select will take the final proposal versions of the documentation and update for purposes of the down select. The only exception is the intellectual property rights, which will bring forward the final evaluation ratings from the initial source selection. This subfactor specifically references the evaluation criteria in L-900 and M-900. | ||
| Contracting POC Information | Due to organization changes, can Mrs. Lindsay Ammons' contact information be shared. | lindsay.ammons@us.af.mil |
mailto:lindsay.ammons@us.af.mil
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .