Industry Questions with Answers_05 Mar 2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F)
- Solicitation number
- FA8533-25-R-0002
About this file
This file contains questions and answers related to a draft RFP for the Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F) program being managed by the Air Force Materiel Command's Lifecycle Management Center at Robins Air Force Base. The Q&A addresses various aspects of the draft RFP including pricing structure, evaluation criteria, CLIN organization, and technical requirements.
Key clarifications include: the government intends to award two contracts through a best value tradeoff process; TPS development in the base year is limited to those listed in L-901; the O-level tester must be CDR-ready within 10 months of award; NAICS code 334515 will be used; and the minimum display size requirement of 1.5" x 2.5" viewable area is mandatory. The government also clarified that spares have been removed from production numbers, environmental qualification falls under design & development CLINs, and travel amounts will be included in the final RFP. Industry feedback on the draft RFP documents was requested by December 10, 2024 at 4pm EST.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Industry Questions with Answers_16 May 2025.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| DRAFT Techincal Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR).docx | DOCX document | |
| Industry Questions with Answers_29 Apr 2025.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Questions for Industry_01 Apr 2025.docx | DOCX document | |
| DRAFT Sections L and M_ v3.1_01 Apr 2025.pdf | ||
| DRAFT STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES - CAT-F_01 Apr 2025.pdf | ||
| DD Form 2345.pdf | ||
| Draft RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model v4_01 Apr 2025.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Industry Questions with Answers_01 Apr 2025.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Draft CLIN Structure_FA853325R0002_01 Apr 2025.rtf | RTF text file | |
| Industry Questions with Answers.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| DRAFT RFP Attachment XX Excel Cost Model.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| DRAFT Sections L and M_Pricing Cost language included.pdf | ||
| Questions for Industry.pdf | ||
| DRAFT Statement of Objectives (SOO).pdf | ||
| DRAFT Sections L and M.pdf |
Show all 16
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 | Page | Section | Question/Request for Clarification | Rationale | USG Response |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 1 and 18 | L-900 I Introduction and Overview & M-900 I Basis for Contract Award | Page 1, Paragraph I, states, " This acquisition will be a source selection comprised of an Initial Source Selection that will yield contracts to two (2) offerors …" Page 18, Paragraph I, states, "The Government intends to award two contracts as a result of this solicitation." How will the criteria be applied if only two proposals are received? Will both offerors receive an award regardless of risk or cost? | The logic flow in the criteria creates a situation where the Government could be obligated to award one of the contracts to an "unaffordable offeror". | The government has reworded the 1st paragraph to state that we intend to yield 2 contracts. If 2 viable offerors are not found then 2 contracts will not be awarded. |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 4 and 21 | C.2.SF-1 (SE/IMS); C.1.SF-1 (SE/IMS) | In Section L-900, the IMS shall communicate how the contractor shall meet the Phase I CDR within 10 months after contract award. In Section M-900, the proposed IMS must communicate how the contractor will meet the Phase I Production Readiness Review within 18 months of contract award and does not mention a CDR within 10 months. Please provide clarification as to what the IMS shall communicate. | The M-900 wording has been updated to match the L-900 wording. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included |
DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model 4 C.2. Subfactor I (Systems Engineering)
"Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab L-900.III.C.2. Subfactor I
CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0014, 1001, 1002, 1003 With only prototype design and delivery CLINs (0001, 0002, 0003) in Basic Period, and O-Level EMD CLINs not in the contract until Option Year 1 (1001, 1002, 1003), this conflicts with the desire in L-900.III.C.2.Subfactor I (Systems Engineering) where Phase I is required to be CDR-ready within 10 months after contract award. What are the Government's expectations for completed TPSs at CDR in the Base Year based on the existing CLIN structure and verbiage?
Subfactor I L&M-900 criteria call for an IMS to have Phase I (Handheld Phase) CDR-ready within 10 months, and the "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab has CLINS 0001, 0002, and 0003 only calling out prototype design and development, which is limited to the TPSs called out in L-901 and M-901 (O-Level Maturity) and an associated Demonstration CLIN (0014). Additionally, there is no O-Level EMD CLIN in the Base Year, but there are in Option Year 1 (1001, 1002, 1003). Based on this, it can be assumed that the focus/deliverable in the Base Year would be the demonstrated TPSs CLINs, and not the full suite.
| Being able to focus on the demo in BY creates a schedule advantage for us, but may also create one for our customer. There is concern with having all A-10 TPS CDR-ready in 10 months? | The government intends for the o-level tester itself to be CDR-ready at the 10-month mark, and the list of TPS in L-901 Section B, Subfactor 1 to be the completed TPS at that time. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | Page 6, E. Volume IV, Cost Price, 6 |
Page 7, E. Volume IV, Cost Price, 9 Section E, Item 6
| Section E, Item 9 | If there is no Forward Price Rate Agreement (FPRA), is the expectation that the contractor will use the Offerors Forward Price Rate Proposal (FPRP)? Please confirm whether “FPRP” should be included in addition to FPRA/FPRR for #6, as well as #9. If the Prime and Subcontractors with a proposed value equal to or greater than $2,000,000 have an FPRP which has been submitted with the DCMA and are under evaluation, this proposal submission will include the date of the FPRP and excludes the need to provide the documentation noted in #9 for offerors who do not have an FPRA / FPRP / FPRR. | The offeror may use their FPRP as the basis for proposed rates. However, if there is no FPRR or FPRA issued by DCMA, per Section L the offeror is required to provide the data identified in Item 9 to ensure the Government has adequate information to conduct a cost realism evaluation of the proposed rates. The last paragraph of Item 9 identifies additional information to be provided if the offeror is utilizing an FPRP. | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 8 | |||
| E. Volume IV, Cost Price, 9 | Section E, Item 9 | In the .xls file format, where should minor subcontractors total costs be entered in Cost Format A? | Note for any subcontractors, to include minor subcontractors (with less than $2,000,000 in total costs), offerors shall include roll-up cost data on Cost Formats A and C. If necessary, the Contracting Officer may request additional minor subcontractor cost data during discussions. | The Government anticipates that minor subcontractor costs would be accounted for within Total Proposed Material Cost in the Cost Format A worksheets. The Government expects the Total Proposed Material Cost to clearly correlate to the CBOM required from offerors per Section L. The CBOM would identify the supplies and services provided as well as the source (i.e. minor subcontractor). |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 10 | |||
| E. Volume IV, Total Resources Volume , 10 | Section E, Item 10 | When does the Government plan to provide RFP Attachment XX, Total Resources Volume (WBS Breakdown)? How is the Total Resources Volume different from #13 CBOM requirement on page 13? | Total Resources BOE Material Summary |
The Offeror shall complete this Exhibit using RFP Attachment XX, Total Resources Volume (WBS
| Breakdown). Offerors are required to provide a BOE Material Summary that clearly lists the Types and 11 Quantities of Material resources proposed regardless of source (prime and subcontractors) by the SOW and CWBS time-phased by contract period. Clearly list the types & quantities of materials proposed. This summary should be an unburdened version of the Priced Bill of Material, which offerors shall provide separately in Volume V Cost/Price. This summary shall be provided in .xls file format to facilitate manipulation of the data during evaluation; otherwise, contractor format is acceptable. | The Total Resource Volume will be provided with the formal RFP release. The TRV Material Summary identified in Item 10 is "an unburdened version of the Priced Bill of Material, which offerors shall provide separately in Volume V Cost/Price". This means the TRV Material Summary will not include pricing data that is otherwise required in a CBOM. | |||||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included; DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | 12 | E.11.CLIN 0009 | The Government states, "Deliver A-10 O-Level Handheld/Pre-load Tester Digital Design: Offerors shall propose a fully burdened unit price inclusive of profit." However, CLIN 0009 in the Excel Cost Model asks for 4 Tester Prototypes to be priced. Please resolve the contradictions between Section L-900 Instructions and the Excel Cost Model. | The Government is requesting a fully burdened unit price inclusive of profit for CLIN 0009, and the Government will multiply the proposed fully burdened unit price by the quantity of 4 to calculate the extended price for CLIN 0009. | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 13 | Option 2,3, & 4 CPIF CLINs | The CPIF CLINs describe a "Share ratio below and above Target Cost: 75%/25% (Government/Contractor)" and sets "Min fee = 4.5%. Max fee = 8.0%". This implies that the target is between these points. These fee positions for max and min are relatively low (if the only incentive is cost) for a development program with inherent risk. The min and max provide very little incentive for industry considering the max possible is earned for underrunning, but is set at an amount that is low for average performance on a moderate risk CPFF contract. Please consider increasing the target and maximum fee that can be earned. Does the Government intend to include additional incentives for Schedule and technical performance? | This will be clarified with the final RFP. | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 17 | E.13 | The Government requests one hard copy of the CBOM along with the electronic spreadsheet. Please explain how the Government would like the hard copy submitted. | The Government will revise the language to require only electronic copy. | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 19 | M-900, B Gating, Gate 1 | M-900, B Gating, Gate 1, states "The two (2) offerors with the lowest TPP will proceed to Gate 2 and the offerors must meet the following criteria: have a low technical risk rating in all subfactors; be technically acceptable in all subfactors; and, be determined reasonable and balanced." Respectfully suggest that it should read, "All offerors with a "low or moderate" technical risk rating and "technically acceptable" rating in Technical Subfactor 1; and "acceptable" or better in all other technical sub-factors; and "acceptable" small business participation rating will proceed to gate 2." How will the Government conduct a tradeoff analysis when two awards "will" be made and only two offerors can make it through the gating process? | M900, I, A. Source Selection Methodology states, "This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in |
DFARS 215.300 and the DFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best
| value award decision." Factor I Technical" has adjectival ratings for SOW, MOSA, and Data Rights along with a variable risk rating." The tradeoff to be conducted includes TEP, Risk Level, SOW, MOSA, and Data Rights. Leaving Gate one unchanged makes it an LPTA and not a tradeoff. | The Government is updating the Gate 1 criteria to include the color/adjectival ratings as well. Section M identifies that Technical is significantly more important than cost/price. The tradeoff is still apparent in our procedures, and Technical is honored as the most important factor by driving the selection of which offerors' proposals proceed to Gate 2. | |||||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 19 | M-900, B Gating, Gate 2 | Gate 2 appears unnecessary and contradicts the criteria for Total Evaluated Price which states that, "The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated price/cost or most probable cost for the CLINs as outlined below in both the Basic and Option periods." Thus offerors submitting unrealistic pricing will be evaluated using a TEP which contains the Governments MPC and not the offerors proposed cost. How will the Government resolve this contradiction in criteria? | Gate 2 appears unnecessary and contradicts the criteria for Total Evaluated Price in Volume 4. | As stated in Section M, Volume IV Cost/Price, the TEP includes the offeror's proposed prices for FFP CLINs and the MPC for cost-type CLINs. The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed costs in cost-type CLINs in order to develop the MPC, and the MPC will reflect the Government's best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror's proposal based on each offeror's technical approach. Since the TEP is used for evaluation purposes, the TEP inclusive of the Government's MPC is presented to the SSA for considering in making the best value determination. Section M, Volume IV Cost/Price, C. Cost Realism details the evaluation criteria. An offeror's proposal must be determined to be realistic to exit Gate 2 and proceed to FPR. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 19 | M-900, B Gating, Gate 2 | If Gate 2 is not eliminated, please describe how the Government will determine that an offerors proposal is "unrealistic"? | A proposal may be determined to be unrealistic if the offeror's proposed cost estimate is found to be not realistic for the work to be performed, not reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and not consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the technical proposal. | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 19 | M-900, B Gating, Gate 4 | Gate 4, states, "The SSA will make a best value decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, and the evaluation criteria established in the evaluation factors for award provision." Respectfully suggest Gate 4 read, "The SSA will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision using the relative importance above." | Based on the language in the rest of section M, it appears the Government intends to do a tradeoff analysis to choose the best value winners. | The Government will revise the language to The SSA will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision using the relative importance above. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included | 19 | Section M-900/II B/Gate 1 | Section states "All offerors within Gate 1 shall have their Volume III, Cost/Price Proposal evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with Section M.", but Cost/Price volume is referred to as Volume IV in all other instances. Please clarify the Volume number of the Cost Volume? | The Government will review and clarify the volume numbers to be consistent. | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included; Excel Cost Model | 29 |
Subfactor I,
| F-15 pre-load O-level | F-15E | ||
| Which specific "F-15 pre-load O-Level" tests? Is this reference a heading for the 4 tests below it? | This was removed from the section as it was not intended. | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included; Excel Cost Model | 29 |
Subfactor I,
| UAI Guided bomb System Checkout at Pylon | F-15E | Which "UAI Guided bomb System Checkout at Pylon" test does the Government want demonstrated? |
| Relevant TOs will be provided as required | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included; Excel Cost Model | 29 |
Subfactor I,
| UAI Guided bomb System Checkout at CFT | F-15E | Which "UAI Guided bomb System Checkout at CFT" test does the Government want demonstrated? |
| Relevant TOs will be provided as required | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included; Excel Cost Model | 29 |
Subfactor I,
| Unknown Weapons System Checkout – CFT | F-15E | Please confirm the required test points for the F-15E O-Level Tests? | Relevant TOs will be provided as required | ||
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | CLINs 1008, 1009, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 3007 | The total quantity of all O-Level Handheld Tester LRIP and Full Rate Production CLINs (CLINs 1008, 1009, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 3007) come to a total of 543, excluding prototypes. The most recently released SOO calls out 544. What is the USAF's desired number of O-Level Handheld testers across all three platforms? | The correct number is 543. The SOO has been corrected to reflect the correct number. | |
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | N/A | How does the Government plan to handle spares orders mentioned in the SOO? Will they be delivered as part of the Tester Kits or on separate CLINs? | Spares have been removed from the production numbers | |
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab |
| L-901 Subfactor I and Subfactor II | Multiple | Do CLINs 0001-0009 include all associated TPS development efforts for all the TPSs or just those for the Demonstration outlined in L-901? | Just those outlined in L-901 | ||
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | Multiple | Do CLINs 1008-1009, 2008-2011, 3007-3010, & 4004-4006 include all the associated TPS hardware (OTPH)? | Yes | |
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | Multiple | Does environmental qualification fall under CLINs 0001-0003 design & development or under CLIN 0014 for Demonstration? | Design &Development | |
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | Multiple | Under which CLIN would nuclear certification, Cyber resiliency, ATO, etc. be performed? | CLINs 0001-0003 design & development | |
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | Multiple | Some of the CLINs in the option periods have the exact same title as CLINs in previous option periods. For example, CLINs 1003, 2002, and 3001 have the same title. Are we to interpret this as an effort that would span across multiple Option periods? Should we price what we believe the effort would be during each of those Option periods? How does the Contractor "sell off" the progress on the initial year when redundant CLINs are used? Usually, Development is sold off on exit criteria. What does the Government want for exit criteria between option years for same development CLINs/CLIN Series? How will the Government handle a situation where a logical milestone is not adjacent to the end of the period? | The government wants each option year to be priced out individually. |
The offeror shall propose any "sell off" or exit criteria that they would use for their CLINs.
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | CLINs 0010, 0011, 0012 | Please provide the required milestones and/or artifact(s) to complete CLINs 0010, 0011, 0012? | An offeror shall identify any assumptions to its individual technical approach to the SOO as related to the subfactor elements | ||
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | CLINs 1008, 1009, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 4004, 4005, 4006 | Since this is an IDIQ, please provide Best Estimate Quantities (BEQs) for deliverable CLINs (1008, 1009, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 4004, 4005, 4006)? | This will be clarified with the final RFP. | ||
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | CLINs 1008, 1009, 2009, 2010, 3008, 3010, 4005, 4006 | There are numerous instances of LRIP and Full Rate Production occurring in the same year. We respectfully suggest testing be conducted on "First Article Test Units" from the same production run. | It appears, that when you factor in lead time, there won't be enough time to perform sufficient testing on LRIPs prior to procuring the remaining units. As currently laid out, it appears that the LRIPs are intended to be First Article units and those CLINs could be combined. | The offeror is able to propose their schedule to include any testing that they see fit. | |
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | CLINs 1008, 1009, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 4004, 4005, 4006 | The current CLIN deliverable language (CLINs 1009, 2008-2011, 3007-3010, 4004-4006) can be interpreted as receiving and delivering an order within the same year. As each order requires a lead-time prior to delivery that may approach or exceed 12 months, we suggest changing the language to remove "Deliver" to allow each offeror to manage their lead times to meet a future delivery date with a 12-month window from delivery of the first unit(s) IAW with the 12-month delivery rule. | Current CLIN structure has orders being received and delivered within the same year, which is not feasible in a maximum 12-month window. The CLIN should be for an order with an agreed upon delivery date downstream such that lead times can be managed to meet the delivery dates. | The term "deliver" will be removed from these CLINs' titles. | |
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model | "Cost Format C_CLIN Summary" tab | CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 3001, 3002, 3003, 3004, 4001, 4002) | CLINs designated as design and development (0001-0006) and EMD (1001-1006, 2001-2005, 3001-3004, 4001-4002) only call out the Tester. To prevent any unbalancing or reasonableness concerns, where would the Government like TPS development efforts allocated by effort, platform and by year? | CLIN structure calls out both Tester and Tester Kit. Looking to ensure the right content is bid on the right CLINs. | During the base year the only TPS that are required to be developed are the TPS listed in L-901, the remaining TPS will be developed in the remaininf EMD CLINs. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M_Pricing+Cost+language+included; Excel Cost Model | SOO | Attachment 2. F-16/F-15/A-10 ALTERNATE MISSION EQUIPMENT (AME) | The Multi-purpose Booster (MPB), LAU-131 and 1760 SUNW are called out in the SOO for I-level, but they are not currently tested at I-level. Does the Government intent to change the maintenance plan for the MPB? Does the government possess the Test Requirements Document (TRD) and source data necessary to design this TPS? In circumstances where the Government does not have the data to provide, are offerors expected to negotiate with the OEM to acquire that data? | An offeror shall identify any assumptions to its individual technical approach to the SOO as related to the subfactor elements | ||
| DRAFT+RFP+Attachment+XX+Excel+Cost+Model; DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | SOO pg 2 | SOO para O-Level Handheld Tester | ||||
| CLINS X001, X002, and X003 in the Excel Cost Model state "O-Level Handheld/Pre-load Tester Prototype" for each platform, however, the SOO states that the "CAT-F O-Level Handheld tester must be able to execute legacy O-Level Maintenance (Flightline) Pre-load and Clean Wing requirements." Suggest the Excel cost model CLINS be updated to state "O-Level Handheld/Pre-load and Clean Wing Tester Prototype" for continuity and to have the cost model align with the Government's Statement Of Objectives. | The current wording in the Excel Cost Model contradicts the Government's objective to have a handheld prototype capable of doing both pre-load and clean wing testing and can be misleading to industry. | The CLINs' title will be updated to match the SOO. | ||||
| DRFP L-900 / M-900 | Sections L&M | |||||
| Subfactor I: Systems Engineering | This section requests a “risk mitigation plan that addresses the lack of existing technical data needed to generate the required Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) test program sets (TPS)“. Request the Government release a detailed list of technical data comprising the Bidder’s Library so offerors can reasonably and adequately tailor their risk mitigation plans and account for engineering efforts required to address gaps in technical data. | The government is working on building the Bidders' Library, and it will be ready before or at the time of RFP release. | ||||
| DRFP L-900 | E. Volume IV, Cost/Price: Item 6 | Is "...factors shall be supplied..." referring to the cost build-up of the Offeror and major subcontractor proposed labor rates? | Yes. All rates and factors proposed by the prime offeror and major subcontractors must be identified in the prime offeror's cost build-up. | |||
| DRFP L-900 | E. Volume IV, Cost/Price: Item 6 | “Rates and factors shall be supplied for Prime, and all major subcontractors.” Since subcontractors are typically unwilling to share proprietary / confidential data, request the Government please provide sealed package instructions. | Section L includes directions on how the Prime Offeror should submit their proposal to the Government: via email and/or DOD SAFE. The major subcontractors should submit their proposal data to the Government in these manners and identify that they are submitting as a subcontractor to a particular prime offeror. | |||
| DRFP L-900 | E. Volume IV, Cost/Price: Item 7 | Please confirm submittal of subcontractor's DCMA/DCAA points of contacts is only applicable to "major subcontractors". | Yes, the Government requires DCMA/DCAA points of contact only for subcontractors whose estimated value exceeds $2M over the total contract period. | |||
| DRFP L-900 | E. Volume IV, Cost/Price: Item 9 - Note: Cost Format D | Please confirm "CRNF" is "Cost Reimbursable - No Fee". If yes, please clarify if tab "Cost Format A_Travel CLINs" of the pricing template should include Fee as a highlighted/fill-in cell. | Yes, CRNF is Cost Reimbursable No Fee. The Travel CLIN worksheet will be corrected to remove fee. | |||
| DRFP L-900 | E. Volume IV, Cost/Price: Item 11 - Travel CLINS | To allow more accurate price evaluation among competitors, request the Government please provide NTE travel amounts by PoP. | This will be included in the final RFP. | |||
| DRFP M-900 | A. Source Selection Methodology | |||||
| C. VOL II Subfactor I Technical Risk Mitigation Plan | A. :"This may result in an award to a higher |
rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the lower technical risk of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference."
C. VOL II Sub I: "Technical Risk Mitigation Plan: This is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided a realistic risk mitigation plan that addresses the lack of existing technical data needed to generate the required Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) test program sets (TPS) found in the SRD, Section 1.2, to include all Subsection."
| Request the Government identify any additional technical risk factors beyond those covered in offerors Technical Risk Mitigation Plan that "address the lack of existing technical data...". | An offeror shall identify any additional risk factors to its individual technical approach. | ||||
| DRFP M-900 | B. Gating: | The description of the Gating evaluation method uses the lowest Total Proposed Price (TPP) and risk ratings to establish acceptable offers for awarding up to two (2) offerors. This process appears to select the lowest priced proposals deemed technically acceptable for award. Request the Government clarify the best value decision methodology given the lowest TPP criteria evaluation for Gate 1. It is unclear whether the Technical Color/Adjectival ratings are considered in the Gate 1 evaluation paragraphs as written on page 19. | The color/adjectival ratings have been added into the Gate 1 evaluation. | ||
| DRFP M-900 | B. Gating: | Gate 3 refers to offerors receiving a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Request in accordance with FAR 15.307(b). Please confirm the Government plans to hold negotiations/discussions with offerors prior to FPR submission IAW FAR 15.307(b). | This will be clarified with the final RFP. | ||
| DRFP M-900 | B. Gating | The Government's requirement to provide a total cost for the program prior to completion of the Cost Plus development may drive offerors to limit innovation and increase prices for production in order to cover program risk. Recommend conducting the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase prior to submission of a Firm Fixed Price for Production which could lead to a lower price program and encourage innovation. | The requirement is to provide a cost at initial proposal with downward only adjustments being available at the downselect. | ||
| DRFP L-901 | INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – FINAL DOWNSELECT, CAT-F ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT (EMD), PRODUCTION | The first paragraph of this section states "In addition, updated pricing for the program will be allowed to be submitted, but only downward adjustments will be accepted." Request the Government reconsider this approach given the potential for program adjustments resulting from availability of GFE/GFI, refined requirements, and/or collaborative discussions with Government stakeholders that impact cost/price. | The requirement is to provide a cost at initial proposal with downward only adjustments being available at the downselect. | ||
| Cost Model Attachment XX | Tab “Cost Format B_PRIME Rate Desc” | Request the Government please define the phrase “Add-on Factor Descriptions” as it relates to, or in the context of labor category descriptions and include a format to describe add-on cost factors. | Yes, the Government will add 'Add-On Factor' within the Rate Desc worksheets to provide additional context. | ||
| NAICS Code | NAICS Code 334515 has been identified in the announcement. The Automatic Test Systems Acquisition – I (ATSA-I) Solicitation: FA8533-24-R-0002, which closed on November 8,2024, identified NAICS Code 336413. Since these are associated activities, including the development of automatic test solutions, will NAICS Code 336413 be added for this activity as well? | No, NAICS Code 334515 will be the only NAICS code used | |||
| Handheld Hardware Evaluation Criteria | Define the specific MOSA hardware evaluation criteria that will be used to evaluate a handheld test solution with the size, weight and ruggedness parameters identified in Attachment 1: Systems Requirement Document (SRD). | Draft RFP, L-900, III, C, 2, Subfactor III, states the criteria that the offeror will provide that the government will use to evaluate. | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.1.2 – Self-Test | SRD_1.1.1.2 states “Self-Test shall run upon system start up and when manually commanded by the user”. | |||
| Please clarify that self-test may include the use of appropriate cables. | The self test can include the use of appropriate cables. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.1.2.1 – Self-Test Data | SRD_1.1.1.2.1 states: “The Tester on-board fault and Self-Test data shall be collected, stored, and provided IAW IEEE 1636, IEEE 1636.1, and IEEE 1636.2 compatible formats to maintenance personnel during and after maintenance operations.” | |||
| Will this apply to handheld testers that don’t use Windows as the Operating system? | This requirement applies to all testers independent of operating system. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.2 – Real Time Display of Test Results and Status | SRD_1.1.2.2.k states: “The Recommended Failure Modes e.g. call out most common LRU, Cable etc. Failed Connector and Pin and input Connector/Pin(s)”. | |||
| Failure mode call out is suitable for I-Level but may not be for O-Level. Failed connector and pin are suitable for both. | This requirement has been reviewed and is valid. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.5 – Test Sequencing | SRD_1.1.2.5 states “the Tester shall display the fault data and allow the operator to retest the failed step”. | |||
| Allowing the operator to retest the failed step may not be applicable to O-Level as many aircraft setup functions have likely occurred before the last step impacting test result accuracy. Such capability can be available but will require a “smart user” that will know which aircraft settings are needed to repeat the test. | This requirement has been reviewed and is valid. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.7 – Test Entry Points | SRD_1.1.2.7 states “The Tester shall allow the operator to select and run test sequences from operator selectable entry points.” | |||
| Providing the operator with selectable entry points may not be applicable to O-Level as many aircraft setup functions have likely occurred before the last step impacting test result accuracy. Such capability can be available but will require a “smart user” that will know which aircraft settings are needed to repeat the test | This requirement has been reviewed and is valid. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.8 – Test Sequencing | SRD_1.1.2.8 states “Manual test sequencing shall perform one test step in the sequence and pause for the operator to initiate the next step”. | |||
| Providing the operator with manual test sequence functionality may not be applicable to O-Level as many aircraft setup functions have likely occurred before the last step impacting test result accuracy. Such capability can be available but will require a “smart user” that will know which aircraft settings are needed to repeat the test | This requirement has been reviewed and is valid. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.17 – Functional and Parametric Test Data | SRD_1.1.2.17 states “Functional and Parametric data for both instruments and test stations should be formatted IAW ATML standards specified in IEEE 1671.2, IEEE 1871.1, as well as IEEE 1671.6 and 1871.2 respectively.” | |||
| Not applicable for handheld tester unless a Windows Operating system is used | This requirement applies to all testers independent of operating system. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.18 – Master Conformance Index | SRD_1.1.2.18 states “The Master Conformance Index present within the Tester shall be developed IAW IEEE 1671.4 ATML Test Configuration.” | |||
| Not applicable for handheld tester unless a Windows Operating system is used | This requirement applies to all testers independent of operating system. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.19 – Receiver Adapter Interface | SRD_1.1.2.19 states “The Receiver Adapter Interface present within the Tester shall be developed IAW IEEE 1641 Annex K.” | |||
| Not applicable for handheld tester unless a Windows Operating system is used | This requirement applies to all testers independent of operating system. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.20 – UUT Test Requirements and Product Design Data | SRD_1.1.2.20 states “UUT Test Requirements and Product Design Data shall be defined and designed respectively IAW IEEE 1671.1 ATML Test Description, as well as ANSI/EIA 682, Electronic Design Interchange Format (EDIF), and IEEE 1671.3 ATML UUT Description”. | |||
| May not be applicable for handheld tester unless a Windows Operating system is used | This requirement applies to all testers independent of operating system. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.21 – Digital Test Interchange Format | SRD_1.1.2.21 states “Interchangeable data present within the Tester shall be formatted IAW IEEE 1445 Digital Test Interchange Format (DTIF)”. | |||
| May not be applicable for handheld tester unless a Windows Operating system is used | This requirement applies to all testers independent of operating system. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.22 – Test Program Documentation | SRD_1.1.2.22 states “All documentation referring to the Test Programs shall be developed IAW IEEE P1671.1 ATML Test Description, and IEEE 1671 Annex C.2 ATML Wire list Schema”. | |||
| May not be applicable for handheld tester unless a Windows Operating system is used or unless this requirement is only for external documentation (i.e. not for the TPS itself). | This requirement applies to all testers independent of operating system. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.23 – Design for Testability | SRD_1.1.2.23 states “Designs for Testability will be created IAW IEEE 1149.1 Test Access Port and Boundary-Scan Architecture, IEEE 1149.4 Mixed Signal Test Bus, and IEEE 1149.6 Boundary-Scan Testing of Advanced Digital Networks.” | |||
| Boundary Scan is not applicable to handheld tester | Requirement has been updated to specify for intermediate tester only. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.2.24 – Design for Testability | SRD_1.1.2.24 states “Adapter Functional and Parametric Data shall be IEEE 1671.5 ATML Test Adapter, and IEEE 1871.2 Recommended Practice for Intrinsic Signal Path Information.” | |||
| May not be applicable for handheld tester unless a Windows Operating system is used | This requirement applies to all testers independent of operating system. | ||||
| SRD | SRD_1.3 - Future Armament Testing Requirements (MOSA Evaluation) | SRD_1.3 states “Vendor will be required to submit all requested data to gain government engineering acceptance/approval for the MOSA standard”. |
This statement is arbitrary and ambiguous unless common evaluation criteria is put forth.
| Will a common set of MOSA evaluation criteria (hardware/software) be provided that applies to all vendor proposed solutions for government engineering acceptance/approval, to facilitate a fair, unbiased process? | Draft RFP, L-900, III, C, 2, Subfactor III, states the criteria that the offeror will provide that the government will use to evaluate. | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.5.4.1 - Display Size | SRD_1.5.4.1 states “The display shall be adequately sized to clearly show at a minimum all applicable information”, which contradicts SDR_1.14.15.3 stating “The handheld tester display will be at a minimum 1.5 inches by 2.5 inches in Viewable Area”. | ||
| Will display sizes be deemed acceptable that “clearly show at a minimum all applicable information”, but may not meet the 1.5” x 2.5” size? | No, the requirement will not be met if the display size does not meet or exceed the 1.5 in x 2.5 in viewable area and clearly show at a minimum all applicable information | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.5.4.5 - Handheld | SRD_1.5.4.5 states “(U) Common Handheld Tester Display Size shall depend on final tester dimensions. Screen should follow current military standards with sunlight readable graphic display with resolution at least 128 X 64 pixels or better, and different screen background. The handheld tester display will be at a minimum 1.5 inches by 2.5 inches in Viewable Area.”. |
Why is the display size listed instead of the required data to be displayed?
| Display size being dependent on final tester dimensions contradicts the 1.5 inches by 2.5 inches in Viewable Area requirement; please clarify. | The requirement stated is correct. | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.6.1 – Modular Design | SRD_1.6.1 states “Modular, Open Design – The contractor shall develop an architecture that is layered and modular and uses standards-based hardware interfaces, operating systems, and middleware that all utilize either non-proprietary or non-vendor-unique key module or component interfaces.” |
Please provide guidance and identify COTS MOSA that is suitable for the Common Handheld Tester.
Please identify MOSA evaluation criteria for a Common Handheld Tester An offeror shall identify any assumptions to its individual technical approach to the SRD as related to the subfactor elements.
Draft RFP, L-900, III, C, 2, Subfactor III, states the criteria that the offeror will provide that the government will use to evaluate.
| SRD | SRD_1.11.6.2 – Handheld Class I Tailoring | SRD_1.11.6.2 states, “None currently defined”. | ||
| LCDs cannot operate at -40°C per MIL-PRF-28800 Class I, please updated requirement to reflect achievable -20°C operation. | No tailoring currently defined | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.12.4.2.1 – Electronic Storage | SRD_1.12.4.2.1 states, “Tester will have minimum of 256 GB storage, able to store 7 days of data, and export log files. Greater than 256 GB storage and able to store 30+ days of data, and export log files is preferred.” | ||
| If the handheld tester can store more than the preferred 30+ days of data using less storage space, is the 256GB size still required? | The requirement is to have 256 GB or more of storage. | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.14.15.3 – Common Handheld Tester Display Size | SRD_1.28.2 states “Common Handheld Tester Display Size shall depend on final tester dimensions. Screen should follow current military standards with sunlight readable graphic display with resolution at least 128 X 64 pixels or better, and different screen background. The handheld tester display will be at a minimum 1.5 inches by 2.5 inches in Viewable Area and display output shall be distinguishable to operator in all required environments”. |
Why is the display size listed instead of the data to be displayed?
| Will display sizes be deemed acceptable that “clearly show at a minimum all applicable information”, but may not meet the 1.5” x 2.5” size? | No, the requirement will not be met if the display size does not meet or exceed the 1.5 in x 2.5 in viewable area and clearly show at a minimum all applicable information | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.19.1 – Network and Wireless Capable | SRD_1.19.1 states “The Intermediate Tester shall have provisions to communicate over networks and VPNs, IAW DODI 8420, TCPIP, VPN, and WIFI standards.” | ||
| Is the Government planning to have WIFI in the OI-Level tester? | That SRD element has been updated | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.19.2 – Network and Wireless Capable | SRD_1.19.2 states “The Intermediate Tester shall interface with the Flight Line of Future (FLoF), and must be designed with the capability to communicate through commercial and critical interfaces. The Tester should be designed IAW RFC-0791, RFC-0793, IEEE 802.11xx (wifi), NIST/FIPS, DoDI 8100.02, AFMAN17-1301 (para 4.9), and AFMAN17-1302-O.” | ||
| Is the Government planning to include WIFI in the O-Level tester? | That SRD element has been updated | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.20.2 – Instrument Drivers | SRD_1.1.20.2 states “Drivers for instruments and software present within the Tester shall be designed IAW IVI-3.1 Driver Architecture Specification, IVI-3.2”. | ||
| Not applicable for handheld tester unless a Windows Operating system is used | Correct. The intent of the requirement is to use a common, standard programming interface to facilitate the interchangeability of instruments regardless of the Operating system used, without proprietary limitations. | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.1.20.3 – Receiver Adapter Interface | SRD_1.1.20.3 states “Interfaces present within the system software shall be designed IAW VPP-2 System Frameworks Specification, IEEE 1671 ATML IVI-3.5 Configuration Server Specification, IVI-3.6 COM Session Factory Specification, IVI-3.9 C Shared Components Specification, IVI-3.10 Measurement and Stimulus Subsystems (MSS) Specification, IVI-3.12 Floating Point Services, IVI-3.15 IviLxiSync Specification | ||
| Not applicable for handheld tester unless a Windows Operating system is used | Correct. The intent of the requirement is to use a common, standard programming interface to facilitate the interchangeability of instruments regardless of the Operating system used, without proprietary limitations. | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.28.2 – Solid Works for Models | SRD_1.28.2 states “All 3D Models for the Tester and its associated components shall be compatible with SolidWorks modeling software”. | ||
| Referencing SDR_1.28.3, clarify if compatibility is required for SolidWorks or Cameo/Catia? | The requirement is correct. | |||
| SRD | SRD_1.28.3 – Solid Works for Models | SRD_1.28.3 states “All System Modelling for the Tester and its associated components shall be compatible with Cameo/Catia Magic System of Systems SysML modelling software.” | ||
| Referencing SDR_1.28.2, clarify if compatibility is required for SolidWorks or Cameo/Catia? | The requirement is correct. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .