Government Responses to Submitted Questions Update.docx

Government Responses to Submitted Questions 1/75th Rangers Task Force Training H92421-25-Q-E002

RFQ

Document

A: yes

A: language is irrelevant

General

Q: Transportation. Is the contractor responsible for movement of the personnel to/from MOD sites and lodging? If so, will there be a CLIN assigned for transportation assets or will this be an ODC?

A: Contractors are responsible for their movement to and from MOD sites.

A: No CLIN’s for ODC, this is a FFP contract

A: the drone swarm will not be used as targets

A: yes the phones need to be operational. A cheap smart phone is preferred but a flip phone is acceptable. If the contractor can provide an active SIM we have smart phones we could provide.

A: We can provide protective masks but contractors will still need eye protection that we are unable to provide.

Are there any additional training, certification, or clearance requirements we should account for at specific MOD sites beyond what is listed above?

A: Minimum requirement is for personnel being cleared to enter Hunter Army Airfield or Fort Stewart

“The Contractor shall submit an Operations Security (OPSEC) Plan to the Government no later than ninety (90) days after contract award.”

Given that the period of performance for the 1/75 TFT exercise is only six days (17–22 November 2025), can the Government please clarify whether the OPSEC Plan submission requirement (90 days after award) still applies, or whether an alternate timeline/deliverable is intended for this short-duration effort?

A: OPSEC Plan not required

A: Government will reimburse for SIM (would account for 9x considering the amount of iterations occurring) SIM card cost should be included in each CLIN that requires use of phones/sim cards.

Q: Can the Government clarify whether MOD 3 requires two or three UAS platforms and update specific type?

A: Will require all three drones listed in section 1.4.6.6. Specifications not listed, just need capability requested

Q: Issue: States “Total UAS Platforms: 3” but then lists FPV, ISR, and 10-drone swarm team (which by itself is 10 platforms).

Question: Should the 10-drone swarm be counted as a single “package” for pricing purposes, or is the intent to provide 13 physical UAS?

A: The former, drone swarm is considered one entity.

Q: The PWS States lodging/meals funded except for “local hires within 50 miles.” But later the PWS says all travel will be reimbursed under JTR. Potential conflict. Will contractors be reimbursed for lodging/meals for personnel within 50 miles of Hunter Army Airfield if they are required to work from 1700–0400, or must the contractor absorb those costs?

A: Wording is confusing. 1/75 will pay for lodging and meals for contractors on days they are being requested to work. Will not pay for travel of contractors if they are being pulled in for this contract inside of a 50 mile radius.

Q: Safety sections appear duplicated, with slightly different certification requirements (AFI 13-217 vs. range safety). Can the Government confirm which safety standard applies for contractor instructors (AFI 13-217/11-410 or general range safety requirements)?

A: General Range Safety

Q: Have funds been appropriated or is it contingent?

“Funds are not presently available for this contract. The Government's obligation under this contract is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for contract purposes can be made.

Special Contract Requirements Contract Clauses 52.232-18 Availability of Funds.”

A: Funds are still not available due to Government Shutdown

Solicitation

Pg. 40 Basis for Award 4.1

Q: Would the Government please clarify the Basis for Award and Evaluation Criteria?

On pg 40 under the “Basis for Award” Section 4.1 “4.1 Basis of Award: A best value approach will be used; the evaluation criteria are described herein. The policies and procedures under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, in conjunction with FAR Subpart 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, will be utilized for this procurement. The award decision will be based on best value. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose quote conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government.”

But on pg. 40 under Factor Price it states the following, “Proposed price will be evaluated as Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA).”

Without any kind of evaluation tradeoffs listed, it is confusing if this is a best value or LPTA requirement.

A: The bases of award is Best Value and price is a factor and will be evaluated as such.

The Evaluation Criteria states there are three evaluation factors: Price, Relevant Experience, and Past Performance. However, only two Factors are listed on Page 39, Instructions (Technical and Price).

A: Price, Relevant Experience, and Past Performance are the evaluation factors.

A: each factor must be determined Acceptable. Failure to meet the criteria will render the quote to be Technically Unacceptable and will not be considered for award. The RA will decide if your proposal is Technically Acceptable or Unacceptable and must provide a valid justification for as to why the proposal was deemed Unacceptable.

A: Not pass or fail; drone experience is more important

A: No pass or fail but is an acceptable or unacceptable factor.

A: Yes, it can outweigh lowest price. Bases of award is best value not LPTA.

A: Yes UEI

PWS pg. 10, Part IV: Travel, 2.5.3 Q: Per the solicitation, Item 0002 Travel, it appears the pricing arrangement is “Firm Fixed Price.” However, per the PWS, Para 2.5.3, “all travel expenses will be priced separately and covered under a unique cost reimbursable travel CLIN.”

Can the Government please confirm if Item 0002 Travel is a Firm Fixed Price or Cost Reimbursable CLIN? If travel is cost reimbursable, will the solicitation pricing Item 0002 be updated?

A: Firm Fixed Price

A DD254 was not provided with this Request for Quote. Can the Government confirm what level of facility clearance is required for vendors prior to start?

A: The ability to get onto Fort Stewart

Q: Under current FAA regulations, one remote pilot and one visual observer are required per drone if flying in unrestricted airspace. If an operator seeks to conduct multi-drone swarm operations (e.g., 10 drones under the control of a single pilot), a waiver under 14 CFR § 107.35 is required. The FAA’s published guidance indicates that waiver processing can take approximately 60–90 days for a complete application, with the agency recommending that operators submit requests at least 90 days in advance of intended operations.

Can the government confirm whether this is the expected timeline for a waiver of this type? Additionally, if the waiver is not approved or cannot be processed in time, are there any alternative approaches or acceptable substitutions for conducting swarm-like operations that would still meet the government’s requirements without defaulting to a one-pilot-per-drone construct, which would significantly increase operational costs?

A: If it comes down to the admin, one pilot per drone

Q: The PWS indicates that all MODs will be active during the 17–22 November 2025 training period, with required contractor presence from 1700–0400 daily. Several MOD sections list multiple UAS capabilities (FPV, ISR, EW/Jamming, Droppers, and Swarm), yet other tables list only a single operator.

Can the Government please clarify:

1. Whether MOD events will be conducted concurrently or sequentially, and

2. The expected staffing construct — should offerors plan for dedicated operators per capability per MOD, or are cross-trained operators acceptable if MODs are executed sequentially?

A: MODS will be conducted sequentially; dedicated operators

Q: Can the Government please clarify airspace coordination responsibilities and restrictions for UAS operations across all MOD sites (Middle Eastern Village – MOD 1, Elementary School – MOD 2, METZ – MOD 3, Colmar FOB – MOD 4, Water Treatment Facility – MOD 5, and GTI – MOD 6)?

Specifically:

· Will these MOD areas operate within military operating areas (MOA) or restricted airspace, or in civilian / uncontrolled airspace?

· Primarily in Military Spaces and authorized airspace

· If in civilian airspace, will the Government coordinate and publish NOTAMs with the FAA, or should the contractor assume responsibility for airspace coordination and waiver submission?

· Government will assume responsibility

· Please confirm whether any range control or local FAA coordination POCs will be designated for UAS flight plan deconfliction prior to exercise execution.

A: Airspace will be deconflicted

Q: PWS Section 2.5, Safety Incidents, contains conflicting guidance regarding the timing and recipient of written incident reports. The first paragraph states that a “formal written report will be provided to the exercise controller within two working days of the incident,” while the subsequent Reporting subparagraph directs that a “written report [be provided to the Contracting Officer Representative (COR)] within 24 hours, with a Corrective Action Plan submitted within five business days.”

Can the Government please clarify which timeline and reporting chain governs the initial written incident report — should the contractor submit the written report to the exercise controller within two working days, or to the COR within 24 hours?

A: COR within 24 hours

Q: Should conservative Other Direct Cost (ODC) line-items be included for expendable and repair items (simulated-munition droppers, spare/“Blue-List” replacement airframes, batteries, replacement radios, spare propellers/arms, sim rounds, etc.)?

A: No ODC line items will be included. All CLIN’s are FFP.

Q: The PWS appears to assume only one operator in several left-hand columns but then lists multiple UAS capabilities (FPV, ISR, EW/Jamming, Droppers, Swarm) within the same Mod. Worst-case, for overlapping Mods and simultaneous operations we calculate a minimum of 11 UAS operators (e.g., 4× FPV, 5× ISR/Jamming, 1× Swarm, 1× backup). Can the Government confirm whether: (a) Mods will be executed concurrently or sequenced (i.e., can operators be moved between Mods during the day), and (b) the Government’s intent for staffing (a single dedicated operator per capability vs. mobile/cross-trained operators)?

A: 11 UAS Operators is a solid assumption, unless swarms will require multiple operators

Q: Will Red-Team / Red-Cell UAS be expected to be recovered after being engaged (shot down / disabled) during training, or does the Government intend permissive “no-recovery” / intentional crash scenarios (without explosives)? If the latter, please confirm any safety or range-clearance requirements the contractor must plan for. (PWS references to contractor-provided SIM rounds and UAS platforms are listed; we could not find a PWS paragraph explicitly addressing intentional destruction or loss/recovery of contractor UAS — please clarify.)

A: No drones are getting shot down

Q: For FPV and dropper platforms: the PWS states “All SIM rounds will be provided by the contractor.” Would the Government accept 3D-printed, non-explosive simulated RPGs / simulated kinetic effects on FPV droppers (no pyrotechnics) as meeting the requirement for “simulated munitions,” or does the Government require a specific construction, certification, or material standard for SIM rounds? Please cite any technical/spec requirements the Government expects for SIM munitions.

A: First option is fine

“Beast+ or equivalent DIU Blue UAS Cleared List or NDAA compliant Electronic Warfare (EW), Directional Finding (DF), 20 Watt VHF, with Jamming System platform with operator.”

The Beast+, as developed by CACI, is a backpackable, software-defined SIGINT/EW platform designed for wearable or ground-mounted use, not a UAS. Can the Government please clarify whether this requirement intends for the Beast+ (or equivalent) to be:

1. Mounted and operated as a UAS-borne payload, or

2. Employed as a ground-based EW/DF system supporting the UAS team?

Additionally, if the Government’s intent is to replicate the Beast+ effect on a UAS platform, please confirm whether:

· A vehicle-mounted or alternate EW payload is acceptable if the Beast+ cannot be safely air-carried, and

· The DIU Blue UAS Cleared List or NDAA compliance requirement applies to the EW payload itself, or only to the airframe.

A: If you can’t get this, we can resource internally

A: NDAA-compliant UAS with RIZER software is acceptable.

A: If the ISR UAS platform has SIM capabilities these two tasks can be performed by 1 UAS and 1 operator.

The 10-drone swarm should be 10 UAS and as many operators that are required to operate them.

A: This is acceptable.

A: We do not expect to have any airspace restrictions but if this does become an issue a 5 drone swarm is acceptable.

A: We will not be using these options

A: Coveralls and hardhats are only required for plant/facility role players

(a) All UAS operators hold current FAA Part 107 Remote Pilot Certificates.

(b) Prime Contractor maintains a valid Federal Firearms License (FFL)

(c) Prime Contractor maintains a Federal Explosives License (FEL) if SIM/pyro devices are used

(d) OPFOR Training Facilitators possess Special Mission Unit (SMU) OPFOR experience.

Please advise if the Government will include these as requirements to ensure the safe accomplishment of training.

A: We will not include these requirements

A: Yes

A: NDAA-compliant UAS with software is acceptable

A:Yes

A:Yes

A: Relevant Experience: Demonstrates a vendor’s capability to perform the required work. It highlights skills, knowledge, and prior projects that are similar to the current requirement. Often descriptive and focuses on the types of work completed. It's about possessing the necessary expertise

Past Performance: Demonstrates a vendor’s actual results on previous contracts. It's about how well they performed the work. It is data-driven and focuses on specific project outcomes. It’s about demonstrated success (or failure).

Amendment 0001 complete adding an additional evaluation factor of Technical.

A: Amendment 0001 complete removing LPTA.

A: No

Q: Travel is listed as a CLIN under JTR rules. Should the contractor provide an estimated fixed-price travel CLIN in the proposal, or will travel be reimbursed as actual cost in accordance with JTR during contract performance?

A: The contract will be Firm Fixed Price.

A: Simultaneous support at more then One MOD is required

Q: The solicitation states role players are required but does not specify the level of detail. Will the Government provide detailed role-player scripts and tasking, or does the contractor need to propose scenario design and tasking for role players?

A: The government will provide role scenario scripts

A: Both

Section B CLIN Structure The solicitation currently outlines separate Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs 0001AA through 0001AM for Role Player (RP) and UAS Support Services across each day as a fully burdened daily rate. Under this structure, all resources to fulfill the PWS must be committed at award. The potential exists for post-award modifications that could reduce or eliminate individual CLINs while the contractor has already deployed those resources.

Q: Would the Government consider revising the CLIN structure to reflect a single CLIN with a QTY of 1x Group (FFP) with three ELINs/SLINs (Labor, Materials, and Travel) to align with how the services are actually executed and to mitigate contractor risk of sunk costs under fluctuating CLIN obligations?

Recommendation:

CLIN 0001: Role Player / RED UAS Support Services – Group (Qty 1) SLIN 0001A: Labor SLIN 0001B: Materials SLIN 0001C: Travel A:

Section 1.4.1 Q: Can the Government confirm whether each of the listed training locations (Hunter Army Airfield, Savannah Metropolitan Area, Barnwell SC) are pre-approved for contractor owned UAS operations and that airspace access and deconfliction will be Government-coordinated?

A: yes all sites have been pre-approved for UAS operations

Section 1.4 Q: The government does not list qualification or experience requirements for any personnel in the PWS. This can lead to industry variations of offers to this Request for Quote, and skew evaluations of fair and balanced pricing. Can the government clarify Labor Positions and their minimum requirements?

Recommendation: List the following positions with minimum qualifications and experience requirements to standardize the government’s expectations for quoting.

· Site Lead, Operations Specialist, SR (or Site Manager).

· Level III ASOT SME RP (or “Role Player SME”).

· Level II ASOT SME RP (or “SOF Role Player”).

· Drone Operator (FPV, Dropper, Swarm, and EW capable).

A: If contractor can support, we are not concerned with additional qualifications

MOD # Positions Required Tables Q: The PWS references Site Lead, Operations Specialist, or SR (Acronym Undefined) for each MOD (Acronym Undefined), but does not define individual duties or qualification requirements for this key position. Can the Government define the minimum qualification and experience requirements for this position?

Recommendation: This position should be titled, “Site Manager”, and require something to the effect of: “Must have 15+ years’ experience in SOF; Must have documented experience with Special Mission Unit as a Range / High Risk Traning Safety Officer. Must have experience leading complex RP exercises with 40 or more contracted positions”.

A: We do not require any additional experience. If contractor can fulfill duties outlines in the PWS they will be acceptable.

MOD # Positions Required Tables ASOT Level III-qualified personnel are senior planners or managers capable of supervising, integrating, and replicating adversary tradecraft.

Q: Can the government define the minimum qualification and experience requirements for ASOT Level III personnel in MOD 1?

Reccomendation: The Level III (3) ASOT SME duties as listed in the PWS do not suggest ASOT work and is better titled as a “Role Player Subject Matter Expert (SME)”. This position should require something to the effect of: “Must have 15+ years’ experience in SOF; Must have 5 years’ experience in Special Activities, Targeting, and/or Intelligence Activities; Must demonstrate experience in supervising and evaluating ASOT Level II SOF operators”.

A: we do not require ASOT qualification from RP for any MOD.

MOD # Positions Required Tables ASOT Level II-qualified personnel are trained special operations tradecraft operators capable of conducting low-visibility and sensitive activities.

Q: Can the government define the minimum qualification and experience requirements for ASOT Level II (2) personnel in MODs 2-6?

Reccomendation: The Level III (3) ASOT SME duties as listed in the PWS do not suggest ASOT work and is better titled as a “SOF Role Player”. This position should require something to the effect of: “Must have 6+ years’ experience in SOF; Must have experience in reconnaissance, surveillance, or special activities elements. Must demonstrate the ability to integrate into complex training scenarios representing low-visibility operators, bodyguards, hostile intelligence personnel, or civilian personas, while also replicating adversary decision-making in alignment with U.S. SOF training objectives”.

A: we do not require ASOT qualification from RP for any MOD.

MOD # Positions Required Tables Drone Operators are an evolving professional discipline and come with a vast portfolio of license, certification, experience, and capabilities.

Q: Can the government define the minimum qualification and experience requirements for Drone Operator personnel in MODs 1-6?

Reccomendation: The Drone Operator duties as listed in the PWS are broad in scope and suggest the Government should articulate this as a Labor Position and is best titled as a “Drone Operator”. This position should require something to the effect of: “Must possess FAA Part 107 Remote Pilot Certification with verifiable training and proficiency in First Person View (FPV), Swarm, ISR, and payload-capable UAS systems. Prior experience supporting USSOCOM Red UAS, Red Cell, or Opposing Force (OPFOR) training programs; technical familiarity with NATO and near-peer UAS threat platforms”.

A: The only requirement of UAS operators is FAA Part 107 remote pilot certification.

Sections 1.4.6.3 & 1.4.3.3 Q: Given 47 U.S.C. §§ 301 & 333, the NTIA Redbook, DoDI 4650.01, and CJCSI 3320-series (EW authorization and deconfliction), Can the Government confirm it will obtain and provide the necessary spectrum authorizations and EW/jamming approvals (to include NTIA assignments, FAA coordination, and DD Form 1494, as applicable) under which contractor UAS and EW activities will operate?

A: we are currently working to obtain all required authorizations for EW/Jamming.

PWS

We’ve spoken with UTM regarding AK-pattern UTM conversions/MMR and were advised of a ~120-day lead for certain AK components. To protect schedule, may we substitute an AR-15/5.56 UTM solution (dedicated/conversion, non-live capable) in place of the AK-pattern for the FoF role-player elements, with identical safety/PPE controls? If acceptable, we’ll reflect it as a like-for-like training capability (marking rounds only; no live ammo in FoF areas).

A: AK-47 equipped with blank firing adaptors is an acceptable alternative.

Skydio X10D (urban/obstacle-dense autonomy with EO/IR), and

Vantage Robotics Vesper (EO/IR ISR with endurance suited to persistent overwatch).

We’re also exploring additional Blue/NDAA options based on personnel and logistics (battery counts for 10-hr night lanes, spares, transport). We’ll finalize model counts once we have your guidance.

A: Either platform is acceptable if they can provide the capabilities outlined in the PWS.

PWS

Q: UTM substitution: Is AR-15 UTM acceptable in lieu of AK-pattern UTM given current lead times?

A: An AK-47 equipped with blank firing adaptors is an acceptable alternative.

PWS

Q: ISR preference: Between Skydio X10D and Vesper, do you have a preference for the persistent ISR requirement, or any platform you’d prefer we avoid?

A:we have no prefrence

PWS

Q: Red swarm: Any constraints/preferences on using multiple identical Blue ISR units for the 10-ship Red swarm (to standardize batteries/chargers) versus mixing types?

A: No constraints, multiple identical units is acceptable.

PWS

Q: EW/DF effects: We understand EA/jamming is government-provided/authorized only; we plan receive-only DF unless otherwise directed—please confirm this aligns with the lane design.

A:receive only DF is acceptable.

Q: If these approaches are viable, we’ll reflect them in our formal submission and provide any supporting artifacts you require (agency end-use letter for marking-round procurement, COI, Blue-UAS compliance statement, and a finalized UAS annex with quantities by MOD and sustainment plan).

A:

Microsoft_Word_Document.docx EW/DF effects: We understand EA/jamming is government-provided/authorized only; we plan receive-only DF unless otherwise directed—please confirm this aligns with the lane design.

image1.emf