Industry Questions with Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F)
- Solicitation number
- FA8533-25-R-0002
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document addressing industry questions about draft Sections L&M and Statement of Objectives for the Common Armament Tester for Fighter (CAT-F) program. The Q&A primarily covers proposal formatting requirements, evaluation criteria clarifications, and technical specifications.
Key clarifications include: proposals will have page limits of 50 pages for Volume II (Technical) and 10 pages for Volume III (Small Business Participation); the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Statement of Work (SOW) will be separate from the page count; the contract will have a 1-year base period with four 1-year options; the program will use an IDIQ contract type; and the CAT-F tester system will require FMS cases for foreign sales. Technical details addressed include interface cable requirements, test capabilities for specific aircraft systems, and ATML standards compliance. The document indicates this is still in draft form with cost/price language to be released later, and industry feedback was requested by December 10, 2024.
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_05 Mar 2025.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
Table 1
| Government File Name | Para # / Line # | Question/Request for Clarification | Government Response | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.I | Please confirm that the chart depicting the proposal evaluation process encompasses M-0900 and L-0900 and ends with the initial contract award. | The chart has been removed due to changes in the evaluation process and confusion that the chart caused. | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.I | The chart depicting the proposal evaluation process lists Volumes I, II, III, and V next to Initial | ||
| Evaluation and Updated Proposals. Section L only provides instructions for 4 volumes. Would the Government provide insight regarding whether there will be a Vol V or if this was simply a typo? | The chart has been removed due to changes in the evaluation process and confusion that the chart caused. | |||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.I, L-900.III.A, L-900.III.E, L0901 | In the L-900 Proposal Evaluation Sequence of Events chart and Volume Organization table, the Cost/Price volume is numbered IV. In the section heading for L-900 III E, it is numbered |
V. The Volume Organization table in L-901 and Note (4) numbers the Cost/Price volume as
| I. Will the government please standardize the Volume number throughout to Volume IV to avoid confusion for submittals and ENs? | The chart has been removed due to changes in the evaluation process and confusion that the chart caused. | |||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.III.A. General 2) | 2) states, "Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12". To properly display entire concepts in charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, tables, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets on 8 1/2” X 11” or 11” X 17” sized pages, it may be necessary to use a font smaller than 12 pt. Also, supporting examples from existing documents may have been created per smaller font requirements. Are we allowed to use smaller fonts for charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, tables, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets as long as they are legible? | Yes | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.III.A. General 3) | 3) states, "The page limitation for Volume II - Written Technical Proposal is 50 pages. The page limitation for Volume III - Small Business Participation is 10 pages. The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any cover page(s), table of contents, list of acronyms (if utilized), or attachments as specifically identified in this provision." Are Lists of Figures and Tables also excluded? | Yes | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.III.A. General 3) | Does the 50 page limitation on Volume II include the IMS and Statement of Work? Respectfully, request the government allow the SOW and IMS be included as annexes to the Written Technical Proposal and exempt them from the page limitation or increase the volume page limit. | IMS and SOW are separate | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.III.A. General 6) | 6) states, "Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet: SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 |
CUI"
Please provide information to complete the following for the required accompanying title page marking:
CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Controlled by: (Name of Agency) Controlled by: (Name of Office) CUI Category: (Xxxx) Distribution Statement/Dissemination Control: (disto letter/XX) POC: (Name, Phone or Email) Controlled by: USAF Controlled by: AFLCMC/ROA CUI Categorie(s): CUI PROCURE Distribution/Dissemination Control: FEDCON POC: Daniel Bennett, 478-222-1874
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.III.A. General 6) | |
| L-901.A. Note (2) | L-900 6) states, "Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet: SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104 |
CUI"
L-901 states, "(2) Each page should contain the following at the bottom of each sheet: SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" Updated to state Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104
CUI
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.III.B.4/ | What will be the USAF approach for evaluating the Supplier Performance Risk System output for item, price, and supplier risk? | The use of SPRS risk assessment is required for the evaluation of offerors in response to solicitations, in accordance with DFARS 204.7602. Please see DFARS 204.7603 for the explanation on how item risk, price risk, and supplier risk will be considered as part of the award decision. | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.III.A.General / | |||
| L-901.B.Subfactor II, III, IV | Section L-900 sets a limit for the Written Technical Proposal. That proposal encapsulates 4 subfactors to include a Technical Data Risk Mitigation Plan, Integrated Master Schedule with Rationale, detailed SOW demonstrating the technical approach, Data Rights Plan, and Data Availability Plan. Section L-901 mentions that the Sustainment Plan, Fielding Plan and Product Familiarization Plan, along with MOSA Utilization, were included within the initial SOW. Would the Government please clarify how the plans are to be incorporated into the Written Technical Proposal (separate or within the SOW) and whether or not the plans are part of the page limit? | Within the SOW, the SOW is not included in the Written Technical Proposal page limit | ||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf & | ||||
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO.pdf) | L-900.C.2.Subfactor 1 / |
Bullet 2
| (Period of Performance) | The Government states that the proposed IMS shall communicate how the contractor shall meet the Phase I PRR within 18 months after contract award. On page 3 of the Draft SOO, under Period of Performance (PoP), it is defined as a one year basic with four one-year options. Would the government please clarify the PoP of the base period, the follow on |
| options, and how they should align within the IMS. | This section has been reworded in section L. |
The contract will have an initial Basic PoP of 1 year and 4 one year options. Exercise of Option I is contingent upon the Downselect. The contract years do not completely line up with the separate phases of the program (development, production, and sustainment) due to the iterative nature of the development and production envisioned for the program.
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.C.2.Subfactor 1 / | |||
| Bullet 2 | The paragraph states, "•0Integrated Master Schedule with Rationale: The offeror shall submit a detailed preliminary Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for Phase I (or Handheld Phase) and Engineering Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase per the SRD Section 1...The proposed IMS shall include the start date, duration, dependencies, and the end date for schedule activities, events, and milestones. Additionally, the proposed IMS shall identify the critical path for Phase I EMD...The proposed IMS shall include top level schedule activities, events and milestones for Phases II (Intermediate-Level Tester Phase) and III (Production Phase) with the duration of days from exercise of contract option to Design Review (DR) and Production Readiness Review (PRR) IAW SOO. The proposed IMS is for all 3 phases and shall not exceed 300 lines overall length, shall be depicted in Gantt format and provided in Microsoft Project 2010 format." | |||
| Does the Government require that output from Microsoft Project be included in Volume II - Written Technical Proposal as part of the page count? Also, is it exempt from the 12 pt minimum font size limitation? | The IMS will be an attachment and exempt from the page count and font size limitation, but must remain readable. | |||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.III.C.2.Subfactor | |||
| IV/Bullet 2 | What is the USAF approach to evaluating Data Availability? | The Data Rights will be evaluated on the data rights plan and data availability plan as a whole on both what rights are being provided and at what time frame the rights are provided. | ||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900.III.D.1/Line 3 | How does USAF define critical subcontractor regarding small business participation? If an offeror (not a joint venture member) has critical subcontractors, must they also submit a Small Business Participation proposal? If a team has multiple critical subcontractor requiring small business participation proposals, does this alter the page limitation for this volume? | The critical subcontractor reference has been removed. A Small Business Participation proposal is required from all offerors with Master, Individual, commercial subcontracting plans and/or comprehensive subcontracting plans. 10 pages is sufficient for the information offerors are to provide. | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | M-900.I.A / Line 11 | The Government states "...Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the lower technical risk and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference." Would the Government clarify how the SSA will determine | ||
| superior past and present performance? | This was removed from section M. | |||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | M-900 I.A, B.1 | 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. The factors and subfactors listed are different than what is referenced in the other sections of the volume. | ||
| Can the government clarify the naming and numbering of the factors for relative importance? | This section was updated to reflect the correct factors. | |||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | M-900.C.1.Subfactor III | |||
| M-901.2.Subfactor VI | The Government intends to evaluate MOSA Utilization "as documented in the Offeror's Open Systems Management Plan (OSMP)". Would the Government provide clarification of where industry shall incorporate the OSMP and whether it will be included as part of the 50 pg limit | |||
| within the Written Technical Proposal volume? | This will be part of the Written Technical Proposal | |||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf; | ||||
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | Subfactor 1, Para. 1, Line 1; | |||
| Page 27, SRD 1.14.4.1 | The Technical Evaluation sets forth a Systems Engineering evaluation on the basis of "technical acceptable/unacceptable basis"; however, the SOO describes required and desired technical design parameters (e.g., weight: shall not exceed 79 pounds; desired less than 44 pounds). How does the Government intend to evaluate design specifications that achieve desired parameters? For example, will adjectival ratings be used to evaluate threshold versus objective parameters? | The design specification will be evaluated within the SOW and will be evaluated on a adjectival basis. | ||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | M-900 II D 1 | Has the Government considered evaluating the offeror's proposal based on the extent to which the offeror meets the DoD Small Business Goals by verifying proposed work against an offeror's cost/price volume? Recommend an adjectival rating approach that measures the extent to which an offeror plans to utilize small businesses and the adherence to the DoD | ||
| goals. | No | |||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | M-900 II D 1 | Has the Government considered evaluating the offerors proposal based on the significance of the work the small business will provide to the program? Recommend an adjectival rating approach that measures the significance of the work performed by the small business. This type of approach would value innovative products such as a handheld tester more than work that comes with a pass-through tax. | No | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | M-900.II.D.2/ Line 2-3 | The section states, “The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the |
proposal is acceptable or unacceptable”.
| Should the expectation be that multiple small business proposals be submitted, one for each joint venture or critical subcontractor? What are the evaluation criteria for those additional subcontractor proposals as the section only mention of the offeror's small business participation proposal will be evaluated? | The inclusion of critical subcontractor is in error. It should only reference offeror/joint venture member. Yes, multiple proposals would be submitted for each entity comprising the joint venture. Each proposal will be evaluated against the Sections L&M criteria; there is no separate criteria based on offeror/joint venture member status. | |||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-901.B.Subfactor I | Please provide an outline of the Critical Technology Demonstration report so the offerors may understand what is being evaluated in M-901. Please provide information on how the CTD will be used in Section L-901. For example, are all sections of the CTD of equal importance? Do complicated TPSs carry more weight? What is the relative weight that will be provided to CTD versus other design documentation? Is the operator perspective being evaluated? | The CTD will be a demonstration of the o-level tester and the listed TPS on aircraft that will be held in conjunction with the CDR. | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-901.B.Subfactor II, III, IV | The Sustainment Plan, Fielding Plan, and Product Familiarization Plan will each be evaluated IAW L-900 and M-900, however, there are no instructions within L-900 regarding expectations of content within each plan or evaluation criteria within M-900 on how each plan would be scored. The first mention of these plans is within sections L-901 / M-901 Final Down select CAT-F EMD, Production. Would the Government please provide both instructions and evaluation criteria for each plan expected to be submitted within the SOW? | These will be submitted as part of the SOW for section L-900/M-900 | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | N/A | Will the government consider listing each paragraph with a number or letter to ensure the contractor is addressing each section of the RFP, especially when completing the Cross | ||
| Reference Matrix? | The cross reference matrix is being developed. | |||
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | O-Level Handheld Tester | The last sentence of the O-Level Handheld Tester paragraph reads, "The test shall be compatible with I-Level Functional and Fault Isolation Tester." Should this read, "The tester shall be compatible with the I-Level Functional and Fault Isolation Tester"? | This has been updated to "The test results shall be compatible with I-Level Functional and Fault Isolation Tester results." | |
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | CAT-F Component | |||
| Quantities | The CAT-F Quantities paragraph states, "This will be an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract (IDIQ)." How will the contractors be treated fairly with this type of arrangement? What analysis was done by the Government concerning the use of minimum guarantees? What analysis did the Government do to arrive at a contract duration for the IDIQ CLINs? Has a minimum of five years of ordering after each production decision been considered? What analysis did the Government do to ensure that an IDIQ price arrangement would yield better pricing than an FFP arrangement? Did the Government consider the potential risk this contract type places on small business partners who manufacture handheld testers? Will the Government entertain discussions with the Small Business Administration concerning this contract type? | The government has determined that an IDIQ contract vehicle is the optimal contract vehicle for this program. An IDIQ is a contract type, not a pricing arrangement. Please reference FAR 16.504. | ||
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | CAT-F Component | |||
| Quantities | Will offerors be able to take the CAT-F tester and sell it to other customers without initiating | |||
| an FMS case? | The CAT-F tester will require an FMS case. | |||
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | CAT-F Component Quantities, Table 1.0 | The table implies that six kits and two testers will be acquired by the USAF. The two testers are an O-Level Tester and an I Level Tester. The six kits are F-16 O, F-16 I, F-15 O, F-15 I, A-10 O, and A-10 I. Will provisions be required to buy individual cables? Will the USAF want kits customized by block or model of aircraft at a particular site? | There will be separate part numbers for individual cables to be utilized for replacements. The kits will not be customized by block or model. | |
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | SRD_1.1.2.15 | Please expand on this requirement. Was this cut and pasted from a past RFP or is it | ||
| applicable to CAT-F? | The SRD has been updated. | |||
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | SRD_1.1.2.16 | Is active circuitry permissible in interface cables? | If it is approved by the government | |
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | SRD_1.2.2.3 | Does the BRU-61 need to be supported in the backshop by itself? | The government is keeping same support posture as on current equipment, we are not adding an additional requirement | |
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | Government Areas of | |||
| Interest within the CAT-F Acquisition SOW | Will the Offeror be allowed to tailor the SETR reviews to meet the design maturity of the | |||
| hardware? Will the offeror be considered non-compliant if proposing to eliminate a SETR review? Will the skipped review be treated adversely in the risk evaluation? | The offeror can propose changes to be reviewed and approved/disapproved by the government. | |||
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | Clarification of Terms | The documents seem to use the term "The Tester Shall" to refer the whole system in some cases, the I-Level tester in other and the O-Level in others. Can the government clarify which requirements map to which system? Is this something that will be evident upon release of the GRA? | When referring to the tester, the government is referring to the CAT-F as a whole, if a requirement mentions the o-level or i-level specifically then the requirement only refers to that portion of the system. | |
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | SRD_1.1.2.26 | Will the government release the ATS TPS Style guide along with RFP to enable us to assess any impacts levied by that standard? | (Reserved-Pending Style Guide Development) | |
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | SRD_1.10.1.1 | The AT plan referenced, DI-MISC-80508B/T, is a Data Item Description (DID) for technical reports. Clarify if DI-SCRE-82399 is the correct DID and/or the specification/guide detailing the requirements. | This has been updated. | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900 III.B.1. General | Please confirm "completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued" is referring to the SF33, SF30(s), and required "fill-ins". Confirm the Government is not requesting submittal of the entire RFP with each Offeror's proposal. | This is correct | |
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | M-901 2. Factor VIII | Is reference to "Options I-IV" referring to the four (4) one-year Options with Option I being EMD? If yes, please provide detail on the content of Options II, III and IV. | ||
| Due to the iterative nature of this program Option Years 1-4 will all contain EMD, Production, and sustainment | ||||
| DRAFT_Sections_L_and_M.pdf | L-900 I. Introduction and Overview | The chart on page one refers to "Oral Presentations" - Please clarify whether or not oral presentations will be part of the CAT-F evaluation sequence of events. | This chart has been removed. There will be no oral presentations. | |
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | SRD_1.25.2.4 | |||
| SRD_1.25.2.5 | Since there are no XML schemas (ATML standard) for ICD or Development Environment Documentation, is the government requesting that ATMLs be included where applicable within these requirements? | Yes | ||
| DRAFT_Statement_of_Objectives_(SOO).pdf | SRD_1.25.2 | The SRD states that the ASDP is to be developed IAW DI-DRPR-81961C which is for Engineering Drawing Tree. Please clarify if DI-SESS-82351 is the correct DID to be used. | This has been updated |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .