Industry Questions with Answers_29 Apr 2025.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 46 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F)
- Solicitation number
- FA8533-25-R-0002
About this file
This file is an Industry Questions with Answers document for the Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F) federal contract opportunity. The U.S. Air Force is seeking to develop a new automated test system to replace multiple current fighter aircraft armament testers, with initial focus on F-16, F-15, and A-10 platforms. The contract will be an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) with a one-year base period and four one-year option years, structured across multiple design, engineering, manufacturing development (EMD), low-rate initial production (LRIP), and support phases.
Key technical requirements include developing testers capable of performing legacy armament system tests, achieving nuclear certification, executing preload and fault isolation testing, and supporting O-Level (flightline) and I-Level (backshop) maintenance environments. The system must comply with numerous military and IEEE standards, include modular open systems architecture, and provide comprehensive technical data rights. The source selection will use a technical and cost evaluation methodology, with offerors required to submit detailed technical proposals demonstrating system capabilities across five subfactors: Systems Engineering, Statement of Work, MOSA, Data Rights, and Technical Manuals. The government plans to downselect to two offerors and ultimately award a contract to develop and produce the new Common Armament Tester system.
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 | |
| 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 |
| SOO | |||
| SRD | The Government removal of the Wi-Fi requirement from the I-Level tester will produce system architectures that could make adding that feature in the future expensive. Recommend adding the capability to demonstrate Wi-Fi connectivity in both testers to allow for future integration IAW the Flightline of the Future (FloF) concepts. | The use of wi-fi connectivity is not a requirement of the CAT-F system. | |
| SOO | SRD | Recommend an update to the MIL-PRF-28800 CLASS 1 requirement to allow tailoring of the low temperature operation requirement to -20C. Full CLASS 1 environmental requirements will drive the need for LCD heaters in O-level displays for operation in those temperatures which will drastically reduce battery life. | This requirement has been reviewed and will not be updated at this time. |
| SOO | SRD | Recommend the Government require all offers to prepare interoperable models between SysML and Solidworks to fully realize the benefits of digital engineering. Failure to produce "complete" models with direct data exchange between them could result in a disconnection between the Authoritative Single Source of Truth (ASSOT) for system requirements and the physical system simulations and analysis models derived from ECAD/MCAD tools. | The government has noted this recommendation and chosen to not make any changes to the program based on this recommendation at this time. |
| L-900 | Subfactor V: Technical Manuals | Technical Manual development and delivery are normally produced IAW company Quality Assurance, Configuration Control, and IMS processes. Request the Government provide references and data item descriptions for the Technical Manual Quality Assurance (TMQA) Program Plan, Technical Manual Integrated Master Schedule (TMIMS), and Configuration Control Management Plan for technical manual source data. | Air Force TO 00-5-3, AF TECHNICAL ORDER LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT |
DI-TMSS-81817 Technical Manual Quality Assurance (TMQA) Program Plan DI-SESS-80858D Suppliers Configuration Management Plan DI-TMSS-81812 Technical Manual Schedule and Status Report
| L-900 | Multiple | Volume II requests the following plans be addressed in the offeror's proposal: Technical Risk Mitigation Plan, Program Protection/Systems Security Engineering Plan, Open Systems Management Plan, Data Rights Plan, Data Availability Plan, Technical Manual Quality Assurance (TMQA) Program Plan, and Configuration Control Management Plan. Request the Government confirm that offerors' proposals are required to describe the aforementioned plans and their approach to meet RFP requirements for developing and delivering these actual plans as deliverables after contract award and not as proposal items. | The government requests the plans in a draft form submitted with the offeror’s proposal and final plans will be delivered after contract award. The RFP Section L&M language has been updated to clarify this. The Written Technical Proposal (Volume II) page limit has also been increased to cover these plans. | |
| M-900 | I-B-2. Relative Importance | |||
| II-C-3. Technical Risk Rating | Relative Importance description states technical risk rating only pertains to subfactors II-IV. |
Technical Risk Rating description states each technical subfactor (II-V) will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings.
| Please clarify which subfactors will receive technical risk ratings. | The language in M-900 has been updated to indicate that technical risk rating will be used on subfactors I-V and be used for tradeoff decisions. | |||
| L-901 & M-901 | Subfactor I: O-Level Maturity | Request all TPS nomenclature used in Section L and M match the SOO nomenclature in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 to ensure that there is no misunderstanding, for example: "Stations 2&10 Pylon (with MAU-50 installed)" or "Stations 4&8 Pylon (with MAU-40 installed)" vs for the A-10 "Operational Check of Integrated Data and Weapons Management System (IDWMS)". | The TPS nomenclature has been updated to match between the SOO and the L&M. | |
| L-901 & M-901 | Subfactor IV: Fielding Plan and Subfactor V: Product Familiarization Plan | Request the Government provide specifics related to required Fielding and Product Familiarization locations, personnel descriptions (including number of personnel, rank, and Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) to receive familiarization), and logistics (Government furnished classroom size, audio/visual equipment, etc.). | At this time the government does not have specifics on location and personnel desriptions. The government is requesting that the offeror's provide a generalized plan on how they would preform fielding and product familiarization. | |
| SOO | ||||
| SRD_1.29.9 Training & Training Support | Request the Government provide specifics related to required Fielding and Product Familiarization locations, personnel descriptions (including number of personnel, rank, and Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) to receive familiarization), and logistics (Government furnished classroom size, audio/visual equipment, etc.). | At this time the government does not have specifics on location and personnel desriptions. The government is requesting that the offerors provide a generalized plan on how they would perform fielding and product familiarization. | ||
| SOO | SRD_1.25.2.1 | Request the Government provide the IP Strategy Template, Data Rights and IP referenced in this item of the SRD. | The government has updated the language in L-900/M-900 and will include an RFP Attachment (Attachment 15) to use as a template for the offeror's Intellectual Property Rights plan. | |
| SOO | SRD_1.5.2.3, SRD_1.17 | Recommend the Government remove KPP and KSA references in the SRD since the list of KPPs/KSAs was removed from the SOO. | All references to KPP/KSA have been removed. | |
| Bidders Library | General | Request the Government provide all CAT-F specific AME TPS CPINs for the PATS-70 and SST testers. (Source code) | The government will make reasonable efforts to release any applicable documents that the CAT-F program has access to, both prior to proposal deadline and after contract award. | |
| Bidders Library | General | Will the Government make reasonable efforts to provide additional technical data above and beyond the current Bidders Library if available after award of the CAT-F Design phase? | The government will make reasonable efforts to release any applicable documents that the CAT-F program has access to, both prior to proposal deadline and after contract award. | |
| M-900 | Subfactor II: SOW | To prevent inclusion of proprietary information, would it make sense to change the M-900 requirement for the SRD discussion in the SOW to read: “The SOW will be evaluated on offeror’s approach to meet the SRD requirements.”? | This has been updated to "The SOW will be evaluated on how the offeror has met each requirement set forth in the SRD. Then the SOW will be evaluated on how each entry will affect the schedule or performance of the CAT-F, determining if there are any strengths or weaknesses for each entry." | |
| L-900 | Multiple | The April 1 DRFP has added the following items to be included in the Technical Volume: Program Protection Plan, Systems Security Engineering Plan, Technical Manual Quality Assurance (TMQA) Program Plan, Technical Manual Integrated Master Schedule (TMIMS, and a Configuration Control Management Plan, without any increase in the page limit of the volume. Each of these plans is typically tens of pages long and developed under contract. |
| It is recommended that these plans be required to be submitted as CDRLS to the initial contract with brief summaries of the approach to their development in the proposal, or that they be added to the proposal as page unlimited attachments. | The government requests the plans in a draft form submitted with the offeror’s proposal and final plans will be delivered after contract award. The RFP Section L&M language has been updated to clarify this issue. The Written Technical Proposal (Volume II) page limit has also been increased to cover these plans. | |||
| SOO | SOW Template | The SOW Template is included as Attachment 5 to the SOO, but Section L references the Government Furnished Property List as Attachment 5. Please update attachment numbering | The attachment numbers for the SOO and for the RFP reference separate documents. The SOO Attachment 5 is the SOW Template, while the RFP attachment 5 will be the Government Furnished Property List. Not all of the RFP attachments were released with the draft RFP. | |
| L-900 | CRM Template | Section L implies that the Cross Reference Matrix (CRM) template is included in the DRFP as Attachment 8, but this does not appear to be the case. | Not all of the RFP attachments were released with the draft RFP. | |
| L-900 | Attachment 9 | Section L references Attachments 8 and 10, but fails to reference Attachment 9. | Not all of the RFP attachments were released with the draft RFP. | |
| L-900 | Attachment 10 | Section L states that Attachment 10 Pre-Award Survey is "enclosed", but this does not appear to be the case. | Not all of the RFP attachments were released with the draft RFP. | |
| SOO | Section VII | Can the Gov’t confirm that “Tester Kits” listed in the CLINs (Cost Volume under M-900), include both the Testers and the Cable and Adapter Kits from this Table and refer to Production deliveries of these kits? | Yes, tester kits refers to both Testers and the Cable and Adapter Kits. | |
| SOO | Section VII | Can the Gov’t confirm that the Tester LRIP Production CLINs from Section M-900 Cost Volume represent Both the testers and the cables/adapters? | Yes they represent both. | |
| SOO | Attchment 1 | In SOO Attachment 1 the SRD numbering jumps from 1.6.4 to 1.9 and from 1.15.1.2 to 1.17. Is there some reason for this? Will this be corrected in the next release? | There are SRD sections that are reserved or for internal government use, and were not relased with the SOO, and the SRD will not be renumbered to remove any skipped numbers in the SOO. | |
| SOO | Purpose Section | The SOO Purpose section includes the statement that, "The program will require industry to utilize a CAT-F specific Government Reference Architecture (GRA)." Has this GRA been published? | The Automated Test Systems Government Reference Architecture (ATS GRA) was released on the former CAT-F pre-solicitation, FA8533-23-S-CATF. The government plans to release this ATS GRA again on the current pre- solicitation before RFP release. This ATS GRA is not the specific CAT-F GRA, but it what the CAT-F specific GRA was built off of. The CAT-F GRA will be relased to the vendors after contract award. | |
| SOO | Section VII | The SOO Section VII CAT-F Component Quantities states that, "This will be an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract (IDIQ)." For purposes of submitting the IMS and Cost Model, shall the quantities in the Table 1. CAT-F Estimated Component Quantities be used? | Yes | |
| SOO | Section XII and XIII | The SOO requires a XII. Prototype Plan and XIII. Surge Capability Plan. |
If these plans are to be submitted with the proposal:
As stand-alone plans, where?
Page limits?
Evaluation factors?
If not, submitted as CDRLs during Phase I?
| Regarding the Surge Plan, is it to expedite deliveries or to increase production quantities? | The prototype and surge capability plans will be submitted in the Statement of Work and is included in the 100 page limit for the Written Technical Proposal. The plans will be evaluated with the SOW to meet all aspects of the SOO. The surge plan is to alow for increased production and expiditing the delivery if needed due to changes in USAF mission requirements. | |||
| SOO | Attachment 5 | The SOO Attachment 5: Statement of Work (SOW) Template has an extensive list of Data Items (DI-xxx). Will these be added as required CDRLS to Attachment 4? | No, the CDRLs listed on the SOW template are examples of CDRLs that could be used in those sections of the SOW. In addition to the required CDRLS, the government expects the offerors to provide their recommended CDRLs with their proposals. | |
| SOO | General | The revised SOO does not include the CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT (CDD) SUMMARY that was in the prior version of the SOO. Is the CDD still applicable to the CAT-F procurement? If so, will it be reinserted in the next version of the DRFP as an attachment? | All applicable requirements for this program will be released. The CDD was used develop the current requirements/SRD. | |
| SOO | General | The SOO states that, "The SRD is derived from the CAT-F Capability Development Document (CDD) and Concept of Operations (CONOPS), system-level performance metrics." Has the CAT-F CONOPS been published? Will the CONOPS be made available to industry? | The CONOPS has not been published and will not be made available to industry. | |
| L-900 | General | Section L-900 states that, "The [three] IMS phases do not necessarily align with the contract basic year and option years." The SOO states that, "The period of performance will be a one (1) year Basic with four (4) one-year Options." Will any resultant contract(s) beyond the basic year-1 contract be awarded for the duration of the phases or annually (even though phases don’t align with option years)? | The options wil be awarded annually. | |
| L-900 | Section 10 | Section L-900 Section 10. Total Resources Volume states that, "The electronic copy of this volume shall be in Microsoft Excel in the offeror’s format to aid in the evaluation." The requested hours in support of the identified CLINs are included in the Excel Cost Model RFP Attachment 6. Is there some additional information that is being requested? “The Offeror shall complete this Exhibit using RFP Attachment 7, Total Resources Volume (WBS Breakdown).” Please provide the Attachment 7 Template. Does it allow “the offeror’s format”? This “volume” is actually Attachment 7 to the Cost/Price Volume to be submitted with the proposal, not a separate stand-alone file, correct? | TRV will be provided with RFP for offerors to complete and submit as part of the cost/price volume. Offerors shall utilize the TRV file provided by the Government though the offeror may adjust the contents for their format. |
| General | Evaluation Notices | The original DRFP discussed the possibility of Evaluation Notices (ENs) being sent to potential down selectees. The current DRFP Section M-900 does not and indicates that bidders "within Gate 3 will receive a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Request …" Would ENs be sent to such bidders outlining specific weaknesses, deficiencies, or areas requiring clarification in their proposal, to allow the offeror to address these issues before the FPRs? | The government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. |
| L-900 | A. Volume I, Completed RFP. 1 General | Section L-900 A. Volume I, Completed RFP. 1 General states, "Volume I, 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." In the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Terms and Conditions refers to contractual requirements. If bidders take exception to any technical requirements, should these also be identified? | Offerors can identify any exceptions to technical requirements in their Written Technical Proposal and these will be evaluated individually. |
| L-900 | General | Section L describes three program phases: “The Initial Source Selection will result in the award for CAT-F System Design. ... The successful offeror will complete EMD and may proceed to later stages of the program (Production and Sustainment)." The CLIN structure has these phases scheduled differently for the F-15, F-16, and A-10 Testers and Kits, and includes Design, EMD, and Logistical Support phases, but does not explicitly identify tester Production. Where is tester production listed in the CLINs? | CLINs 1009, 2008, 2010, 3007, 3010, 4004, and 4006 are productions CLINs. (the CLIN numbers may change before RFP release) |
| M-900 | Section E | Section M-900 CLIN and Fee structure lists EMD phases spanning several option years. Also, CLIN 2011 requires delivery of A-10 O-Level kits in Option Period 2 while EMD for that tester continues in Option Period III (CLIN 3001). Can the Gov’t clarify how multi-year EMD phases need to be divided among the Option periods? Can the Gov’t address the A-10 EMD discrepancy? | The A-10 O-Level LRIP will begin in Option III after EMD has concluded earlier in Option III. The CLINs have been updated to reflect this. |
| M-900 | Section E | Item 9 requires submittal of FPRA or FPRR. If these are not available, the RFP lists 4 other documents that can be submitted instead. Can an FPRP be submitted in lieu of these 4 documents? | No. The four listed items/information must be submitted if a current FPRA or FPRR do not exist. An FPRP may be submitted in addition to, but not in lieu of, the required information. |
| L-900 | Subfactor I | Subfactor I states: “The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide detailed narrative with supporting documentation, such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet the Performance Specification as outlined in the SRD and Statement of Objectives requirements as follows:” Do the bullets below this subfactor apply to the SOO requirements or to the entire paragraph? | Yes |
| CLINs | 4001 | CLIN 4001 indicates that EMD on the F-15 I-Level Fault Isolation Tester will continue in Option 4 after Production and Support have occurred in Option 3. Is this correct? Please clarify. | The F-15 I-Level LRIP will begin in Option IV after EMD has concluded earlier in Option IV. The CLINs have been updated to reflect this. |
| CLINs | General | CLINs 1011, 1012, 2013, 2014, 3012, 3013, 4008, and 4009 require cost estimates to Support Government Testing. Please provide additional guidance on the level of support envisioned and the travel locations (for Per Diem rates). Please explain how the Gov’t plans to use the requested labor rates in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculation | The government has not determined the location for testing yet, this will be determined by the Air Force Test Center prior to contract award. |
The Government has identified the TEP methodology in the RFP within Section M-900, subsection F. Cost/Price Proposal Factor.
| Draft CLIN Structure | CLIN 0009 | The A-10 CLIN 0009 in the Draft+CLIN+Structure_FA853325R0002_01+Apr+2025 Document is identified as “A-10 O-Level Handheld Tester Prototype”, but it is entitled “A-10 O-Level Handheld/Pre-load Tester Digital Design” in Section L Table 1- CLIN and Fee Structure. Presumably the former is the correct identification since that would be consistent with the corresponding F-16 and F-15 CLINs. Please confirm that the correct CLIN 0009 title and purpose is A-10 O-Level Handheld Tester Prototype. | This title has been changed to A-10 O-Level Handheld Tester Prototype. |
| Draft CLIN Structure | CLIN 1008 | F-16 CLIN 1008 in the Draft+CLIN+Structure_FA853325R0002_01+Apr+2025 Document is identified as “F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester LRIP Production”, but it is titled “F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester LRIP” in the Section L Table 1- CLIN and Fee Structure In either case, should this be CLIN 1008 “F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester Kits (LRIP)” to be consistent with the corresponding CLIN structures for the F-15 and A-10? Please clarify. | This title has been changed to F-16 O-Level Handheld Tester Kits (LRIP). |
| CLINs | General | Option CLINs for each option year include two entries for CDRLs (example: CLINs 2016 & 2019) Can the Gov’t clarify the difference between these two? | CLINs 0017, 1014, 2016, 3015, 4011 are for the CDRLs that are applicable to the FFP CLINs. CLINs 0019, 1017, 2019, 3018, 4014 are for the CDRLs that are applicable to the CPFF CLINs. |
| General | Critical Dates/Deadlines | Is there an updated estimate on the timing of the Final RFP release? Is it still planned for Gov’t Fiscal 3rd Quarter? | Please monitor SAM.gov for any updates to this effort. |
| Bidders Library | General | Will additional documents be made available prior to RFP release? | The government will make reasonable efforts to release any applicable documents that the CAT-F program has access to, both prior to proposal deadline and after contract award. |
| Bidders Library | General | Will additional documents be made available post award? | The government will make reasonable efforts to release any applicable documents that the CAT-F program has access to, both prior to proposal deadline and after contract award. |
| General | General | Will the Government conduct a pre-solicitation or bidder's conference? | Not at this time |
| General | General | The Government may want to consider reinstating the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Key System Attributes (KSAs) to establish both objective and threshold requirements to assist with identification of strengths associated with adjectival/color ratings. | The SRD requirements have been updated to include threshold and objective requirements where applicable. |
| General | General | Will the Government entertain submittal of bid samples with the proposal (e.g., Handheld Tester, Backshop Tester, Cable Sets) that already conform to the requirements of the solicitation to demonstrate maturity? | No |
| General | General | In the SOO, Att 2 and Att 3 still contain misalignments that need to be adjudicated prior to Final RFP release. |
Some examples include:
A-10: Att 2 lists Pylon SCU-A/SCU-B for I-Level, and Dual Rail Adaptor (DRA) LAU-105s installed and Guided Missile Interface Unit (GMIU) installed for both O- and I-Level, but Att 3 does not list any of these.
Also Att 3 lists LAU-117, BRU-61 and LAU-88 for O-Level, but Att 2 does not.
F-16: Att 3 lists the SUU-20 for both O- and I-Level, but Att 2 does not.
Att 3 lists the Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground, Centerline Interface and Gun Control Unit (GCU) Gun Test under Clean Station Testing for O-Level, but Att 2 does not.
| Att 2 lists several variations of O-Level Pylon testing that are not listed in Att 3. | The SOO has been updated all A-10 AME issues pointed out and added missing AME. For F-16 most of the issues have been fixed. Attachments 3 is not an exhaustive list of TPS, but Attachment 2 is a list of all AME that requires TPS developed for. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.C.2 | |
| Subfactor I: Systems Engineering and Subfactor II: Statement of Work | The Instructions explain that the Performance Specification is outlined in the SRD and the Statement of Objectives (SOO). The offeror’s Written Technical Proposal shall provide detailed Statement of Work (SOW) to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet the provided SOO. Since this acquisition schedule is based on leveraging work already completed by the offerors pre-contract, product specifications may exist prior to contract. Additionally, the Offeror's Performance Specification may exceed the requirements of the Government Performance Specification. Attaching the Offeror's Performance Specification and detailed product specifications give them force of contract to include all areas where they exceed Government requirements. |
| Will the Government evaluate the offeror's Performance Specification and lower level specifications attached to the SOW? | Offerors can identify any exceptions to technical requirements in their Written Technical Proposal and these will be evaluated individually. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.C.2 | |
| Subfactor II: Statement of Work | How does the Government anticipate assigning color ratings to the SOW when all offerors are instructed to simply meet the Statement of Objectives? Please consider making the following revision. |
Text currently reads: "The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide detailed Statement of Work (SOW) to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet the provided SOO."
| Suggested Revision: "The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide detailed Statement of Work (SOW) to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet and/or exceed the provided SOO." | This suggestion has been implemented. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.C.2 | |
| Subfactor III: MOSA | How does the Government anticipate assigning color ratings to Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) when all offerors are instructed to simply meet the MOSA requirements? Please consider making the following revision. |
Text currently reads: "The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide detailed narrative with supporting documentation, such as (but not limited to) drawings, charts, diagrams, graphs, and supporting illustrations to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet the Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) requirements, this narrative and supporting documentation will constitute the Offeror's Open Systems Management Plan (OSMP)."
| Suggested Revision: "The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide detailed narrative with supporting documentation, such as (but not limited to) drawings, charts, diagrams, graphs, and supporting illustrations to demonstrate that the offeror’s technical approach will meet or exceed the Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) requirements. This narrative and supporting documentation will constitute the Offeror's Open Systems Management Plan (OSMP)." | This suggestion has been implemented. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.C.2 | |
| Subfactor IV: Data Rights | How does the Government intend to protect technical data that is Source Selection Sensitive regardless of rights offered by each offeror? How will the Government protect an offeror's data from Technical Transfusion during the first 12 months of execution? How will the Government ensure that its technical teams (government or contractor) will not "make suggestions" based on another team's technical solution? | All data will be only accessible by individuals that have the correct roles and permissions to access the data. This along with all appropriate regulations are to be followed by all members of the program. |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.C.2 | |
| Subfactor IV: Data Rights | Will all third party contractors be screened for Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) to ensure none have a vested interest in the outcome of the competition? | Yes |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.C.2 | |
| Subfactor IV: Data Rights | Who are the third-party contractors that will be granted access to design data during the competitive period following award, but preceding the second down-select? Will each be required to enter into non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with down-selectees directly? | All third-party contractors that will be assisting with the program during source selection and down select will be identified in the RFP. The contractors have signed NDAs. |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.C.2 | |
| Subfactor IV: Data Rights | Will the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) be making notifications of third-party contractors being granted access to each competitor's technical data along with an appropriate justification stating no alternate Government resources were available, thus necessitating third-party participation? | Yes, the contractors will be listed in the RFP. |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.C.2 | |
| Subfactor V: Technical Manuals | Does the Government intend to add the Technical Manual Quality Assurance (TMQA), Technical Manual Integrated Master Schedule (TMIMS), and Technical Manual (TM) Configuration Control Management Plan (CCMP) items as attachments to the technical volume not included in the 50-page limitation like the SOW and IMS? Does the IMS 300-line limitation include the TMIMS? Are the TMIMS and program IMSs separate submittals? Please consider making the TMQA, TMIMS, and TM CCMP separate attachments to the Technical Proposal and not subject to the 50-page limit. |
Section L directs that:
• The offeror shall provide their proposed Technical Manual Quality Assurance (TMQA) Program Plan.
• The offeror shall provide their proposed Technical Manual Integrated Master Schedule (TMIMS).
| • The offeror shall provide their proposed Configuration Control Management Plan for technical manual source data. | The government requests the plans in a draft form submitted with the offeror’s proposal and final plans will be delivered after contract award. The RFP Section L&M language has been updated to clarify this issue. The Written Technical Proposal (Volume II) page limit has also been increased to cover these plans. The TMIMS will be a seperate attachment to the Written Technical Proposal and not part of the 300 line limit for the IMS. | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.E.9 Volume IV, Cost Price Elemental Cost Breakouts | The Elemental Cost Breakout section paragraph indicates major subcontractors must complete Cost Formats A, B, C, and D in Attachment 6. Format D language in the same section indicates the offeror must provide an accompanying narrative to demonstrate cost realism. |
| Is the narrative required for all subcontractors regardless of value? Is the expectation that major subcontractors complete Format A, B, C, and D in addition to the narrative? | The Cost Format D language states "This information shall be provided by the Prime and any major subcontractor…", and a major subcontractor is defined in Section L-900, E. Volume IV Cost/Price, 6. as having "a proposed value equal to or greated than $2,000,00...for cost-type CLINs". Subsection 9, Cost or Pricing Data Requirements also states "All offerors and subcontractors valued at equal to or greater than $2,000,000 (for the entire effort to include Options) shall provide data other than certified cost and pricing data using spreadsheet Cost Formats A, B, C, and D (see RFP Attachment 6) along with accompanying schedules, lists, and narratives to substantiate the cost realism...". | |||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.E.9 Volume IV, Cost Price (Para #6) | The government states, "The Offeror’s cost proposal shall contain the proposed cost to the Government for performing the work described in the offeror’s Statement of Work (SOW), the attached CDRLs, and additional CDRLs/data the offeror proposes and references from the SOW for effective management of the program as proposed in the offeror’s engineering volume. " Would the Government clarify whether the "offeror's engineering volume" is the same as Volume II, Written Technical Proposal? | Wording has been revised to state Volume II, Written Technical Proposal. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section L-900.III.E.11 Volume IV, Cost Price (CLIN 0009) | The description states, "A-10 O-Level Handheld/Pre-load Tester Digital Design," however, the Excel Cost Model requests 4 prototypes to be priced (similar to CLINs 0008 & 0009 for F-16 and F-15, respectively). Should CLIN 0009 state Handheld Tester Prototype versus Handheld/Pre-load Tester Digital Design? | This title has been changed to A-10 O-Level Handheld Tester Prototype. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2029 | Section M-901.II Subfactor II |
| Section L-900.III.E.11 | DRFP Section M-901 calls out O-Level maturity and the demonstration of multiple O-Level TPSs for F-16, F-15, and A-10. What is included in the prototype deliverables for CLINs 007, 008, and 009? Are TPS kits for demonstration (cables/adapters/Software) part of the prototype deliverables or do they just consist of the tester prototype? The CLIN description only calls out prototype. | The prototype will consist of the O-level tester and any cables and/or adapters needed to complete the TPS listed in L-901. |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2029 |
| Section L-900.III.E.11 | For Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Full Production CLINs, what are the delivery requirements (e.g., delivery dates, locations, sign-off authority, acceptance test location)? | At this time the government does not have delivery dates, as these will be based of of the IMS proposed by the awarded vendors. The production units will be delivered to Robins AFB, GA. And at this time the government does not know who will be the sign-off authority or where the acceptance test location will be. | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2028 | Section L-900.III.E.11 | |||
| Table 1 - CLIN and Fee Structure | CLINs 0019, 1017, 2019, 3018, and 4014 all reference Contractor Data Requirement List (CDRL) items (Data). Please clarify the difference between these and CLINs 0017, 1014, 2016, 3015, and 4011 CDRLs (Data). | CLINs 0017, 1014, 2016, 3015, 4011 are for the CDRLs that are applicable to the FFP CLINs. CLINs 0019, 1017, 2019, 3018, 4014 are for the CDRLs that are applicable to the CPFF CLINs. | ||
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2029 | Section L-900.III.E.16 | Please clarify the term "non-transferrable GFP"? Does this mean existing contractor-acquired GFP? Also, please clarify what is meant by a potential disparity that such property might represent in the source selection evaluation? | The government will consider the value of non-transferable, offeror-specific GFP when evaluating proposals. This ensures a fair comparison of offers. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2029 | Section L-900.III.E.16 | Does the Government mean to imply that it will elevate an offeror's Total Evaluated Price (TEP) (i.e., make them less competitive) if the offeror possesses GFP from another Government Contract that can be made available on a non-interference basis to CAT-F? How will the value be calculated? |
Item 16 states, "The Government recognizes that non-transferable GFP may be used in the execution of this requirement. To counteract the disparity this may cause, additional value may be added to the GFP-holders Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors shall complete RFP Attachment 5, Government Furnished Property List, to identify the quantity of all non-transferable GFP that the offeror has possession of for use in the performance of the solicited requirement; specifically, the offeror is to identify all GFP that is available for the offeror but not available to be transferred to another offeror at the time of award.
| 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. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
I Basis for Contract Award.
A, Source Selection Methodology How does the Government intend to justify the selection of a higher priced proposal? Will strengths be considered a reason to choose a higher priced proposal or is risk the only reason, as suggested by the text below?
Text Reads: "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."
| Suggested Revision: "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 and strengths of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference." | Changed to "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 and/or strengths of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference." | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
I Basis for Contract Award.
A, Source Selection Methodology How does the Government intend to value strengths created when an offeror exceeds the requirements within a section where adjectival ratings are used?
Text Reads: "Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below."
| Suggested Revision: "Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below." | The government has determined that we will not be updating the methodology at this time. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance Factor III Cost/Price
2. Relative Importance How does the Government intend to balance the importance of the subfactors in the Technical Volume? Technical Manuals appear to be part of the overall technical solutions, statement of work, and the technical data as well as being covered in their own section. Regardless of the text, the Technical Manuals seem to become almost more important than anything else.
Recommend changing the text as follows:
Text Reads: "Within Factor I, subfactors I, II, III, IV and V are listed in order of importance, but are only slightly different in level of importance."
| Recommended Revision: "Within Factor I, subfactors I, II, III, IV, and V are listed in order of importance, but subfactors I, II, III, and IV are slightly different in level of importance but collectively are significantly more important than subfactor V." | The importance of each subfactor has been assigned as the government believes they should be. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2029 | Section M-900 |
II. Proposal Evaluation B. Gating:
C. Volume II, Technical Factor
1. General:
2. Technical Rating:
3. Technical Risk Rating:
The Gate 1 criteria on page 18 states that "..a technical risk rating will be applied to each subfactor," which makes it sound like Subfactors I-V will receive a risk rating.
+E16It states on page 19 in Subfactor I: Systems Engineering, "..subfactor will be evaluated on a technical acceptable/unacceptable basis and a technical risk rating," which confirms Subfactor I will receive a risk rating.
On page 20, 2. Technical Rating it states, "Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather it will be inherent within the Subfactor I-V ratings," which makes it sound like none of the subfactors will receive a Risk Rating.
On page 21, 3. Technical Risk Rating states, "each technical subfactor (II-V) will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings..."
| Please clarify which subfactors will receive Technical Risk ratings. Is it Subfactors I-V (all), Subfactors II-V, or none? | This has been updated in the M-900 section. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
II. Proposal Evaluation B. Gating:
Gate 1 The Government states "The two (2) offerors with the lowest TPP and meeting the following criteria will proceed to Gate 2: have a low technical risk rating in all subfactors; be technically acceptable in Subfactors I and V; have the highest technical color/adjectival rating (Blue/Outstanding) in Subfactors II-IV, and be determined reasonable and balanced."
| Suggested revision: "The two (2) offerors meeting the following criteria will proceed to Gate 2: have a low technical risk rating in all subfactors; be technically acceptable in Subfactors I and V, have the highest technical color/adjectival rating (Blue/Outstanding) in Subfactors II-IV, and be determined reasonable and balanced with the lowest TPP. The TPP is intended to be a tie breaker when two offerors have the same adjectival/color and risk ratings where the strengths are essentially the same." | This suggestion has been implemented. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
II. Proposal Evaluation B. Gating:
Gate 1 The Government states, "All offerors within Gate 1 shall have their Volume II, Written Technical Proposal evaluated in accordance with Section M. All offerors within Gate 1 shall have their Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with Section M. Furthermore, the Government will calculate the Total Proposed Price (TPP) for each offeror using their submitted Volume IV, Cost/Price Volume."
| Suggested revision: "All offerors within Gate 1 shall have their Volume II, Written Technical Proposal evaluated in accordance with Section M. A technical acceptability rating and a technical risk rating will be applied to each subfactor. All offerors within Gate 1 shall have their Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with Section M. Furthermore, the Government will calculate the Total Proposed Price (TPP) for each offeror using their submitted Volume IV, Cost/Price Volume. | This suggestion has been implemented. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
II. Proposal Evaluation C Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, Subfactor I: Systems Engineering The criteria states: "This subfactor will be evaluated on a technical acceptable/unacceptable basis and a technical risk rating. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative with supporting documentation such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations, to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet the Performance Specification as outlined in the SRD and Statement of Objectives paragraph requirements as follows."
| Suggested revision: "This subfactor will be evaluated on a color/adjectival basis and a technical risk rating. This subfactor is met or exceeded when the offeror’s written technical proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative with supporting documentation such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations, to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet or exceeds the Performance Specification as outlined in the SRD and Statement of Objectives paragraph requirements as follows... " | The government will not be making updates to this section at this time. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
II. Proposal Evaluation C Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, Subfactor II: Statement of Work How will the SOW be evaluated? How does an Offeror get a Blue rating? We respectfully suggest the Government delineate in the SOO which items are threshold requirement and which are objective requirements. As written, the SOO is entirely composed of objectives while the criteria treats them entirely as requirements.
Text Reads: "This subfactor will be evaluated on a color/adjectival basis. This subfactor is met when the offeror has provided a written Statement of Work to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet the Statement of Objectives.
The SOW will be evaluated on if the offeror has met each requirement set forth in the SRD. Then the SOW will be evaluated on how each entry will affect the schedule or performance of the CAT-F, determining if there are any strengths or weaknesses for each entry."
Recommended Revision: "This subfactor will be evaluated on a color/adjectival basis. This subfactor will be evaluated for the extent to which the offeror has provided a written Statement of Work that demonstrates the offeror’s technical approach will meet the Statement of Objectives. The SOW will be evaluated on whether the offeror has met or exceeded each requirement set forth in the SRD. The SOW will then be evaluated on how each entry will affect the schedule or performance of the CAT-F, determining if there are any strengths or weaknesses for each entry."
| The SRD requirements have been updated to include threshold and objective requirements where applicable. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
II. Proposal Evaluation C Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, Subfactor II: Statement of Work How will the SRD be evaluated? How does an Offeror get a Blue rating?
We respectfully suggest the Government delineate in the SRD more items for which there are threshold requirements and which are objective requirements. The recent revision of the SRD now documents only three objective requirements: SRD 1.1.1.1 Power On Confidence Test, SRD 1.1.1.2.2 Self-Test Executions, and SRD 1.15.1.1.1 Weight.
| We respectfully suggest the Government allow offerors to propose, as an attachment to the SOW, an updated SRD or performance specification to make requirements they intend to exceed part of the contract. This approach will also simplify evaluation. | The SRD requirements have been updated to include threshold and objective requirements where applicable. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
II. Proposal Evaluation C Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, Subfactor III: MOSA How will the MOSA Utilization be evaluated? How does an Offeror get a Blue rating? The MOSA requirements do not delineate between objectives and threshold requirements and thus do not provide an obvious way to exceed requirements.
SRD_1.3 states, "The CAT-F design will include the capability to upgrade by using the Computer Program Identification Number (CPIN) management process to sustain tester upgrades and modification during the tester’s life cycle. The developed CAT-F will be built using an open system software architecture that allows for future upgrades and modifications. In addition to software upgrades, the CAT-F shall utilize as much as possible Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) design for tester hardware and sustainment. Vendor will be required to submit all requested data to gain government engineering acceptance/approval for the MOSA standard and upgrade capability for software and hardware.
| We respectfully suggest the Government allow offerors to propose, as an attachment to the SOW, an updated SRD or performance specification to make requirements they intend to exceed part of the contract. This approach will also simplify evaluation. | The government will evaluate the proposals based on section L-900 and how the offeror plans to meet the MOSA requirements and offer an adequate, thorough, or exceptional approach. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2029 | L-900.III.C.2.Subfactor IV |
| M-900.II.C.1.Subfactor IV | Section L-900 calls out both a Data Rights Plan and a Data Availability Plan for Subfactor IV, but Section M-900 only calls out the language in the Data Rights Plan and does not mention language pertaining to evaluation of the content of the Data Availability Plan called out in Section L. How does the USAF plan on evaluating the Data Availability Plan in the Technical Volume of the proposal? | The government will evaluate the proposals based on section L-900 and how the offeror plans to meet the Data Rights requirements and offer an adequate, thourough, or exceptional approach. |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
II. Proposal Evaluation C Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, Subfactor IV: Data Rights How will Data Rights be evaluated? How does an Offeror get a Blue rating?
How does an offeror exceed the requirement?
Text Reads, "This subfactor will be evaluated on a color/adjectival basis. This subfactor is met when the offeror has provided a proposal to offer the rights in technical data (TD), computer software (CS), computer software documentation (CSD), and inventions/patents to the Government to ensure unimpeded, innovative, and cost effective production, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of the CAT-F throughout its life cycle; to allow for open and competitive procurement of CAT-F enhancements; and to permit the transfer of the CAT-F non-proprietary object code and source code to other contractors for use on other systems or platforms."
| Recommended Revision, "This subfactor will be evaluated on a color/adjectival basis. This subfactor is met when the offeror provides at least Government Purpose Rights and/or Unlimited Rights to all items funded at mixed expense and/or Government expense, respectively. A Blue rating will be earned if an offeror has provided a proposal to offer the rights in technical data (TD), computer software (CS), computer software documentation (CSD), and inventions/patents to the Government to ensure unimpeded, innovative, and cost effective production, operation, maintenance, and upgrade of the CAT-F throughout its life cycle; to allow for open and competitive procurement of CAT-F enhancements; and to permit the transfer of the CAT-F non-proprietary object code and source code to other contractors for use on other systems or platforms." | The government will evaluate the proposals based on section L-900 and how the offeror plans to meet the Data Rights requirements and offer an adequate, thorough, or exceptional approach. | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2025 | Section M-900 |
II. Proposal Evaluation C Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, Subfactor IV: Data Rights Does the Government intend to compel offerors to provide rights in technical data that the Government does not otherwise have the rights to (such as Commercial Off-the-Shelf [COTS] instruments or items developed exclusively at contractor expense)?
| No | |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2027 | L-901 |
B. Communications Factor I: Technical Subfactor I: O-Level Maturity and M-901 II. Factors and Subfactors Factor II: Cost/Price Relative Importance
| Subfactor I: O-Level Maturity | In Sections L-900/L-901 and M-900/M-901 Subfactor I for O-Level Maturity, we respectfully recommend that the government add a Clean Station Test such as the Centerline Interface to the F-16 C/D list. | We will not be adding Clean Station Test at this time. |
| DRAFT+Sections+L+and+M__v3.1_01_Apr_2027 | L-901 |
B. Communications Factor I: Technical Subfactor I: O-Level Maturity A-10 and M-901 II. Factors and Subfactors Factor II: Cost/Price Relative Importance Subfactor I: O-Level Maturity
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 .