Industry Questions with Answers_16 May 2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F)
- Solicitation number
- FA8533-25-R-0002
About this file
The file is an Industry Questions with Answers document for the Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F) procurement, solicitation number FA8533-25-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Air Force Materiel Command. The document provides clarifications on various proposal submission requirements, including technical proposal formatting, cost/price documentation, and evaluation criteria. Key details include guidance on submitting Schedule B pricing in both Volume I and Volume IV, expectations for identifying risks in the Statement of Work, and instructions for handling technical requirement exceptions.
The document addresses several critical aspects of the procurement, such as the Government's approach to evaluating non-transferable Government Furnished Property (GFP), clarification on technical requirement thresholds, and delivery schedule expectations for individual order line items. The procurement is currently in the draft RFP stage, with industry feedback requested by 4 PM EST on Tuesday, 10 Dec 24. Interested parties are directed to submit comments to specific points of contact: PCO Oya Harrison, Contract Specialist Alexis Davis, and Program Manager Dan Bennett. A final RFP release date is yet to be determined, with another draft of Sections L&M expected to be released in the near future.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 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_05 Mar 2025.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 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
| RFP Section | RFP Paragraph | Question/Comment | Response |
| L-900 | C. Volume II. 2. Format and Specific Content | The DRFP states: "For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks." Identification of specific risks and mitigations are not normally listed in a Statement of Work. Recommend this requirement be removed from Subfactor II: Statement of Work. | The risks and associated mitigation plans will be addressed separately from the SOW for Subfactor II within the technical proposal narrative. Should the offeror not self-identify any risks associated with their SOW in meeting the requirements of the SOO, they can either state that or not address risk/mitigations for that subfactor. |
| L-900 | B. Volume I, Completed RFP. |
1. General ("proposed prices associated with the contact line items in the Schedule of the RFP") and, E. Volume IV, Cost/Price.
| ("the fill-in blanks on the RFP Schedule B") | Is the Government requesting that the completed Schedule - Section B Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs be provided in both Volume I and Volume IV? | Yes. Per Section L, if there are any discrepancies between RFP Schedule B and RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model, the data in RFP Attachment 6 Excel Cost Model will take precedence. | ||
| L-900 | B. Volume I, Completed RFP. | |||
| 4. Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) | Are Offerors who have a current SPRS assessment required to provide a copy with their proposal submittal? | No, however, offerors should have a current assessment in SPRS. | ||
| SOO | SOO, ATTACHMENT 4: Required Contract Data Requirements Lists Items | TM-86-01N Is identified in the CDRLs. This is standard form which will need to be tailored for this specific RFP. Will the TMCR be included in the final RFP and is the TMCR available for industry review and evaluation? | Yes, the draft TMCR will be released with these questions and answers. | |
| Bidders Library | N/A | Request the Government include the Calibration Measurement Requirements Summary (CMRS) for the legacy testers (i.e., ACPTS, SWT, SMS, STT, T-197, T-198, T-199, SVT/DVD and PATS-70) in the Bidders Library prior to release of the final RFP. | The CAT-F program office does not have the authority to give release the CMRS for legacuy testers. those would have to be provided by AFMETCAL directly. | |
| Industry+Questions+with+Answers_29+Apr+2026 | Row 33 | When asked about taking exception to the Government's technical requirements, "Offerors can identify any exceptions to technical requirements in their Written Technical Proposal and these will be evaluated individually." |
Please clarify if the Government's technical requirement's are all objectives unless otherwise stated as a threshold. The Government's response seems to imply that exceptions to technical requirements will not be treated as non-compliance but rather will be "evaluated".
| The requirements in the SOO would be considered thresholds unless otherwise stated as objectives. Exceptions to the technical requirements are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if they render the proposal compliant or non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the RFP, with non-compliant proposals potentially being ineligible for award. | ||
| Industry+Questions+with+Answers_29+Apr+2025 | Row 50 | The question asked was , "Will the Government evaluate the offerors performance specification and lower level specifications attached to the statement of work? " with the Government response being, "Offerors can identify any exceptions to technical requirements in their Written Technical Proposal and these will be evaluated individually." |
If the offeror plans to exceed the technical requirements, how will the Government evaluate an offeror's perfromance specification, product specifications. interface control drawings, etc if they are attached or referenced from the Offeror's Statement of Work? Will the Government consider evaluating the Offeror's performance specification if it is attached to the statement of work? The government plans to evaluate all offerors against the technical requirements presented in the SOO. If an offeror includes performance/product specifications, interface control drawings, etc. within their SOW, the Government will evaluate it as a part of the Subfactor 2 submittal.
Industry+Questions+with+Answers_29+Apr+2025 Row 64 & 65 When asked about Non-Transferrable GFP the USAF replied, "The government will consider the value of non-transferable, offeror-specific GFP when evaluating proposals. This ensures a fair comparison of offers." and "Yes, the Government intends to consider the value of non-transferable GFP that is not available for use by other offerors. This approach allows for equitable evaluation of offers."
| Suggested Revision: To alleviate and level the competitive field, the USAF should provide a list of GFP that it will provide for all offerors at Government expense, so GFP (non-transferable or otherwise) is not a undefined discriminator intended to penalize an offeror who is already under contract performing work for the USAF or others. | The adjustment process is to help to reduce any potential competitive advantages that contractors may have. Further, it is important to note that cost/price is not the most important evaluation factor in the tradeoff methodology being established for this acquisition. | ||
| Industry+Questions+with+Answers_29+Apr+2026 | Row 135 | In the Draft CLIN structure, for deliverable CLINs (1008, 1009, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 4004, 4005, 4006), is it the Government's intent to have the 12 month PoP be the time span from delivery of first article to last article per Federal Regulations or is it meant to be the delivery of final article 12 months ARO? To help clarify, recommend the following revision: |
For CLINs 1008, 1009, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, 4004, 4005, 4006, under "*ARO Each Individual Order" change *12months to *24 months and include the following: "Note: the timeline from delivery of the initial article to final article shall not exceed 12 months." The government will not be revising the delivery schedule from 12 months ARO Each Individual Order to 24 months ARO Each Individual Order. The government reserves the right to review any deviations from the timeline if the offeror proposes adjustments to the timeline with reasonable justification.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .