Industry Questions with Answers_04 Sep 2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F)
- Solicitation number
- FA8533-25-R-0002
About this file
This document is an Industry Questions with Answers spreadsheet for the Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F) solicitation. The Department of the Air Force is seeking contractors to develop, manufacture, and sustain a common armament tester for F-16, F-15, and A-10 aircraft platforms, capable of testing at both O-Level and I-Level maintenance. The acquisition will utilize a two-phase source selection process, initially awarding up to two Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts with a final downselect to one contractor after a Critical design Review (CDR). The contract will use a mix of pricing arrangements including Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), Firm Fixed Price (FFP), and Cost Reimbursement-No Fee (CR-NF), with a base year for prototype design and four one-year option periods.
Key details include a proposal due date of 22 September 2025, an estimated contract award date of 13 August 2027, and a focus on developing testers for preload, clean wing, and fault isolation requirements. The North American Industry Classification System Code is 334515 with a small business size standard of 750 employees. The spreadsheet contains extensive industry questions and government responses addressing technical specifications, CLIN structures, intellectual property rights, evaluation criteria, and various contract implementation details. The solicitation aims to create a standardized testing system across multiple fighter aircraft platforms with robust design and sustainment requirements.
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
| Question | Rationale | RFP Section | RFP Paragraph | Response |
| Please explain what causes an A-10 Level Tester in this requirement when currently ALL A-10 aircraft are scheduled for retirement in 2026 | This is a requirement for the tester. | |||
| The scope of the RFQ includes CPFF CLINs to design the prototype followed by FFP CLINs to build the prototype. Is this correct? | This is correct. | |||
| Since the design has not taken place yet, during this proposal phase, the FFP prototype CLINs will be general concept/examples with a pricing build up to show our understanding of the general concept and to show our pricing. structure. Is this correct. | This is incorrect, the o-level prototype will be a physical prototype that can be tested on aircraft at the 10 month stage after contract award, and will require a full pricing for the prototype.. The i-level prototype will be a digital design at the downselect. | |||
| I assume that you are not expecting this FFP CLINs to be a final price for a fully designed proto-type. | We are expecting this to be fully priced. | |||
| Proposal responses are due NLT 3:30 "local time" on 22 September 2025. Will the Government please confirm that "local time" is 3:30pm EDT | SF 33 | Block 9 | Local time is EDT. | |
| Will the Government please confirm that it anticipates the availability of FY26 funding for this effort? | Schedule Section B | Note 2: Funding Availability | No Comment | |
| Note 9 states that a Delivery Order will be awarded to fund the Post Award Conference via CLIN 0018. |
FAR 52.216-18 Ordering is incorporated and a Task Order and Delivery Order Ombudsman is designated in Section G. However, it is our understanding that required support under the contract is specified within the current CLIN/ELIN structure and will be exercised accordingly.
Therefore, will the Government please clarify if it intends to issue a contract modification to fund CLIN 0018 rather than a delivery order?
| Additionally, will the Government please clarify its intent regarding award of any additional Delivery Orders? | Schedule Section B | Note 9: In accordance with FAR 52.216-19 | An initial Order will be issued to fund CLIN 0018, Post Award Conference. Please refer to FAR 52.216-19, Order Limitations, for the Government's intention regarding additional Orders. | ||
| Proposal responses are due 22 September 2025. However, the Basic contract period start date is specified as 13 August 2027. This results in a period of nearly 23-months from proposal submittal to contract award. Therefore, will the Government please confirm the 13 August 2027 start date is correct? | Schedule Section B | Note 14: Period of Performance | 13 Aug 2027 is an estimated contract award date. | ||
| FAR 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract (a) states The Government may extend the term of the contract by written notice within "See Schedule". FAR instructions for completing 52.217-9 (a) state, "insert the period of time within which the Contracting Officer may exercise the option". Therefore, please clarify where in the Schedule this period of time is provided. | |||||
| Section I | FAR 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract | FAR 52.217-9 has been revised. | |||
| Values for FAR 52.216-24 (a) and (b) are not filled in. Will the Government please provide these values or clarify when they will be completed? | Section I | FAR 52.216-24 Limitation of Government Liability | FAR 52.216-24, Limitation of Government Liability, will be completed prior to contract award. | ||
| Will the Government please fill-in the missing information in paragraphs (a) - (c) and (e) or clarify when it will be completed? | Section I | DFARS 252.217-7027 Contract Definitization | DFARS 252.217-7027 has been revised. | ||
| DFARS 252.246-7006 makes reference to "the attachment entitled "Warranty Tracking Information". Will the Government please provide this attachment? | Section I | DFARS 252.246-7006 Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items | Not Applicable as the testers are not serialized at this time. This will be provided at time of serialization. | ||
| In accordance with DFARS 245-107(1)(ii) which states, For negotiated fixed-price contracts awarded on a basis other than submission of certified costs or pricing data for which Government property is provided, use the clause at FAR 52.245-1, Government Property, without its Alternate I. 45.107 Contract clauses also supports the use of 52.245-1 only. | |||||
| Therefore, will the Government please remove the 52.245-1 Alternate I clause? | Section I | FAR 52.245-I Alt I Government Property | FAR 52.245-1 Alternate I has been removed. | ||
| Will the Government please provide the not to exceed percentage required under DFARS 252.217-7001 (a)(1)? | Section I | DFARS 252.217-7001 Surge Option | The percentage will be determined based on the offeror's assessment of the surge CLINs and Estimated Quantities, their surge capability plan, and subsequent government review. | ||
| FAR 52.223-22 (xix) is designated as "Reserved" via FAR 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications (Deviation 2025-O0004). | |||||
| Therefore, will the Government please remove FAR 52.223-22? | Section I | FAR 52.223-22 Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals - Representation | FAR 52.223-22 has been removed. | ||
| The solicitation does not include a progress payment or performance-based payment clause(s), or a request for Offeror's to provide a payment schedule for FFP CLINs. |
Therefore, will the Government please add such applicable payment clause(s)?
| Additionally, please confirm CPFF type CLINS may be invoiced on a monthly basis for allowable costs incurred. | Schedule Section I - Payment | N/A | Progress Payment clauses have been added for FFP CLINs. CPFF type CLINs may be invoiced monthly. | |
| Reference Note 13: DAFFARS 5352-209-9000 Organizational Conflict of Interest (a)(2) states in part, “To avoid the prospect of the Contractor's judgment or recommendations being influenced by its own products or capabilities, the Contractor is precluded for the life of the system from award of a DoD contract to supply the system or any of its major components, and from acting as a subcontractor or consultant to a DoD supplier for the system or any of its major components.” |
DAFFARS 5352-209-9000 Organizational Conflict of Interest (as prescribed by DAFFARS 5309.507-2) is intended to limit a contractor’s eligibility for future award when the contractor is providing certain technical assistance to the Government (see FAR 9.505-1 through -4). The CAT-F RFP does not contemplate the delivery of any services as described in FAR 9.505-1 through -4.
The CAT-F Statement of Objectives (SOO) at VIII. Product Support/Logistics Considerations clearly states that the CAT-F deliverables:
“must account for the Government’s CAT-F life cycle objectives, including the availability of non-proprietary software code, open and competitive CAT-F enhancements, and approaches for providing unimpeded, innovative, and cost-effective production, operation, maintenance, and upgrades.”
Despite the SOO’s clear statement regarding the need for competitive CAT-F enhancements, is it the Government’s intent to prohibit CAT-F contractor(s) from proposing on future production, operation, maintenance, and upgrades to the CAT-F system for the Air Force or other DoD customers? Was this clause included in the RFP in error or exclusively for Offerors to disclose access to CAT-F related OEM material or information?
If the inclusion of DAFFARS 5352.209-9000 was not an error, we respectfully request that the Government provide clarification of its applicability.
| Section I and Note 13 | DAFFARS 5352.209-9000 - Organizational Conflict of Interest | Note 13 and DAFFARS 5352.209-9000 have been removed | ||
| The RFP sates: Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Paper size shall be 8 1/2” X 11,” excluding any | ||||
| charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Request the Government allow use of smaller font sizes in charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. as long as they are legible. | Section L | L.III.A.2. | The exception is for font size and paper size. This will be updated in the RFP. | |
| Will the Government please clarify if DFARS 252.234-7003 is applicable to the CAT-F program? |
Are Offerors required to submit the information specified in paragraph (b) of the clause with their proposal submittal?
| If yes, will the Government please provide the required DD Form 2794 and Resource Distribution Table? | Section L | DFARS 252.234-7003 Notice of Cost and Software Data Reporting System - Basic | DFARS 252.234-7003 and DFARS 252.234-7004 have been removed. | ||
| Does the Government wish for contractors to deliver a Handheld tester prototype with each TPS at CDR? | Section L | Section L 901, Subfactor 1 O-Level Maturity, p40 | The RFP has been updated to change to 2 prototype testers per aircraft, 6 total. CLIN 0007, 0008, 0009 | ||
| Will the Government specify a 4th A-10 Test Program Set. The 4th bullet is blank in the RFP. | Section L | Section L 901, Subfactor 1 O-Level Maturity, p41 | There is no 4th TPS, the blank bullet has been removed. | ||
| Please confirm "completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued" is referring to the SF33, SF30(s), and required FAR/DFARS clause "fill-ins" only. | |||||
| Please confirm the Government is not requesting submittal of the entire RFP with each Offeror's proposal. | Section L-900 Initial Source Selection | B. Volume I. 1 General | 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. | ||
| Request the Government provide offerors the required proposal validity period. | Section L-900 Initial Source Selection | General | The validity date has been revised. | ||
| Please explain the reason for the differences in TPS names within Section L-901, Subfactor I: O-Level Maturity found in pages 41-42 and Section M-901. For example Section M-901 list "AIM-9X Missile System Checkout at LAU-128" for the F-15E, whereas Section L-901 does not list the AIM-9X or the LAU-128. | Section M-901 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD - FINAL DOWNSELECT | III. Factor Evaluation, 1. General, Subfactor I: O-Level Maturity | This has been corrected. | ||
| Are Offeror's required to complete and provide any part(s) of Attachment 1 - DD254 with their proposal submittal? | |||||
| If yes, will the Government please clarify what information is required? | RFP Attachment 1 DD Form 254 | ||||
| Attachment 1: DD254 DoD Contract Security Classification Specification | |||||
| No, offerors are not required to complete Attachment 1, DD Form 254, Department of Defense Contract Security Classification. | |||||
| RFP Attachments 5, 6, and 7 use smaller than 12pt font and smaller than 1-inch margins. Would the Government please confirm the Offeror may use the font, margins, and formatting as is in Government-provided templates? | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901 | L.III.A.2 | Correct, the offeror may use the font, margins, and formatting as-is in Government-provided templates | ||
| Please confirm the RFP Attachment 7 can be provided in an .xlsx format. | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901 | L.III.E.1.j | Correct, RFP Attachment 7 can be provided in an .xlsx format. | ||
| Recognizing the requirement to propose a Surge Capability Plan with Min/Max production surge, how are offerors to price the surge option CLINs in each of the contract option years? | RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model | Surge Option CLIN(s) | New Surge CLINs with Estimated Quantities have been added | ||
| Are Offeror's required to complete and provide any part(s) of Attachment 12 DD165B with their proposal submittal? | |||||
| If yes, will the Government please clarify what information is required and which proposal volume it should be submitted in? | RFP Attachment 12 DD Form 1658 | Attachment 12: DD165B Transportation Data for Solicitations | No, Offerors are not required to complete Attachment 12, DD Form 1653, Transportation Data. | ||
| By submittal of a proposal, Offerors grant the Government unrestricted, perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide, nonexclusive, irrevocable, license to use, modify, perform, display, disclose, or release for any purpose, and permit others to do so, all intellectual property contained in this contract and any modifications thereto.", unless specifically listed as an expected item. | |||||
| Will the Government please confirm that Offeror's CAT-F proposals are not included in these specified unrestricted uses? | Attachment 15 | Paragraph 3.d.1 | The intent of Paragraph 3.d.1 of Attachment 15 is to clarify that, regardless of how offerors might mark their proposals, the government expects to have unrestricted use for any IP that’s incorporated into the contract. The government does not intend to use such information from unsuccessful proposals, as that information will not be incorporated into the contract. | ||
| The required restrictive marking, "(i.e., (b)(4): LIMITED RIGHTS) and the restrictive marking for contract administration information (i.e., (b)(4): SPECIAL LICENSE FOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION/___**__ PROPRIETARY), references "(b)(4)" are to be provided with the conformed Volume I. Will the Government please clarify where that reference and this marking originates from? | Attachment 15 | Paragraph 4.d. | This language has been removed from Attachment 15. | ||
| Requirement title is Handheld but requirement text speaks to both I-Level and O-Level. Recommend updating the title to avoid confusion. | SRD | SRD_1.11.6 | Requirement title changed to "CAT-F Tester Ruggedization" | ||
| What are the payment terms on Fixed Price Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) items? Are offerors permitted to submit proposals with Government Contract financing? Please provide instructions in Section L and criteria in Section M for evaluation of payment terms should the Government not offer normal and customary payment terms. | A definitive response on the Payment Terms will allow offerors to properly price this proposal. Additionally, it establishes a clear understanding of implications, if any, by proposing Government Contractor Financing as part of the CAT-F proposal | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf | N/A | Progress Payment clauses have been added for FFP CLINs. | |
| Government Contract Financing clauses (e.g., Progress Payments, Performance Based Payments, etc.) were not included in the solicitation. We respectfully suggest the Government incorporate either Performance Based Payment and/or Progress Payment clauses. | |||||
| A definitive response on the Payment Terms will allow offerors to properly price this proposal. Additionally, it establishes a clear understanding of implications, if any, by proposing Government Contractor Financing as part of the CAT-F proposal | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf | N/A | Progress Payment clauses have been added for FFP CLINs. | ||
| Given the constant changes regarding tariffs and the cost savings that could be provided to the Government, we respectfully request the Government consider adding DFARS 252.225-7013 - Duty-Free Entry to the Section I clauses of this RFP. This clause helps the Government ensure it receives the best value from all offerors. | |||||
| Addition of this clause will provide cost savings for the USG given it provides protection against tariffs. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf | Section I | DFARS 252.225-7013, Duty- Free Entry, has been added. | ||
| Surge CLINs are proposed for each option period to be bid at a Quantity of 1 for Total Evaluated Price (TEP) evaluation. How is the scope defined for each Surge Option period? | Offerors need clarity to understand scope to accurately propose for each Surge Option period. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf | Item No. 1016 | New Surge CLINs with Estimated Quantities have been added. | |
| Please provide the By-Text language for the clauses referenced below, found in Section I of the RFP. The versions and/or deviations currently noted within the RFP cannot be found on acquisition.gov. |
52.204-8 (DEVIATION 2025-O0003 and 2025-O0004) (MAR 2025)
5352.209-9000 (JUN 2023)
252.225-7966 (DEVIATION 2024-O0006, REVISION 1) (MAR 2024)
| 52.244-6 (DEVIATION 2025-O0003) (MAR 2025) | Offerors need the text to adequately respond should these clauses require any reps/certs or additional review. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf | Section I, Section K | The deviations can be found on acquistion. gov under FAR parts- DOD Deviations. The direct link is: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/class_deviations.html DAFFARS 5352.209-9000 has been removed. | |
| The RFP outlines a Surge option, but does not delineate the applicable surge percentage. Please provide the anticipated surge percentage. | Surge CLINs describe the ability for the Government to purchase a higher quantity of supplies, but no unit quantity ceiling is specified. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf | 252.217-7001 | The percentage will be determined based on the offeror's assessment of the surge CLINs and Estimated Quantities, their surge capability plan, and subsequent government review. | |
| Will the Government consider updating the clause date of DFARS 252.225-7052 from May 2024 to the January 2023 version? | Using the May 2024 version of the clause may negatively impact speed to capability. The clause will require industry to redesign supply chains. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf | 252.225-7052 | No, an older version of the clause cannot be used. | |
| Regarding the RFP Section K-900 - USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS requirement, we are seeking to understand if the contracts held by the Government with the identified vendors include standard confidentiality requirements, up to and including separate individual agreements. We understand that this is standard procedure in federal source selection activities, consistent with the Procurement Integrity Act, and obligates the Government to protect vendor-supplied proprietary information when a source selection activity is pending. We are trying to understand the requirement for additional NDAs. Is industry's proprietary information protected in the event that they are unsuccessful in negotiating the NDAs with the non-government advisors? | Industry has been directed to complete paragraph (b)(2) regarding non-government advisors. In the event that we meet an impasse during NDA negotiations with said advisors, we are trying to understand whether our proprietary information, including cost/price, will be protected. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf | K-900 (b) | To confirm statutory and regulatory compliance, all persons (to include non-Government Advisors) receiving source selection information must sign a Non-disclosure Agreement. Industry's proprietary information, including cost/price, is protected | |
| Clauses 252.246-7001 and 252.246-7001 ALT II in the RFP and Attachment 15 contradict FAR 52.246-19. The warranty periods do not sync given the DFARS clauses require a 3-year warranty while the FAR clause requires 1 year. We respectfully recommend the Government remove 252.246-7001 and 252.246-7001 ALT II from both the RFP and Attachment 15 and incorporate FAR 52.246-19 in Attachment 15 for alignment. | This will provide clarity on the exact warranty terms expected for this effort, avoiding any risk of ambiguity. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf and | |||
| RFP Attachment 15_ Intellectual Property Rights.pdf | 252.246-7001; 252.246-7001 ALT II | ||||
| Para H (Att 15) | DFARS 252.246-7001 and DFARS 252.246-7001 Alt I will not be removed as they are for Warranty of Data and FAR 52.246-19 is for Warranty of the Systems and Equipment. FAR 52.246-19(a) excludes data from the definition of supplies when the Warranty of Data clause is included. So by the express terms, there is no conflict between the clauses. | ||||
| In both Attachment 6 and RFP Section B, CLINs 3010 and 4004 both call out F-15 I-Level Kits (LRIP) (qty 5). This number does not align with the total F-15 I-Level Tester Kit quantities called out in the SOO Table 1 (CAT-F Estimated Component Quantities). Please clarify if this is desired and, if not, what the desired CLIN/Year is for the F-15 I-Level Tester LRIP deliveries? | Having two LRIPs does not align with the approach of the other platforms and impacts pricing and schedule given the LRIPs occur in different years. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf |
RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model.xlsx
RFP Attachment 3_STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES.pdf
40, 47-48 (RFP)
Rows 148, 185 (Att 6)
| Table 1 (SOO) | CLIN 4004 has been renamed as RESERVED |
| The document states "The Contractor shall develop a Safety and Health Plan as required by Contract SOO, Attachment 4: PREPARATION OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK, Government areas of interest with the CAT-F Acquisition SOW, Section 3.f Safety." |
| Are all plans/analyses/documentation listed in Attachment 5 of the SOO to be considered required by the Government or do they remain at the discretion of the offeror? | We want to understand deliverable requirements to the government to ensure a compliant SOW and offer to the Government. | RFP Attachment 2_CAT-F Safety Plan | Lines 1-3. |
| Unless included in SOO Attachment 4, all CDRLs are at the discretion of the offeror. | |||
| This requirement states "To provide structural integrity when seating connectors, cable connectors shall be completely filled with pins and sockets." In some MIL-DTL-38999 style connectors, contact cavities size 16 or larger can be populated with coax or twinax contacts. If a standard solid pin or socket is installed in such a cavity to meet this requirement and the mating connector contains a coax/twinax contact, there is a risk of damage to one or both contacts when mated. |
| To avoid this, would the Government consider revising the requirement so that only size 20 or 22 cavities—which cannot accept coax or twinax contacts—are required to be filled with standard pins and sockets for structural integrity purposes? This would preserve the intent of the requirement while mitigating the risk of contact damage in larger cavities. | Changing the requirement as suggested reduces the risk of damage to aircraft. | RFP Attachment 3_STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES.pdf | SRD_1.14.6.8 | Requirement has been updated in SRD. | |
| Please clarify SRD_1.29.13, which states: "The repair of all items through the warranty period shall be repaired by the Contractor. Transportation cost (to and from) shall be paid by the Contractor. Use MIL-STD-130, Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property, when marking warranty items." Is this limited to transportation of parts (to and from)? Is the intent to cover repair on site? | This will provide clarity regarding the extent of the warranty expectations. | RFP Attachment 3_STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES.pdf | SRD_1.29.13 | The intent is to follow the offerors warranty repair procedures, historically this would be transporting the tester to the manufacturer, but we do not have a preference as long as it falls within the warranty repair requirements. | |
| Does the Government intend for the Software Development Plan (SDP), Software Description Document (SDD), Software Test Plan (STP), Software User Manual (SUM), and Software Implementation Document (SID) to be delivered under B/C/D/E009 in order to be compliant with SRD_1.20.4 (verified by Inspection)? | We want to verify if these are CDRL submittals or documents made available to the Government for assurance purposes. | RFP Attachment 3_STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES.pdf | SRD_1.20.4 | Yes | |
| A. General: 2. states, "Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12". To properly display entire concepts in charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, tables, and/or supporting illustrations and spreadsheets on 8 1/2” X 11” or 11” X 17” sized pages, it may be necessary to use a font smaller than 12 pt. Also, supporting examples from existing documents may have been created per smaller font requirements. Are we allowed to use smaller fonts for charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, tables, and/or supporting illustrations and spreadsheets as long as they are legible? If yes, what is the minimum font size for these? | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901.pdf | L-900.III.A.2. | |||
| Yes, smaller fonts are allowed for charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc.. We are not setting a minimum font size. | |||||
| A. General: 3 states. "The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal is 125 pages, this does not include the IMS or IP Rights Template, as they will be attachments to the Written Technical Proposal, but does include the associated IMS rationale. The page limitation for Volume III, Small Business Participation, is 10 pages. The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any cover page(s), table of contents, list of acronyms (if utilized), or attachments as specifically identified in this provision.." | |||||
| Are Lists of Figures and Tables also excluded? | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901.pdf | L-900.III.A.3. | |||
| Yes | |||||
| Subfactor I: Systems Engineering states that the Technical Volume should include a narrative with supporting documentation in the written technical proposal. It also states that the Technical Data Risk Mitigation plan shall be submitted in draft from with the proposal with final plan delivered after contract award. A CDRL for a Technical Data Risk Mitigation plan was not listed in Attachment 9 CDRLs. Please clarify if the intention was for a separate Technical Data Mitigation plan to be delivered in addition to the content written within the Technical Volume? | Clarification will help us plan for appropriate CDRL delivery. | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901.pdf | L-900, III Volume Organization, C. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, Subfactor I: Systems Engineering | Yes, a draft Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan is required at proposal, and we expect any updates to be included in CDRL B/C/D/E009. | |
| The Subfactor I content in Sections L-900 and M-900 now refers to Phase III as Sustainment. Please provide insight regarding why this has changed from Production to Sustainment. Does the Government intend for Phase III to now include both production and warranty/sustainment periods or has production scope been moved into Phase I and Phase II for O-Level and I-Level, respectively? | We want to ensure the SOW, IMS, and proposal content align with the desired Government phase structure. | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901.pdf | L-900.III.C.2.Subfactor I: Systems Engineering (bullet 2) |
M-900.II.D.1. Subfactor I: Systems Engineering (bullet 2)
| Due to the incremental structure of the program, production and sustainment can be performed at the same time, i.e. F-16 I-level sustainment and A-10 O-level production can be performed at the same time. | ||||
| Please explain the criteria to be used to calculate the additional value of the GFP (e.g., price per unit of non-transferrable GFP)? | We are trying to gain a better understanding of how GFP may impact offeror Cost/Price submittal. | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901.pdf | Section F, Para 5, line e | The Government has identified non-transferable GFP as shown in RFP Attachment 5. Offerors shall identify all GFP that is available to the offeror but not available to be transferred to another offeror at time of award. The Government has established internal values that will be assigned to counteract the disparity that this may cause. The assigned values will not be provided with the RFP. |
| Testing for "Dual Rail Adapter (DRA) with LAU-105 installed" is listed in the F-15 TPS list, but the F-15 does not have this launcher. We respectfully recommend removing it from this section. | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901.pdf | Section III, Factor 1, F-15 Section | Removed from L&M, but prompted addition of two EX specific tests to SRD | |
| The list of TPS to be performed in accordance with Subfactor I: O-Level Maturity are different in Sections L-901 and M-901. Section L-901 appears to be updated from previous Draft RFP versions. We respectfully suggest updating M-901 to match L-901 to set Offeror expectations to what the Government intends to evaluate, allowing offerors to prepare appropriately. | We need clarity to best understand what the Government intends to evaluate and see performed on the O-Level handheld tester. | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901.pdf | 1 General; Subfactor I | This has been corrected. The TPS list in M-901 matches L-901 now. |
| The Government states, "The plan set forth in the offeror’s initial SOW submitted and evaluated in accordance with L-900 and M-900 Subfactor III, and updated after contract award". Section M 901 states, "This factor is met when the offeror provides their modular open system architecture approach that incorporates hardware and software modular open system architecture design requirements, as documented in the Offeror's Open Systems Management Plan (OSMP)". All references to the OSMP have been removed from L-900 and M-900 and are not identified within the SOW template. Please clarify whether the Government desires an OSMP, and if so, when are they expecting delivery? | We are trying to gain insight regarding whether or not the Government expects to evaluate an OSMP and at what point it will need to be developed and delivered. | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901.pdf | Section L-901, Subfactor VI: MOSA Utilization | The OSMP is no longer a requirement for proposal, we require a description on how the offeror plans to incorporate MOSA into their tester. |
| M-901 lists Data Rights Plan and Data Rights Availability Plan as items to be evaluated under SF VII - Intellectual Property Rights. These plans are not included in Section L 901. Please clarify whether the Data Rights Plan and Data Rights Availability Plan will be part of the Basic year evaluation process. | We are trying to understand what plans will need to be worked during the Basic year. | RFP Attachment 4_Sections L 900_L 901_ M 900_M 901.pdf | Factor I Technical, Subfactor VII | The plans are no longer required for the proposals. |
| There are multiple instances of CDRLs (Data Accession List, Fielding Plan) being submitted annually, but then Block 16 (under the Block 10, 11, 12, 13 section) states additional instances submitted under of end-of-year reports (PY1 - OY4) |
For any additional submittals delivered under E01V, would the Government prefer those bid under ELIN B/C/D/E009 or under the respective CDRLs? Redundant annual submittals for the DAL and Fielding Plan
| These two CDRLs are the only ones with CDRL 01V references that have submittals outside the base year (ELIN AXXX). | RFP Attachment 9_CDRLs.pdf | Block 10, 11, 12, 13 (Within Block 16) | B/C/D/E009 is for updates to the CDRLs submitted earlier in the year. The reference to B/C/D/E01V has been removed. | ||
| Please explain how the Government would prefer the B/C/D/E01V submittals under the Technical Report - Study/Services (B/C/D/E009) be submitted for each of the items listed in Block 16? Individual submittals under a single B/C/D/E01V (with nulls for those not updated) or each individual submittal under the CDRL number? If the latter, how would the Government like to see the individual documents marked? | We want to ensure proper POCs identified as reviewers of the document and reduce the logistics involved in statusing multiple documents (17) rather than the intended submittal. | RFP Attachment 9_CDRLs.pdf | All | One report submitted that will be a collection of all monthly reports. B/C/D/E01V has been removed from Block 16. | |
| Block 1 identifies the data item as B/C/D/E009, but Block 16 calls for the submittals to all fall under B/C/D/E01V. Please clarify what CDRL(s), if any, would be submitted under B/C/D/E009. | CDRL item B/C/D/E009 stipulates that all submittals be identified as B/C/D/E01V. | RFP Attachment 9_CDRLs.pdf | Block 1, Block 16 (Block 10, 11, 12, 13) | Statement modified in 16. REMARKS to: |
documents will be completed using B/C/D/E009.
Multiple CDRLs reference one or more Increments regarding submittal milestones (e.g., System/Subsystem Specification--A/B/C/D/E00K, IUID Marking Activity, Validation and Report--B/C/D/E00P). The RFP uses a Phase structure that differs from the Increment Structure called out in the CDRLs. Please clarify the intended submittal milestones for these CDRLs. We want to ensure that submittal deadlines align with Government expectations to avoid unintended non-compliance with CDRL submittal requirements. RFP Attachment 9_CDRLs.pdf Block 16 (Block 10, 11, 12, 13) Statement modified in 16. REMARKS to:
The initial version of the SSS shall be delivered prior to the Base Year CDR with updates completed prior to LRIP.
The TDP (AB/C/D/E00R) and TDP List (A/B/C/D/E00S) both contain the statement "Sustainment Plan shall be specific for each Fighter Aircraft Platform". Please clarify why the Sustainment Plan is included in both the TDP and TDP list?
We want to verify if the Sustainment Plan comment was in error or in reference to something else.
| We also want to set the expectations for TDP and TDP list content to cover all platforms from initial submittal or be amended over time as additional platform technical data is generated and delivered. | RFP Attachment 9_CDRLs.pdf | Block 16 | The initial version of the SSS shall be delivered prior to the Base Year CDR with updates completed prior to LRIP. |
| The CDRL Data Item C00T implies the CDRL should only be submitted in OY2, but Block 16 (Block 10, 11, 12, 13) also calls for a plan to be submitted 90 days after contract award. Please clarify whether the intent is after contract award of the Base year or exercise of Option 2. |
| The CDRL calls for a draft plan within 90 days, followed by analysis reports in Option 2. Please confirm the initial submittal will be a plan, not an analysis and whether there is any guidance regarding content. | We want to ensure that submittal deadlines align with Government expectations to avoid unintended non-compliance with CDRL submittal requirements. | RFP Attachment 9_CDRLs.pdf | Block 16 (Block 10, 11, 12, 13) | CDRL C00T Block 12 states 90 DAC. Information in Block 16 states that a initial draft is due 90 days after contract award. the section then states Nuclear Safely Analysis Report final draft submitted 45 day prior to the end of option year II. CDRL has been revised to add B00T. ELIN B00T added to Section B of the RFP. | |
| Block 16 states that paragraphs 10.1.1g through I, 10.1.5, 10.1.6, 10.1.7, 10.2.2.(b), (d) and (e) should be deleted from the referenced DID (DI-SESS-81639B), but the revision of that DID does not contain those sections. Please clarify instructions to offerors. | RFP Attachment 9_CDRLs.pdf | Block 16 (BLOCK 4) | The CDRL has been revised. | ||
| Multiple CDRLs from Attachment 14 are called out in Block 16. For those documents in Attachment 14 that are not called out in Data Item No. B/C/D/E009, please clarify which CLINs offerors should submit and price them in within the cost model (Attachment 6)? | We want to ensure that submittal of additional CDRLs called out in Attachment 14 align with Government expectations to avoid unintended non-compliance with CDRL submittal requirements. | RFP Attachment 9_CDRLs.pdf |
RFP Attachment 14_Additional CDRLs.pdf
RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model.xlsx Block 16
Full
| Rows 70, 115, 159, 198 | A number of corrections have been made to CDRL to clarify Block 16. |
| The language in Section 9, Nondisclosure Agreements, takes away the right for Contractors and their Subcontractors to enter into NDAs with Covered Government Support Contractors (CGSCs) prior to the Government's use, release, or disclosure of protected Technical Data, Computer Software, and Special Licenses (protected data). DFARS 252.227-7013(c)(3)(iv)(C) and DFARS 252.227-7014(c)(3)(iii)(C) are designed to allow industry to share sensitive information without risk of improper disclosure to unauthorized parties. By waiving the rights protected by these clauses, sensitive intellectual property is in jeopardy. Given the potential negative implications of unauthorized release of protected data to unauthorized parties, we respectfully request the Government remove Section 9 from Attachment 15. |
| *Please note, we understood that the DFARS references within Section 9 of Attachment 15 are incorrectly stated as there are no (b)(3) subsections in either clause. | Allowing NDAs with CGSCs reduces risk for the program and aligns with the DFARS language within the clause. | RFP Attachment 15_Intellectual Property Rights | Section 9 | Section 9 has been revised to remove some language. | |
| Please provide additional guidance on the level of support envisioned and the travel locations (for Per Diem rates). | CLINs 1011, 2013, 3013, and 4009 | CLINs 1011, 2013, 3013, and 4009 require cost estimates to Support Government Testing. | The contractor will be expected to do at least that 3 test events, one for each aircraft, 2 tests at Eglin AFB, Florida, and 1 test at Hill AFB, Utah, for both o-level and i-level. TPS for each platform are independent so parallel testing is possible. For development testing the offeror should be able to details how much support they can muster when collaborating with the government. whether it’s an environmental test, or EMC and EMI testing. | ||
| Please clarify if a complete PP/SEP Plan required by DoDI 5000.02 and DoDI 5200.39 is requested in the proposal, or that just those elements of a PP/SEP Plan identified in Section L (i.e., Cybersecurity, Cyber Survivability and Cyber Resiliency processes) are required. | With respect to the Program Protection/Systems Security Engineering Plan (PP/SEP), it is stated that, "The government requests the plans in a draft form submitted with the offeror’s proposal and final plans will be delivered after contract award." | Section L Subfactor I | The proposal only requires the elements discussed in Section L, the full plans will be required after contract award. | ||
| A complete PP/SEP Plan is estimated to have 45 pages. Is the government planning to exclude this from the page limit? | Section L Subfactor I | No | |||
| Does this restriction apply to other types of graphics, e.g., schematic diagrams, flow charts, mechanical drawings, etc.? | Section L.III.A.3 states that, "The SOW shall not include any photos or pictures." | Section L.III.A.4 | No | ||
| Please confirm that the CDR to be conducted within 10 months after contract award is only for the O-Level Testers. | In Section L Subfactor I: Systems Engineering, the IMS requirements include: “The proposed IMS shall communicate how the contractor shall meet the Phase I CDR within 10 months after contract award.” Phase I is defined as the O-Level Phase. |
| In Section M901, subfactor II, the Government states that I-Level Maturity is based on “The presentation material delivered and approved at CDR”, implying that the above CDR is also for Phase II. | Section L Subfactor I | The 10 month CDR is the system level CDR for the o-level tester and the listed TPS. We expect to also receive any digital designs for i-level tester at the same time as the o-level CDR. | |||
| Please clarify. Is this CDR in the SOW template different from the CDR that occurs 10 months after contract award? If so, is it for the I-Level Tester? | The CAT-F System Critical Design Review (CDR) is shown in the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase in the SOW Template. The Phase I CDR is indicated to be in the Basic Year design phase in the IMS requirements section L. | SOO Attachment 5: Statement of Work (SOW) Template | The CDR referenced in the SOW Template is not a single instance, this is a category for the SOW Template. We will have an o-level system level CDR at 10 months after contract award. | ||
| Will the actual quantities to be delivered be defined in the Basic contract or not until the execution of Options? | It is understood that the tester quantities in SOO Table 1. CAT-F Estimated Component Quantities and the CLINs are only estimates at this point to be used to provide the IMS and costing, and this will be an IDIQ contract. | SOO Table 1. CAT-F Estimated Component Quantities | Exact quantities will be stated on the Delivery Orders. | ||
| How much lead time will be provided by the government if Surge quantities are required above these initial quantities? | It is understood that the tester quantities in SOO Table 1. CAT-F Estimated Component Quantities and the CLINs are only estimates at this point to be used to provide the IMS and costing, and this will be an IDIQ contract. | SOO Table 1. CAT-F Estimated Component Quantities | New Surge CLINs with Estimated Quantities have been added. Lead time will be based on the offeror's surge capability plan and subsequent government review. | ||
| CLIN 1007 for F-16 O-Level Tester is scheduled in Option I Year, but production continues in Option II Year in CLIN 2008. Should there also be Logistical Support in Option Year II? | There appears to be some inconsistencies among the CLIN structure as listed below. Please clarify each entry. | Volume IV, Cost/Price Table 1- CLIN and Fee Structure | No | ||
| CLIN 4001 EMD for the F-15 I-Level Tester occurs in Option IV Year, but LRIP production occurs in Option Year III. Should this CLIN be deleted? | There appears to be some inconsistencies among the CLIN structure as listed below. Please clarify each entry. | Volume IV, Cost/Price Table 1- CLIN and Fee Structure | CLIN 4001 has been renamed as RESERVED | ||
| CLINs 3010 and 4004 for F-15 I-Level Testers LRIP occur in Option III and IV Years. Is this an inadvertent duplication? | There appears to be some inconsistencies among the CLIN structure as listed below. Please clarify each entry. | Volume IV, Cost/Price Table 1- CLIN and Fee Structure | CLIN 4004 has been renamed as RESERVED | ||
| CLIN 4005 for F-15 I-Level Tester Production occurs in Option IV Year. Should there also be a Logistical Support CLIN for these testers that year? | There appears to be some inconsistencies among the CLIN structure as listed below. Please clarify each entry. | Volume IV, Cost/Price Table 1- CLIN and Fee Structure | No | ||
| CLIN 2007 for A-10 O-Level Tester Logistical Support is shown in Option II Year, but production does not occur until Option III Year. Should this logistical support be moved to Option III Year? | There appears to be some inconsistencies among the CLIN structure as listed below. Please clarify each entry. | Volume IV, Cost/Price Table 1- CLIN and Fee Structure | No | ||
| SOO Attachment 4 is the CDRLs list. Should this reference be to SOO Attachment 5. SOW Template? | “The Contractor shall develop a Safety and Health Plan as required by Contract SOO, Attachment 4: PREPARATION OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK, Government areas of interest with the CAT-F Acquisition SOW, Section 3.f. Safety.” | RFP+Attachment+2_CAT-F+Safety+Plan | This has been updated. | ||
| There is no Section 3.f.Safety in the SOW Template. Should this reference be to 3.6 Safety? | “The Contractor shall develop a Safety and Health Plan as required by Contract SOO, Attachment 4: PREPARATION OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK, Government areas of interest with the CAT-F Acquisition SOW, Section 3.f. Safety.” | RFP+Attachment+2_CAT-F+Safety+Plan | This has been updated. | ||
| There is no “Safety and Health Plan” listed in the SOW Template. Should this reference be to Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH)? | “The Contractor shall develop a Safety and Health Plan as required by Contract SOO, Attachment 4: PREPARATION OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK, Government areas of interest with the CAT-F Acquisition SOW, Section 3.f. Safety.” | RFP+Attachment+2_CAT-F+Safety+Plan | This has been updated. | ||
| Is this Safety and Health Plan required to be delivered with the proposal imbedded in SOW Section 3.6? | “The Contractor shall develop a Safety and Health Plan as required by Contract SOO, Attachment 4: PREPARATION OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK, Government areas of interest with the CAT-F Acquisition SOW, Section 3.f. Safety.” | RFP+Attachment+2_CAT-F+Safety+Plan | Yes | ||
| If the answer to if the Safety and Health Plan required to be delivered with the proposal imbedded in SOW Section 3.6 is yes, will the Government consider removing this plan from the page limit? | “The Contractor shall develop a Safety and Health Plan as required by Contract SOO, Attachment 4: PREPARATION OF THE STATEMENT OF WORK, Government areas of interest with the CAT-F Acquisition SOW, Section 3.f. Safety.” | RFP+Attachment+2_CAT-F+Safety+Plan | N/A | ||
| Please clarify. | One entry requires cost information to be provided in .xlsx file format, and 4 other entries require .xls file format. | Section L. E. Volume IV, Cost/Price | a. One entry requires cost information to be provided in .xlsx file format, and 4 other entries require .xls file format. | .xlsx file format is acceptable | |
| It is strongly recommended that the SOW be treated as a page-unlimited attachment to the Technical Volume as it was previously, or that the Technical Volume page limit be substantially increased. | The SOW is no longer a page unlimited attachment to the Technical Volume but is to be provided in Subfactor II: Statement of Work and is included in the 125-page limit. This appears to be unrealistic given that: |
As a reference, the Bomber Armament Tester (BAT) SOW released by the Air Force for a similar acquisition in 2015 was about 80 pages (including the CDRLs list). The CAT-F SOW could be even larger because “The SOW will be evaluated on how the offeror has met each requirement set forth in the SRD.” The SRD is about 20 pages in the RFP and including it in the SOW to show how contractors will meet each requirement could well result in even more than 20 pages.
The SOW is to include drafts of the Program Protection Implementation Plan (PIPP), the Safety and Health Plan, the Prototype Plan, and the Surge Capability Plan, in addition to the comprehensive Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan in the Systems Engineering section. Each of these plans could well be in the 10’s of pages.
| Adding up these likely page counts, the SOW itself could well be over the 125-page limit of the Technical Volume. | Section L. Volume Organization A. Volume II. Technical Volume | The plans due at proposal are expected to be in draft format and explain how the offeror plans to meet the SRD requirments, The government program office believes that the 125 page limit is adequate. | ||
| Is this correct, and not 13 August 2026? | The formal RFP states that the Basic contract period of performance will begin on 13 Aug 2027. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002 | This is correct. | |
| If correct, and the proposal due 22 September is valid only up until 20 May 2026 (240 days after submittal), when is the Basic contract to be awarded? | The formal RFP states that the Basic contract period of performance will begin on 13 Aug 2027. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0003 | The validity date has been revised. | |
| Can the Government confirm that the first Option year will be exercised immediately at the end of the first 12 months period? | The formal RFP provides contracting schedule that implies that there is no gap between the Basic contract period and the start of the first Option year. | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002 | Yes, for the offeror(s) that have been selected for option award. | |
| It is respectfully requested that the proposal due date be extended to at least 60 days to account for the many significant changes in the final RFP compared to the Draft RFP versions, and to allow time for answers to industry questions on the formal RFP. | Proposal Due Date | RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002 | An RFP amendment to extend the proposal due date is forthcoming . | |
| What is the source of the hierarchical structure in these headers? | The headers in the spreadsheet in rows 1-4 beginning in column “F” do not correlate with the SOW Template in SOO Attachment | RFP+Attachment+7_Total+Resources+Volume | This was an internal document developed by the government. | |
| Is it mandatory to use this structure or can contractors use their SOW? | The headers in the spreadsheet in rows 1-4 beginning in column “F” do not correlate with the SOW Template in SOO Attachment | RFP+Attachment+7_Total+Resources+Volume | The TRV is required in .xlsx file format but contractor formatting is allowed. | |
| Are the production units to be just produced in the Option Years indicated in the CLIN descriptions, or do they also have to be delivered in those same years? | Production CLINS | RFP+Attachment+4_Sections+L+900_L+901_+M+900_M+901 | The delivery could span across option years, the delivery is due 12 months after order. | |
| Please clarify the distinction between “Design and Digital Development” and “Digital Design”. | CLINs 0004, 2005, 0006 and CLINs 0010, 0011, 0012 appear to be duplicate entries/requirements. | CLINs 0004, 2005, 0006, 0010, 0011, 0012 | “Design and Digital Development” is any EMD activities used to develop any digital models or documents related to the tester. The "Digital Design" is the digital models, or digital twin that was designed during the “Design and Digital Development” | |
| Please clarify | Multiple mismatches exist between TPS requirements for Section L and Section M. |
| Example: TPS list in Subfactor I in L901 is different that the TPS list of Subfactor I or M901 | RFP Attachment 4, Sections L and M | TPS lists have been updated to be consistent across L-901 and M-901. | |||
| Please clarify | Government response dated 29 Apr 2025 stated that SRD sections 1.2.1.9, 1.2.1.18 reference to the use of the LAU-128 on the A-10 would be removed from future releases of these SRDs; this requirement still includes LAU-128 in the August 5, 2025 posting. | SOO SRD Sections 1.2.1.9, 1.2.1.18 | Removed 1.2.1.18, Changed wording on 1.2.1.9 to remove mention of LAU-128 | ||
| USAF F-16 platforms are no longer nuclear certified; please remove requirements for SRD 1.2.3.1.10 and 1.2.3.3.9. | Government response dated 29 Apr 2025 stated the USAF F-16 is no longer nuclear certified; this requirement is still included with reference to testing F-16 pylons with the SCRIU in the August 5, 2025 posting. | SOO SRD Sections 1.2.3.3.9 and 1.2.3.1.10 | Removed these SRD elements from Launchpad, need to update in other documents | ||
| Recommend changing to LAU-106 (AIM-120) | SRD 1.2.2.22 Name and Description reference LAU-120 (AIM-120). | SOO SRD 1.2.2.22 | Concur, changed in launchpad |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .