Industry Questions with Answers_06 Mar 2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F)
- Solicitation number
- FA8533-25-R-0002
About this file
This is an Industry Questions and Answers document dated March 6, 2026, addressing clarifications to the Common Armament Tester-Fighters (CAT-F) RFP FA8533-25-R-0002. The document compiles approximately 40 industry questions with official government responses regarding proposal submission requirements, technical specifications, evaluation criteria, and contract administration. Key clarifications include: RFP Amendment 0003 will provide a revised proposal receipt date (original deadline of March 17, 2026 has been extended to "To Be Determined"); the Excel Cost Model (Attachment 6) access issue will be resolved in Amendment 0003; no conformed RFP will be provided; offerors must submit only one proposal with no alternative proposals permitted; typed or digital signatures are acceptable; Small Business Participation ratings will be evaluated as "acceptable" based on adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives; and no formal negotiations will occur during the down-select process. Technical clarifications specify that the I-Level tester must execute legacy F-16, F-15, and A-10 requirements with O-Level testing capabilities, but O-Level integration is not required; the Critical Design Review (CDR) replaces prior "CTD" terminology; and a written Technical Proposal is not required for Option I down-select evaluation, which will be based on prototype review, CDR, and vendor documentation reviewed during Production Readiness Review (PRR).
Additional clarifications address contract administration and deliverables: Earned Value Management System (EVMS) is required for the basic year and all options per CDRL A/B/C/D/E002; an Integrated Master Plan is not required; Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) units will undergo evaluation by subject matter experts and end-users with approximately 90 days estimated between LRIP and Full Rate Production (FRP); long lead item CLINs will be incorporated into Amendment 0003; the Cross Reference Matrix (Attachment 8) has been revised to include references to Section M evaluation criteria; and CUI markings do not automatically grant government ownership of intellectual property, with IP rights to be determined prior to contract award. The document confirms that RESERVED clauses (due to the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul) are no longer applicable to the RFP, deleted clauses are not applicable to CAT-F, non-Government Advisor non-disclosure agreements must be submitted separately by the proposal due date, and smaller font sizes are permitted for charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and spreadsheets without a specified minimum.
View the file
Other files
Show all 50
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| File Name | Background | Question | Government Response |
| Proposal Response Submission Extension | The latest RFP release (requirements/terms and conditions) includes many updates impacting numerous areas of the proposal effort. Potential bidders (including ourselves) are likely to have questions on the amended RFP documents and additional time should be provided for at least one round of Questions and Answers, especially because there was no Draft of RFP Amendment 2 released. | A 60-day submission period is therefore requested to address these changes and allow adequate time for questions and answers, especially in light of the published 2-year (730-days) validity window. | RFP Amendment 0003 will provide a revised proposal receipt date. The number of days for the extension is undetermined at this time. |
| RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model | The RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model is not accessible (will not open) and displays a permission error. | When will this file be made available? | This issue has been resolved but a revised Cost Model will be attached to RFP Amendment 0003 |
| Will the submission period referenced in Question 1 be adjusted to reflect bidders’ access to all documents? | All RFP attachments are available under the CAT-F solicitation post on SAM.gov. Any revised attachments as a result of Amendment 0003 will be uploaded to SAM.gov also. | ||
| SOO Section V., I-Level Functional and Fault Isolation Tester | The CAT-F I-Level Functional and Fault Isolation Tester must be able to execute legacy I-Level (Backshop) requirements for the F-16, F-15, and A-10 fighter aircraft and shall incorporate the O-Level Handheld tester in its design. | Is it the intent of the Government to use the I-Level tester at the flightline, connected to the aircraft as an O-Level tester? | The CAT-F I-Level Functional and Fault Isolation Tester must be able to execute legacy I-Level (Backshop) requirements for the F-16, F-15, and A-10 fighter aircraft. The I-level tester must be able to perform O-level testing capabilities. The O-level tester does not need to be integrated into the I-level tester for functionality. |
| RFP Section L., II. Proposal Format, A. General | This section states that “Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the CAT-F as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror.” And the RFP Amendment 2 states that, “20. The following provisions in Section L, INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS, is hereby revised as follows: … FAR 52.204-22, Alternate Line Item Proposal, is hereby RESERVED.” | Taken together, these statements preclude any type of alternative proposal. Is this correct? | Offerors shall submit only one proposal (Volumes I-IV) for the CAT-F RFP by the proposal receipt date. |
| RFP Section L., III. Volume Organization, A. General, Paragraph 5 | This section directs that: “Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet: SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104; CUI.” It is our understanding that the federal government does not automatically gain ownership of information designated by contractors as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Ownership and intellectual property (IP) rights are determined by the contract resulting from the IP rights offered to be conveyed in the proposal. | Please confirm that this is the correct interpretation of the consequences of designating all the information in the proposal as CUI. | The required marking with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) is to ensure fair treatment of bidders and to preserve the integrity of the source selection process. |
CUI markings are essential to alert users to the presence of CUI and any special handling requirements and ensure the proposal material is handled correctly.
Intellectual property (IP) rights will be determined prior to contract award.
| 4 September 2025 Questions and Answers | It was stated that, “Additional Marking Requirements [with respect to a conformed copy] Volume I was incorrectly referenced [in now deleted Attachment 15]. It has been revised to reference Volume II.” Given that Volume I contains the signed Cover Letter and SF33 form, it would seem that Volume I. Completed RFP would be the appropriate volume to be delivered as a conformed copy, not Volume II. Technical Proposal. | Please designate which, if any, volumes are to be “conformed”, and exactly what that means for this proposal submittal | Attachment 15 has been removed. A conformed copy of Volume I or Volume II is not required. | |
| Please clarify, and instruct if separate pdf versions of the “original” Cover Letter and SF33 form are to be submitted, or can they be included within the Volume I. Completed RFP as part of the Word file. | Volume I is the Completed RFP (Including RFP Attachments, Cross Reference Matrix (CRM), copy of Joint Venture Agreement (if applicable), and Subcontracting Plan (if applicable)) as referenced in Par A under Section III, Volume Organization. Additionally, Paragraph B under "Volume I, Completed RFP" states Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. | |||
| And are the signatures allowed as typed or printed names as is typical in conformed copies, or are exact copies of live handwritten signatures required as in certified copies. | Typed or digital signatures are acceptable. | |||
| Section M 900 | M900 states that,” The following will be the Gate 1 exit criteria used to identify the offerors that will proceed to Gate 2. All offerors determined to … have an acceptable Small Business Participation rating in Factor II …” | What is considered to be an “acceptable” rating? | Volume III, Small Business Participation Factor, states a proposal that indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives will be given an acceptable rating. | |
| Section M 900 | M900 states that, “Gate 4: All offerors within Gate 4 will receive a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Request in accordance with FAR 15.307(b).” FAR 15.307(b) provides that, “The contracting officer may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations.” | Does the government plan on negotiations with bidders as part of the down-select process? | No | |
| Section L 901 I. Introduction and Overview | This section states that with respect to proposal submittals for Option I awards, “…the only planned submittal is the updated pricing volume…” Language throughout L 901 indicates that evaluation of the technical performance in the initial phase will be based on the SOW, CDRLs, and data presented at program reviews. | Please confirm that a written Technical Proposal is not required as part of the Option I down-select process? | A written Technical Proposal is not required. The Downselect to be awarded the next Option will be based on Prototype review or Critical Design Review (CDR) and evaluation of vendor documentation reviewed by the government during the Production Readiness Review (PRR) In addition, updated pricing for the program will be allowed to be submitted, but only downward adjustments will be accepted. | |
| Section M 901, III. Factor Evaluation A., Factor I, Technical | This section refers to, “…the Critical Technology Demonstration (CTD) report generated by the Government following the CTD.” | Is this CTD the event during the Basic Year that is priced in CLIN 0014 Design Demonstration? | CTD verbiage has been removed from all documentation and named as Critical Design Review (CDR) event. Design Demonstration, CLIN 0014, is for the labor and CLIN 0015 is for Travel. Evaluation of vendor documentation delivered during the basic year will be reviewed by the government during the Production Readiness Review (PRR), DATA CLIN 0017. | |
| Or as part of the Critical Design Review (CDR)? | CTD event verbiage replaced with CDR | |||
| Or the Production Readiness Review (PRR) | CTD event verbiage replaced with CDR | |||
| Please clarify the schedule/event occurrence of the CTD | CTD event verbiage is replaced with Critical Design Review (CDR). The CDR event will be conducted over several days where the vendor will work with the Test Organization, ATS CAT-F Leads, and USAF Customer Representative to aid in the evaluation of their solution. Hardware, Software, and evaluation of vendor documentation delivered during the basic year will be reviewed by the government will be under the Production Readiness Review or PRR | |||
| In L-900, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS | CLINs 1008, 2009, 3007, 3009, 3010, and 4006, require that Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) units of each type of tester for each type aircraft are to be delivered. | What does the government intend to do with them? | Undetermined at this time. | |
| Are there any performance or operational tests or approvals required on the LRIP units before a contractor can initiate Full Rate Production (FRP)? | Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) units will undergo evaluation by subject matter experts and end-users. The units must achieve a level of operational capability and represent the necessary requirements to confirm that the solution will be ready for production within 90 days following the LRIP review. | |||
| What is the time interval envisioned between LRIP and FRP? | Estimated to be no greater than 90 days. | |||
| RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002.pdf | The SF33 RFP FA8533-25-R-0002 in the attachments to the RFP Amendment 0002 is the prior version with a proposal due date of 22-SEP- | Will an updated complete clean copy of the SF33 RFP FA8533-25-R-0002 be released soon? | A conformed copy of the RFP cannot be provided. Please refer to the RFP as well as all RFP Amendments. | |
| AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT FA8533-25-R-0002-0002 | Some FAR/DFARs clauses have been “Reserved”, some “Deleted”, and others” Modified”. Given that an updated version of the SF33 RFP FA8533-25-R-0002 was not provided with the Amendment 2 attachments. | What is the difference between FAR/DFARs clauses that have been “Reserved” versus “Deleted”? | Deleted clauses were determined to be not applicable to CAT-F. RESERVED clauses were determined to be RESERVED due to the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. | |
| What is the nature of the modifications to the applicability of the designated FAR/DFARs clauses? | RFP Amendment 0002 shows which clauses have been revised, deleted, or RESERVED (as a result of the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul). | |||
| AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT FA8533-25-R-0002-0002 | 13. Limitations of Liability is hereby revised. | What are the government’s expectations regarding the amount of insurance that contractors are expected to carry on High Value Items? | Please refer to FAR 52.246-24, Limitation of Liability-High Value Items | |
| SOW 3.8. Program Management | This SOW section includes “Earned Value Management (EVM)” as a topic, but EVM is not required by Sections L or M, the CDRLS, or the CLINS. The prior SF33 RFP_FA8533-25-R-0002 form (05 Aug 2025) includes 252.234-7001 NOTICE OF EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (APR 2008) (IAW DFARS 234.203(1)) in PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION K. REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS… | Is an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) required in the performance of the CAT-F contract? | Yes it shall be incorporated in the Integrated Program Management Data & Analysis Report A/B/C/D/E002, CDRL will be updated to specify EVMS. | |
| If so, in which Option periods or contract value thresholds? | Basic and all Options (CDRLs A/B/C/D/E002 ). | |||
| L-900. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – INITIAL SOURCE SELECTION, CAT-F SYSTEM DESIGN; B. Volume I, Completed RFP, 2. Cross Reference Matrix | SRD_1.23.4. Integrated Master Plan states that “The Integrated Master Plan [IMP] for the Tester shall be developed IAW MIL-STD-881F.” However, an IMP is not required in Sections L or M, nor is it listed as a deliverable CDRL or CLIN | Is an IMP required to be developed for this program | No | |
| If so, when and in what form is it to be delivered to the government? | N/A | |||
| AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT FA8533-25-R-0002-0002 | Section L states that, “The offeror shall fill out the cross-reference matrix, RFP Attachment 8, indicating where in its proposal the information can be found as it relates to the RFP. The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document (Statement of Objectives (SOO), System Requirements Document (SRD), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L-900 (Instructions to Offerors), and Section M-900 (Evaluation Basis for Award).” | |||
| b. RFP Attachment 8 does not include Section M-900 as a column in the CRM table format. | Is Section M to be included in the CRM table? | RFP Attachment 8, Cross Reference Matrix, was revised to add references to Section M. The revised Attachment 8 will be incorporated in RFP Amendment 0003 | ||
| L-900. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – INITIAL SOURCE SELECTION, CAT-F SYSTEM DESIGN; C. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal, Subfactor I: Systems Engineering. | With respect to the Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan [TDRMP]: “This plan will be in a draft form submitted with the offeror’s proposal and final plans will be delivered after contract award.” This Plan is not called out explicitly in the CDRL list as a deliverable. | i. Should it be considered an element of A006 System Engineering Management Plan? | No, the Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan is required in the RFP. The plan will be evaluated during the technical proposal. | |
| ii. Should it be provided as B/C/D/E009 Technical Report - Study Services? | N/A | |||
| iii. If neither, what are the requirements for delivery of this plan after contract award? | N/A | |||
| Section L 901 & M 901, subfactor I, O-Level Maturity | Section L 901 & M 901, subfactor I, O-Level Maturity provide a list of TPSs to be delivered with the O-Level prototypes. The prior version of these sections was incorrect, with a mismatch between the TPS list in L901 compared with the TPS list under M901 – that mismatch has now been corrected and both lists are identical. However, the corrected lists raise the additional questions | Is the intent of the F-16 1760 PIDS pylon TPS to test Armament functions only? | PIDS requirement has been removed. | |
| Is the intent of the F-15E GBU-39 TPS to test the 1760 rack (BRU-61) umbilical only? | The intent is test the Umbilical only at that point in time. | |||
| L-900.III.B | Volume I, Completed RFP, 1. General | Section L requires Offerors to provide the: |
- completed and signed RFP, including amendments,
- clauses and provisions that require "fill-in", and
- proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.
| Accordingly, a conformed copy of RFP FA8522-25-R-0002, incorporating all Amendment(s) and changes, is required for Offerors to fulfill this requirement. Please provide a conformed RFP as soon as possible. | A conformed copy of the RFP cannot be provided. Please refer to the RFP as well as all RFP Amendments. | |||
| RFP Amendment_FA8533-25-R-0002-0002 | Will the Government please confirm that where Amendment 0002 designates FAR clauses as "RESERVED", such clauses are no longer applicable to the RFP? | The RESERVED clauses are no longer applicable to the RFP. Removed (Marked as RESERVED) Clauses are due to the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. | ||
| RFP Amendment_FA8533-25-R-0002-0002 | Please clarify the distinction between clauses which are designated as "RESERVED" vs those that were deleted, and how it relates to proposal submittal vs contract execution. | Deleted clauses were determined to not be applicable to CAT-F. RESERVED clauses are due to the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul. These clauses will not be in any resulting contract(s). Proposals should account for applicable clauses only. | ||
| Section K, RFP and Amendment 02 | K-900 (b)(2) Use of Non-Government Advisors | In September 2025 responses to questions, the Government stated, "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." |
| Accordingly, as the Government has indicated that they will or have establish(ed) non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with the specified non-Government Advisors to protect Offeror's proposal information, we recommend the requirement for Offerors to also enter into such NDAs with the non-Government Advisors be removed from the RFP. | Non concur, this is a FAR requirement. Please see FAR 9.505-4(b) | ||
| Section K, RFP and Amendment 02 | K-900 (a) and (b)(2) Use of Non-Government Advisors | If the requirement for Offerors to establish non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with the specified non-Government Advisors is not removed from the RFP, will the Government please confirm that fully executed NDAs should be submitted to the Contracting Officer under separate cover, on or before the proposal due date? |
That is, the fully executed NDAs should not be submitted as part of, or incorporated into, the Offeror's proposal submittal.
| NDAs should be submitted on or before the proposal due date. | ||
| L-900.III.A.2; Amendment 002 | Q&A Row 19; L-900.III.A, Paragraph 2 | Please confirm "the exception for font size" indicated in the Industry+Questions+with+Answers_04+Sep+2025.xlsx should be interpreted as requested in the Question: "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." |
| The Government's answer to this request indicated that this will be updated in the RFP. However, the Amendment 002 and updated L-900.III.A.2 paragraph did not show this clarification. | Section L will be revised to include this wording. Yes, smaller fonts are allowed for charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc.. We are not setting a minimum font size. | |||
| RFP | The existing Program‑Management CLINs do not extend through the entire contract performance period | Recommend adding separate program management CLINs for option years 5 and 6. | No, we do not have Options V and VI on this effort. CAT-F is a 5 year effort comprised of a 1 year Basic and 4 one year Options. | |
| RFP | Recommend ordering the Production CLINs after the corresponding LRIP CLINs. | Our RFP is set up this way. An Order for LRIP CLINs will be placed before an Order for Production CLINs. | ||
| RFP | Recommend including long lead material CLINs for all production CLINs to significantly reduce delivery windows | Long lead Item CLINs will be incorporated into RFP Amendment 0003 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .