Industry Day 6 Feedback QA - W519TC-26-R-0003 RFAAP 10Feb2026.pdf

# DRFP Section Solicitation Statement Requiring Clarification Offeror Question/Comment USG Response

DRFP #2 introduces reset concept. Does modernization happen simultaneous to reset or will it be sequential (reset then modernization)? If sequential, workloading is pushed to the right.

Yes, Modernization efforts will occur in parallel with Reset activities.

What is the vision of the US Army? PM CAS is investing in GD Valleyfield. Please provide clarity on what is going on across the entire North American industrial base.

The Army intends to maintain a robust domestic propellant manufacturing base with RFAAP as its key supplier.

What is the demand signal for self-investment? Without committed product, there isn't a clear demand signal.

Why would industry want to invest?

The USG is currently contemplating a minimum portion of a total annual buy for selected propellant items to be directed and will be determined by DRFP #2.

4 Could Mod be pulled out as a flex plan and turned into an OTA? At this time, the USG does not intend to award Mod as an OTA.

5 SAM.gov Since the initial draft RFP release in July 2025, updates and postings have been made to multiple SAM.gov pages.

These postings/updates are available under both the old and new solicitation numbers. Will the USG please specify the SAM.gov page industry should monitor for future RFAAP postings?

The Solicitation number was updated to reflect FY26, however the SAM.gov notice allows us to incorporate a "Related Notice ID" in to reference a prior Solicitation Number. Moving forward please monitor

W519TC26R0003.

Draft+RFP+Q+and+A+-

+W519TC-25-R-

0045+RFAAP+22Dec20 25.pdf

The USG's posted Q&As contain multiple instances of text abruptly ending mid-stream, likely due to incorrect row height sizing. This means that the full question or answer is not legible (e.g., question 263, where the DRFP reference and question are terminated mid-sentence).

Will the USG please re-issue the Q&As with all text fully legible? ACC will repost the Q&A's.

Draft+RFP+Q+and+A+-

+W519TC-25-R-

0045+RFAAP+22Dec20 25.pdf and RFAAP

Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.D.A.1

In response to several questions included in the 22 DEC 2025 Draft RFP Q&A response (i.e.., Questions 94, 99, and 322) the Government makes distinction between Direct Government Sales, Third Party Government Sales, and Commercial Sales.

Suggest the USG update Section L.D.A.1 to read “Contract references may include Direct USG, Third-Party USG, or Commercial Contracts.” to be consistent with terminology clarified in the December 22 Q & A response.

The USG will update this language in the next DRFP. Direct Government Sales - operator contracts directly with the USG for RFAAP product regardless of end user; Third-Party USG Sale - operator contracts with a non-USG entity for a product that is ultimately incorporated into a system to be purchased by the USG; Commercial Sale - Operator contracts directly with a non-USG entity for a product that is not ultimately incorporated into a system purchased by the

USG.

Draft+RFP+Q+and+A+-

+W519TC-25-R-

0045+RFAAP+22Dec20 25.pdf, multiple pages, RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, no specific section

Q&A - Acknowledged. The USG intends to standardize language concerning customer types across the RFP. Direct Government Sale:

Operator contracts directly with the USG for an RFAAP product regardless of end user. Third-Party Government Sale: Operator contracts with a non- USG entity for a product that is ultimately incorporated into a system to be purchased by the USG. Commercial Sale: Operator contracts directly with a non-USG entity for a product that is not ultimately incorporated into a system purchased by the USG.

On multiple occasions in the Draft RFP Q and A responses, the USG stated it intends to standardize language on the definitions of customer types, as shown in the previous column; however it does not appear that this standardized language has been incorporated into the revised Sections L or M or the PWSs as of 18 Dec 2025. The workload plan section uses the words "USG direct and indirect requirements." Does the USG intend to update the verbiage in future revisions to standardize this language as previously indicated? Alternatively, will the USG clarify what it means by “indirect requirements” (e.g., does it mean all orders that are not USG directed), and does the USG intend to provide more specific definitions that include third-party, commercial, and international orders?

The USG will update this language in the next DRFP. Direct Government Sales - operator contracts directly with the USG for RFAAP product regardless of end user; Third-Party USG Sale - operator contracts with a non-USG entity for a product that is ultimately incorporated into a system to be purchased by the USG; Commercial Sale - Operator contracts directly with a non-USG entity for a product that is not ultimately incorporated into a system purchased by the

USG.

RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.A.11

Offerors may bring up to ten (10) personnel Will the USG clarify, regarding the maximum limit of 10 personnel during oral presentations, whether this limit applies to each presentation section (e.g., volume, subfactor) or to the total of attendees for all presentations combined?

Up to ten (10) personnel are permitted for all presentations combined.

DRFP language will be clarified.

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, L01.A.12.g

g. Volume 5, Small Business Participation (Oral Presentation) - Oral Presentation NTE 10 slides and a 30-minute oral presentation - Standard Form (SF) 294, “Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts”, Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR), or Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), and commercial plans associated with the SSRs are excluded from the slide count limit.

Will the USG please confirm that the non-oral portions of the Small Business Participation factor have no page limits?

Correct. "Standard Form (SF) 294, "Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts", Individual Subcontracting Report (ISR), or Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) from the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS), and commercial plans associated with the SSRs are excluded from the slide count limit."

11 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.A.13.c

What process or time will be provided to the offeror if the offeror needs time to gather data to address a clarification following the USG's caucus?

The USG will clarify this process and time allotted in the next DRFP.

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, L01.B. SF 2- 2.a

Will the USG please provide additional details on how it intends to execute the Award Fee portion of this statement, including how it will determine when an Award Fee is appropriate, what elements of the contract are eligible for receipt of the Award Fee, and projected frequency of award fees?

The USG does not currently anticipate utilizing Award Fees. This language will be removed in the next DRFP.

RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.C.2

To meet these objectives the USG will provide, upon award, immediate funding to reset RFAAP near term and provide the foundation necessary for a vibrant future. The USG needs industry investment combined with USG investment to achieve this reset of RFAAP. For every dollar of industry investment toward reset, the USG may provide up to 10 dollars.

The RFP notes that the USG "may" provide up to 10 dollars for every dollar of offeror investment. So that offerors can plan appropriately, does the USG have a minimum budget of matching funds, or should offerors assume the USG will provide 10 dollars for every dollar of industry investment towards reset?

The USG will clarify this language in the next DRFP.

14 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.C.2

To meet these objectives the USG will provide, upon award, immediate funding to reset RFAAP near term and provide the foundation necessary for a vibrant future. The USG needs industry investment combined with USG investment to achieve this reset of RFAAP. For every dollar of industry investment toward reset, the USG may provide up to 10 dollars.

Is funding available for reset part of the larger modernization funding pool? Or is reset funding separate and distinct from the modernization funding?

Reset funding is a separate and dedicated budget.

15 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.C.2

To meet these objectives the USG will provide, upon award, immediate funding to reset RFAAP near term and provide the foundation necessary for a vibrant future. The USG needs industry investment combined with USG investment to achieve this reset of RFAAP. For every dollar of industry investment toward reset, the USG may provide up to 10 dollars.

The Offeror shall develop a reset plan to:

So that offerors may bid executable reset plans, does the USG have a dedicated or separate budget for reset? If so, will the USG please provide the amount of that budget?

Yes, the USG has a dedicated budget for reset. This budget will be provided in the next DRFP.

16 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.C.3

Subfactor 1: Facility Reset and Modernization (Oral Presentation and Written Reset and Modernization Plan)

To this end, the modernization proposal shall include a self-investment strategy and a detailed roadmap for modernizing RFAAP, including specific projects, rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimates, timelines, and anticipated outcomes.

Will the USG please update Section L to clearly differentiate between “Reset and Modernization Plan,” “Modernization Proposal,” and “Roadmap for Modernizing RFAAP,” along with submission requirements for each?

Acknowledged. The USG will clarify these items in the next DRFP.

RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.C.3

For each project, the Offeror shall provide a ROM of +/-100%/50% (equivalent to a Class 5 estimate) with the basis of the estimate, with the cumulative ROM within the notional budget by year.

This information is to be provided as part of the offeror's 30-page Reset and Modernization Plan. Most, if not all, of the projects needed at RFAAP are complex in nature. The requirement to add diagrams and technical specifications of technology being proposed will quickly outpace the assigned page count. Request the USG review page count limitations on this plan.

Acknowledged. The USG will clarify in the next DRFP.

RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.C.3

The Modernization Roadmap may include Research and Design efforts preceding design and construction projects for low technical maturity projects.

Should Research and Design be Research and Development? Yes. This has been corrected for the next DRFP.

19 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.C.3

The Modernization Roadmap may include Research and Design efforts preceding design and construction projects for low technical maturity projects.

Will the Research and Design efforts be funded with amounts over and above the $3.5-$4B 15-year budget and individual year $1B budget?

Research and Development efforts will be discretely funded based on requirements.

20 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.C.SF1.1

RFAAP faces two primary objectives: One, immediate resetting of the facility through infrastructure investment, technology insertion, and reimagined management systems;

What does “reimagined management systems” mean? How is the USG defining/using “reimagined?” What industry references is the USG using as the basis for this objective?

The USG would like to see the Industry's interpretation of "reimagined management systems."

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, L01.C.SF1.1 and .2

.1: One, immediate resetting of the facility through infrastructure investment, technology insertion, and reimagined management systems;

.2: The Offeror shall develop a reset plan to:

So that offerors may best respond to the USG's goals, will the USG please provide a definition of reset as used in this context?

Acknowledged. The USG will clarify in the next DRFP.

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, L01.C.SF1.2

A successful plan can be fully implemented in three (3) years or less with significant upgrades achieved in the first six (6) months. The Offeror shall present high-level milestones for this reset plan. The reset plan does not replace full scale modernization; it creates a solid foundation for the long-term modernization strategy.

Will the USG please clarify what it means by "fully implemented?" Does it mean the project has been completed and is operating or otherwise has achieved its goals? Or does it mean the effort has been approved and funded, including final designs, and is being implemented via active construction or incorporation into the facility?

Yes; it means that the project has been completed and is operating or otherwise has achieved its goals.

Will there be directed workload? How do you bid in the current environment without some level of guaranteed workload?

The USG is currently contemplating a minimum portion of a total annual buy for selected propellant items to be directed and will be determined by DRFP #2. In addition, the USG is providing direct PWS funding and significant modernization resources to enable the operator to successfully compete on the open market.

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, L01.C.SF1.2.g

Optimize the Modernized Nitrocellulose (NC) Facility and linked improvements for the legacy facility. Emphasis on sustaining the capability currently utilized by facilities in the legacy NC area still required for NC production such as replacing those capabilities such that NC production at RFAAP is no longer partially reliant on facilities within the legacy NC area.

Will the USG please clarify what is meant by this instruction? It is currently unclear. Acknowledged.

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, L01.C.SF1.2.j

Surge removal of excess equipment beyond baseline PWS requirements Will the USG please clarify what is meant by "surge removal"? The USG cannot answer this at this time.

26 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.C.SF1.3

For the purposes of a long-term modernization plan, the Offeror shall assume a notional budget of $3.5-$4.5B over a 10-year contract period, with no individual year exceeding $1B.

The PBS funding line for GOCO modernization has rarely topped $500M for any given year for the entire GOCO domain. The historical average for PBS funding has been $250-300M for any given year for the entire GOCO domain. The average 10-year funding PBS profile has been $2.5-3B for the entire GOCO domain. What is the USG’s plan for securing $3.5-4.5B for 10 years just for RFAAP?

The USG will continue to follow the USG requirements and POM process.

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, L01.C.SF1.3

For the purposes of a long-term modernization plan, the Offeror shall assume a notional budget of $3.5-$4.5B over a 10-year contract period, with no individual year exceeding $1B.

Given that executing a program of this magnitude over 10 years will necessitate production shutdowns from time to time for safety reasons, will the USG confirm that such shutdowns are acceptable in the offeror’s modernization plan?

The USG will evaluate these situations on a case-by-case basis. The Operating Contractor shall coordinate the production plan, reset plan, modernization plan, and maintenance plan to strategically align with the RFAAP mission of delivering military specification products in accordance with Department of War (DoW) requirements and approved production orders. These efforts shall also focus on mitigating risks and ensuring the resiliency of operations to support uninterrupted mission success and long-term sustainability.

RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.D.

VOLUME 3 - PAST

PERFORMANCE,

Section C - Adverse Contract Performance, 1.

In addition to the contract references afforded in response to Section A, the Offeror shall identify adverse past performance for every recent and relevant contract that was awarded to those companies, for which contract references were provided under Section A.1. and A.2. Adverse past performance includes any recent and relevant contract awarded to those contractors referenced in section A.1. and A.2 that experienced any performance problems identified below; as well as every recent and relevant contract that was terminated for cause or default.

The Section D Safety language clearly describes that the records requested are for the contract references submitted in Section A for evaluation. However, the Section C language is ambiguous. Please clarify the Section C language to clearly describe that the Adverse Contract Performance requested information is also required to be submitted for only those contracts references submitted in Section A. Or does the USG require Adverse Contract Performance information to be submitted for all contracts that were awarded to the Offeror’s Legal Entity that meet the definition of “Recent” and “Relevant” regardless of whether they were included as a Reference Contract in Section A?

Section C states, "In addition to the contract references afforded in response to Section A, the Offeror shall identify adverse past performance for every recent and relevant contract that was awarded to those companies for which contract references were provided under Section A.1. and A.2. Adverse past performance includes any recent and relevant contract awarded to those contractors referenced in section A.1. and A.2. that experienced any performance problems identified below; as well as every recent and relevant contract that was terminated for cause or default."

29 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.D.3

Recency is defined as any supply contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within 10 years of this final solicitation issuance, any services contract for operations and maintenance under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within 10 years of this final solicitation issuance, and any services contract for modernization under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within 10 years of this final solicitation issuance.

FAR Parts 15.305(2) and 15.305(2)(ii) require the USG to consider the currency and relevance of Past Performance information in making a source selection decision. Since Offeror performance from 10 years ago is not current and is significantly less relevant than more recent performance data, will the USG consider reducing the recency period to “within 5 years of this final solicitation issuance”? Such an approach would be consistent with prior Army GOCO procurements and would reduce the evaluation burden of the USG.

◦Previous similar procurements such as the Holston Army Ammunition Plant (HSAAP) Operation and Modernization Proposal submitted in December 2022, had a recency of 5 years for both references submitted and adverse past performance

◦Due to the many changes in processes, modernization/improvement efforts, and overall plant procedures in the last few years, 10 years of data may no longer be relevant to current RFAAP operations

◦Data between 5-10 years in age is more difficult to obtain for many bidders and may be archived in "hard to reach" locations

◦Limiting the recency period will make evaluation easier for USG officials as less data will be submitted to be reviewed

No, the USG is not reducing the recency period.

RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.D.a

a. Cover Slide: Volume 3 - Past Performance, Program, Solicitation Number, Offeror Name, CAGE, and Unique Entity Identification (UEI)

Should "slide" be "page"? Yes; the next DRFP has been corrected.

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, L01.D.c and L01.D.2

c. Section A: Contract References – Eight (8) total references maximum using Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form attached to this solicitation plus an additional five (5) for major subcontractors.

2. . . .the Offeror may submit contract references for up to five (5) major subcontractors. For each major subcontractor identified, the Offeror may submit up to three (3) contract references in which the major subcontractor performed as a prime contractor or first tier subcontractor.

Will the USG please clarify whether the requirement is for up to 5 contract references in total from major subcontractors? Or is the requirement for up to 5 subcontractors with each permitted up to 3 contract references for a total of up to 15 subcontractor references?

The requirement is for up to 5 subcontractors with each permitted up to 3 contract references for a total of up to 15 subcontractor references.

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, L01.D.c and L01.D.5

c. Section A: Contract References – Eight (8) total references maximum using Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Form attached to this solicitation plus an additional five (5) for major subcontractors.

5. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for Commercial Contracts:

Offeror shall submit a PPQ at Attachment 0036, for each commercial past performance reference included in the proposal.

Please clarify whether the USG wants a PPQ submitted for all contract references presented in Section A for evaluation, or is the intent to request PPQs for only Commercial contracts referenced?

Does the USG request any recent CPARS for Government contracts to be submitted?

Correct, PPQs are only requested for Commercial contracts references.

Please refer to Section L for proposal submission requirements.

33 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.E

Attachment 0019 is still in development and is not provided with this December 2025 version of Sections L&M.

Does the USG intend to evaluate the offeror's self-investment as part of Attachment 0019 calculation method? Or will this investment schedule be separately evaluated just as described in Sections L&M as written with the Offeror's oral and written explanations?

No, the USG will not evaluate the offeror's self-investment as part of Attachment 0019 calculation method. Self investment will be evaluated as detailed in Section M, which is currently being developed.

34 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.E.2.a.2

The Offeror shall propose separate pricing under two plant-wide volume ranges. These ranges have been expressed on an Equivalent Unit (EU) basis and correspond to the EU’s associated with each product.

Will the USG please provide projected quantities for the products on the pricing matrix?

Currently, the USG anticipates providing non-binding POM quantity estimates at time of RFP release.

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, L01.F.1 and L01.H.4

4. Offerors shall provide small business subcontracting plans. Is the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be included in Volume 7 the same as that required in Volume 5? Yes.

RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.F.2

2. The Offeror shall provide its proposed overall Small Business goal along with proposed goals for each of the five socioeconomic categories that include Small Disadvantaged Businesses, Women-Owned Small Businesses, HUBZone Certified Small Businesses, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses by using solicitation Attachment 0035, Small Business Participation Commitment Document. The proposed goals shall be based on total contract value to include all Ordering and Option Periods. Attachment 0035 is excluded from the Small Business Participation Factor slide count limit

Will offerors be required to propose small business percentages at the socioeconomic levels (SDB, HUBZ, WOSB, SDVOSB, VOSB, etc)? Is this part of the evaluation factor?

Please refer to Section L for small business proposal requirements.

RFAAP Section L Dec

2025.docx, M.A.8

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

a. Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The USG will employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of Offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.

Since the USG is recording oral presentations, will the USG be using AI as part of the oral evaluation to analyze the presentations and narrative? If so, will the USG describe how it intends to use AI in its evaluation of oral presentations?

Please refer to Section M and the prior responses to DRFP #1 Q&A for use of AI in the evaluation process.

38 RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, M.D.D

In addition, the USG may give favorable consideration to JV relationships in the execution of the RFAAP contract as compared to Prime/Subcontractor relationships.

Will the USG please explain its rationale behind giving favorable consideration to JV relationships over Prime/Subcontractor relationships in this context?

The USG prefers the parties proposed to complete certain scope elements are in fact the parties that perform them during execution.

RFAAP Section L Dec 2025.docx, L01.C.1 and RFAAP Section M Dec 2025.docx, M-01.C.1

RFAAP is in need of significant upgrades and modernization to achieve the Army modernization objectives which are: increased manufacturing safety and readiness to meet current and future requirements; isolate energetic mass from people; ensure graceful degradation and resilient operations; improve flexibility, maintainability, and sustainability; reduce cost of operations, and secure supply chains.

The USG will evaluate the Offeror's 15-year vision of RFAAP and its roadmap to achieve it. The USG will evaluate how the roadmap aligns with one or more Army goals (these are not listed in an order of priority):

manufacturing safety and readiness to meet current and future requirements; isolate energetic mass materials from people; ensure graceful degradation and resilient operations; improve flexibility, maintainability, and sustainability; reduce cost of operations, and secure supply chains.

Will the USG please define what is meant by the terms "graceful degradation" and "resilient operations" in these contexts?

The USG will remove the term "graceful degradation" from the next DRFP. "Resilient operations" is defined as having high levels of operational availability.

RFAAP Section M Dec

2025.docx, M01.D Section M01.D has two subsections 4. Request the USG fix the duplicate numbering. Yes; the USG will update the numbering.

41 RFAAP Section M Dec 2025.docx, M01.D

Section M01.D describes how an offeror's past performance references will be evaluated but does not address how Adverse Past Performance or the Safety information will be incorporated into the overall PP confidence rating.

Will the USG please describe how it will incorporate Adverse Past Performance and Safety information in an offeror's Past Performance Confidence Assessment?

In accordance with Section M, "The USG will review past performance information collected on the recent and relevant contracts to determine the quality of the Offeror's performance. The USG may consider the recency, relevancy, source, context of the past performance information it evaluates, general trends in performance, safety information, and demonstrated corrective actions."

42 RFAAP Section M Dec 2025.docx, M01.D.4.d

In addition, the USG may give favorable consideration to JV relationships in the execution of the RFAAP contract as compared to Prime/Subcontractor relationships.

This statement appears in the Section M area for past performance but appears to apply to the overall proposal evaluation. Will the USG please clarify the scope of this statement? Is it intended to be used only in the development of the past performance confidence assessment? If so, will the USG please update the solicitation instruction to make this clear?

The USG prefers the parties proposed to complete certain scope elements are in fact the parties that perform them during execution.

PWS 02 Facility Planning Draft

12_2025.docx, 2.1.1.1.

and 2.1.3.1.

2.1.1.1 The Operating Contractor shall develop and submit annually for review and approval by the Government a PWS 2 Execution Plan (CDRL A02-02). This plan shall be submitted 30 calendar days prior to the start of each calendar year. The PWS2 Execution Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

2.1.3.1 The Operating Contractor shall submit 10 projects annually (CDRL A02-04). The Operating Contractor shall submit a table to the Government for concurrence within 45 days of the beginning of the calendar year (CY) identifying the P-25’s to be submitted during that CY.

The submitted table shall contain the project name, the level of estimating required, and by what date the Operating Contractor shall submit each P-25. Each P-25 shall meet the following requirements:

Requirements sections 2.1.1.1. through 2.1.1.1.13 conflict with requirements in section 2.1.3. regarding the timeframes for upcoming CY P-25 submission alignment with USG concurrence with the development of an upcoming year execution plan (which includes P-25 submission dates as the primary deliverable) to be completed 30 days prior to start of CY. Request the USG resolve the conflicting requirements.

Requirements in sections 2.1.1 are to plan for all PWS 2 efforts. This is inclusive of P-25 developments, but not required to have the specific P- 25s at the time of the PWS 2 execution plan. Requirements in 2.1.3 are specific to P-25s. They are related but separate requirements, so the language will stay as stated.

PWS 02 Facility Planning Draft

12_2025.docx, 2.1.2.1 & 2.1.2.2

2.1.2.1. The Operating Contractor shall provide a complete and compliant response to the Government’s annual PBS Call Letter, ensuring all requested information and requirements are fully addressed and fulfilled.

(CDRL A02-03). The delivery date shall be provided in the Government’s annual PBS Call Letter.

2.1.2.2. Regardless of whether the PBS Call Letter is received from the Government, the Operating Contractor shall independently prepare and submit a package that fulfills the requirements outlined in this PWS. This submission shall be considered and referred to as the PBS Call Letter submission and must be delivered no later than 31 MAY of each calendar year.

These two sections contradict each other since if the call letter (should it exist) may have specific information requests/requirements that must be answered per section 2.1.2.1., but if the Call Letter has not been received by the contractor who is then required to "independently" develop a call letter submission per section 2.1.2.2., the contractor may not have the information needed to understand what requirements must be fulfilled, and the

2.1.2.2. submission is also titled a “PBS Call Letter” submission even though no Call Letter may have been issued.

As such, these two requirements may not be fully aligned or provide the contractor with sufficient guidance regarding what to submit. Request the USG clarify the requirement in 2.1.2.2, and to align this section with 2.1.2.1.

If a Call Letter is not received by the contractor, Section 2.1.3 include all the requirements that would be required of the submission required in section 2.1.2.

PWS 03 Fire Protection and

ES_11_2025_Draft.doc x, 5.4

Fire risk management surveys (fire prevention inspections) and survey frequencies shall be determined IAW National Fire Codes (NFC) according to building hazard, known fire loading, and mission criticality.

Will the USG please provide clarification on the expected requirements for fire risk management surveys, particularly in addressing the identified discrepancies (specific discrepancies identified in questions submitted on 10 Jul DRFP1) between 420-5 and the provided information, and how will these requirements be reconciled with the NFC and IFC standards?

Specifically, will the USG provide guidance on:

o The applicability of 420-5 versus NFC/IFC for fire risk management surveys o The inspection frequencies for different types of occupancies and facilities, including:

o Low hazard occupancy and unoccupied facilities o Moderate hazard occupancy o High/significant hazard occupancy o Critical hazard and mission facilities o Any exceptions or special considerations for military family housing and unaccompanied housing (UH) inspections.

Language will remain as is

PWS 03 Fire Protection and

ES_11_2025_Draft.doc x, 6.11

The contractor’s training program shall interface with DoD Certification System requirements, including DoD FES certification program, Firefighter I and II, Fire Instructor II, and III, Fire Officer I, II, and IV, Fire Inspector I and II, Incident Commander, and HazMat Incident Commander. IAW DoD Manual 6055.06 “DoDM FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES CERTIFICATION

PROGRAM (F&ESCP)”.

Recommend the USG include Fire Instructor I and Fire Officer III certifications in this requirement as several other required certifications are not achievable without first achieving Fire Instruction I and Fire Officer III.

Contractors are welcome to get those certifications in addition to what's required in the PWS.

PWS 04 Property

PWS_11_2025_Draft.d ocx, 2.3.2

The cost for repairs to damaged property shall be burdened solely by the contractor, unless otherwise approved by the PCO, and shall not be charged to the contract.

This is for 52.245-1 Alt 1, which is inappropriate to include in this contract. Recommend the USG update this requirement appropriately.

FAR clause 52.245-1, Alt I will removed from the next DRFP.

PWS 04 Property

PWS_11_2025_Draft.d ocx, 3.1.3.1

The contractor shall provide a CAP report for Personal Property: General Equipment, Plant Equipment, Special Tooling, Special Test Equipment, sensitive property, controlled property, and Material procured under the contract

Is this report the same as CDRL A04-006? The USG cannot answer this at this time.

PWS 04 Property

PWS_11_2025_Draft.d ocx, 3.3.5.2.

The contractor shall supply its own vehicles (i.e., automobile sedan, class II compact, truck cargo, truck carryall, and truck stake ).

Will GSA vehicles also be available for contractor use, or will the contractor be responsible for providing all vehicles for operation of RFAAP? If the latter, does this include heavy equipment and first response vehicles?

Yes, GSA vehicles will be available for production related efforts to include, but not limited to, powder vans and maintenance work.

PWS 07 RFAAP

Maintenance_12_2025 _Draft.docx, 2.1.9.1.2

Major Maintenance shall generally exceed $150,000 per repair/replacement/inspection/action. The contractor shall not aggregate maintenance requirements in an effort to reach the $150,000 threshold.

In all cases, Major Maintenance funding shall be used solely for the purpose of Major Maintenance. These funds shall not be used to fulfill any other facility contract requirements (e.g., facility infrastructure maintenance) that are already required in any above section of this PWS.

In the event of a disagreement with regards to the legitimacy of a Major Maintenance project, the PCO shall make the final determination.

Request removal of the "generally exceed $150,000" language as this implies the contractor is liable for all repairs under this $150,000 value, even if those repairs fit the abnormal or major maintenance definitions.

There is a specific definition for major maintenance efforts, and the word "generally" is included in this section so that it does not imply that everything under $150,000 is the contractors responsibility

51 PWS 09 - Safety_12- 2025_Draft.docx, 1.5

The Contractor shall notify the PCO and the RFAAP Government Safety Office upon arrival of any local, state or Federal agency including, but not limited to, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Nevada Department of Public Health, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and provide to RFAAP Government Safety Office a copy of all reports issued by such agencies within 15 calendar days of receipt. The Contractor shall provide a copy of its response to the report to the PCO and the RFAAP Government Safety Office within five calendar days of responding to the report generator. (CDRL A09-006)

Will the USG please explain its rationale for including the Nevada Department of Health as a recipient of this CDRL? This was a typo. Removed

52 PWS 09 - Safety_12- 2025_Draft.docx, 2.1

Railroad Safety: The contractor shall comply with 49 CFR, Chapter II, Federal Railroad Administration standards and General Code of Operating Rules (GCOR) for all railroad operations.

Will the USG please identify which portions of the cited standards and rules apply to RFAAP? Many of these rules in the CFR do not apply to in-plant railroads confined to a single installation.

Contractors are required to comply with the standard as defined in the PWS. The USG will not call out specific standards or rules within the standards listed.

53 PWS 09 - Safety_12- 2025_Draft.docx, 2.3.1

The Contractor shall provide timely notification (within one hour of the occurrence) to the PCO and RFAAP Government Safety Office of accidents (to include those involving Army Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) tenants) listed in paragraph C2.2 of DoDM 4145.26, regardless of the involvement of ammunition or explosives. (CDRL A09-011). The Contractor shall report all ammunition and explosive accidents, regardless of Government property damage or personnel injury level.

Can the USG clarify whether the requirement in the RFP extends to AE incidents as identified in the DODM 4145.26, or does the USG consider any incident at RFAAP an AE incident? If the latter, such an interpretation would significantly expand the scope of investigative and reporting requirements for the offeror.

The USG needs additional details on the basis of this question.

54 PWS 09 - Safety_12- 2025_Draft.docx, 2.3.1

The Contractor shall provide timely notification (within one hour of the occurrence) to the PCO and RFAAP Government Safety Office of accidents (to include those involving Army Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) tenants) listed in paragraph C2.2 of DoDM 4145.26, regardless of the involvement of ammunition or explosives. (CDRL A09-011). The Contractor shall report all ammunition and explosive accidents, regardless of Government property damage or personnel injury level.

Will the USG please reinstate "upon becoming aware of their occurrence" in this requirement? The removal of "upon becoming aware of their occurrence" could make this requirement impossible to meet. Many of the criteria in C2.2 of DoDM 4145.26 are outcome-based, such that the operating contractor will not have the required information within an hour of the accident to determine if notification is required.

Language will remain as is

55 PWS 09 - Safety_12- 2025_Draft.docx, 2.3.2

ARMS OSHA 300 Logs

Many of the existing TUAs do not require the tenants to provide OSHA 300 logs to the operating contractor and these are not publicly available documents; what is the mechanism for the operating contractor of the new contract to require tenants to provide OSHA 300 logs? Will the new operating contractor be required to renegotiate modifications to existing TUAs to incorporate this requirement?

The USG is continuing review into this question.

PWS 12 -

ARMS_12_2025_Draft.

docx, 1.2 and all DRFP documents

The contractor may be authorized to use the facility for commercial, non-government, government, third party, and/or tenant use under the authorization and in compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 45 and the ARMS Initiative.

The definitions of third party, commercial, and government used in PWS 12 are inconsistent with the definitions laid out in the last Q&A (see the USG response on Q.94). Will the USG revise the definitions in this PWS to reflect the definitions provided in the Q&A response?

The USG will update this language in the next DRFP.

PWS 12 -

ARMS_12_2025_Draft.

docx, 5.1

On-Time Rent Payments: Ensure that each tenant pays their rent on-time each month or billing cycle

Because the operating contractor cannot force the tenant pay their rent on time, recommend the USG restate this requirement such that the operating contractor must monitor rent payments and take appropriate steps if a tenant does not pay on time.

Language will remain as is

58 ARMS_12_2025_Draft.d Should the contractor not perform IAW with this PWS, the PCO shall have the authority to decrement the CIF payment.

Will the USG please further clarify under what conditions the PCO will implement a decrement to the CIF payment and how such decrement will be calculated?

This is not defined at this time but will be at the discretion of the PCO and will have reasoning associated with it shall this event occur.

PWS 13 RFAAP

Technology and Cyber

Security_12_2025_Draf t.docx, 6.1

Operational Technology/Information Technology Cybersecurity Program.

The Operating Contractor (OC) shall establish or maintain a cross functional team dedicated to executing a comprehensive cybersecurity program for OT/IT used in the process control environment. This team should include but not be limited to, members of the OT/IT Cybersecurity team and engineering controls team with the capability to execute a comprehensive cybersecurity program for OT systems. See section 2.1.5 for more information. The OC shall establish and maintain a list of policies and procedures laid out within this PWS and in accordance with the NIST guidance. They shall present their OT cybersecurity plan to the government for review and acceptance. See section 2.1.6 for more information.

This section references sections 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 which appear to be numbering from the original RFP. Needs to be updated for new version.

Yes; the USG will update the numbering.

PWS 15 - ALTESS

SUPPORT

SERVICES_12_2025_Dr aft.docx

Emergency Maintenance: The contractor will respond to emergency maintenance calls within a 4 hour period. All non-emergency maintenance calls will be responded to in a timely fashion with the initial assessment to occur not more than 7 days from notification by the local Army Staff POC.

Will the USG please provide a definition of emergency maintenance in this requirement?

Emergency maintenance for PWS 15 will be identified in the maintenance request.

PWS 15 - ALTESS

SUPPORT

SERVICES_12_2025_Dr aft.docx, Custodial and trash removal section.

At least two custodians present at Building 450 during day shift for safety purposes.

This statement assumes that 2 janitorial personnel are required at Building 450 during the day shift at all times while the subsequent section of the SOW also states that they are required in ALTESS areas of Building 220. Will the USG clarify whether this means there should be 2 janitorial personnel at 450 and 2 additional janitors for ALTESS spaces in 220 concurrently, meaning 4 total personnel during the day shift, or does the USG mean that a total of 2 janitorial personnel will support ALTESS spaces in both 220 and 450 during the day shift?

The 2 janitorial staff requirement only applies to building 450. The Contractor can determine how they would want to execute janitorial for the ALTESS section of building 220.

In the schedule attached to this meeting invite, it indicates Industry Day 7 will occur in January. Is this accurate that another Industry Day is planned? Will any follow up Industry Days be in person or virtual as well? Will there be a published attendee list for this Industry Day?

USG plans to conduct upcoming Industry Days onsite and in person in preparation for final RFP release. Yes, the USG will post an attendee list. The USG will post an updated schedule with the Q&As.

Can you provide a target date for proposal submission? Do you know when the USG will be able to provide this date to Industry?

The USG will provide this in next DRFP.

If additional information is supplied during the oral presentation, will the slides govern, or will the oral version take precedence? Will one be weighted any more than the other?

The oral presentation and slides will be evaluated comprehensively against the applicable evaluation factors and subfactors. Specific weights are not assigned to the oral transcription vs slides; they supplement each other.

If there is a written and an oral requirement, both being evaluated, they supplement each other as a whole. Is this an accurate statement?

Correct.

How will the assessment/evaluation be executed by the USG? Can you provide more guidance? Who is evaluating?

Are the written parts being evaluated at the same time as the oral presentation is being conducted?

Evaluation of each oral presentation will be conducted by select USG evaluators. When Section L requires both an oral presentation and written submission, the overall evaluation will encompass both.

Additional clarification on oral presentations will be provided in the next DRFP.

67 How will the orals be structured? Will they be separated across multiple days depending on factor/subfactor? One right after another?

The USG will clarify the structure of the oral presentations in the next

DRFP.

68 Are Offerors allowed to bring a translator to their Oral Presentation to accompany any non-native English speakers?

Yes. This translator will be included in the total number of personnel permitted (10) for that presentation.

69 Will the oral presentation be interactive, or will the contractor present for an hour with the USG providing feedback afterward?

The USG will clarify the structure of the oral presentations in the next

DRFP.

70 What is the target submission date for the written proposal, and what is the approximate time frame for the oral presentation part?

Please refer to the next DRFP for proposal submission timeframe and Section L for oral presentation time limitations.

71 Is there a file size limit for the oral presentation slides since we are allowed to embed video clips?

IAW the DOD SAFE User Guide, one (1) Drop-Off submission may include up to 25 files totaling up to 8GB. In the event a file is larger than 8GB, multiple DoD SAFE links should be requested and will be provided by the USG. The USG is also considering use of the PIEE Solicitation Module for proposal submission. Additional clarification on this will be incorporated into the next DRFP.

To confirm, the past performance and pricing sections will be delivered in written form, while the small business section will be delivered orally?

Correct.

Will the outgoing operating contractor have production requirements during the transition year? If so, what contract language and guardrails can the USG include that allows full, unabated access to all areas of the facility for the incoming operating contractor during this time?

Details pertaining to transition will be incorporated into PWS 8.

74 “Less significant work of Reset Plan to be done within first six months.” Is this after the transition year?

It means after contract award but details need to be worked out to ensure reset projects do not interrupt production. The 3-year Facility Reset requirement begins at full operational control. The Contractor may negotiate earlier access with the incumbent.

Can the USG provide additional details, including descriptions and the exact status of each project in the provided Projects in Execution list, in real time?

-The NC propellant FAAT is expected to be completed in January 2026. Is it on track to be completed, and if so, when will the results be provided?

-When the USG says “completed,” does that mean “commissioned” or “qualified”? Additional clarifications would be helpful in terms of defining what “completed” means in the projects list status column.

-For the NG 3 30% Design project, once the 30% Design program is complete is the USG planning to place the project on hold until the new contractor comes onboard?

-If any of the project timelines changes, the Reset Plan will need to change accordingly. Our underlying assumption is that everything will be completed before transitioning over. Is that a correct assumption?

The USG is considering providing additional scope details on each project. Current projects are projected to be completed ahead of the Successor taking over operational control. In the event project timelines change and affect transition, the Projects in Execution list will be updated.

The definition of "completed" varies by project; essentially all contractual requirements of the project have been completed.

The NG 3 30% Design project is broken into phases based on funding.

The next phase will occur after contract award.

What is the current production profile for each product listed (NC, triple base, etc.)? Does the USG expect the new operating contractor to assume all operational risks for all processes, based on existing productivity vs. design capabilities or production profile?

This information can be obtained through the Virtual Library and *Section where disclosing capacity information - ref Industrial Capacity or delete.* In addition, the USG does intend to mitigate operational risk through the resources provided under the Reset Plan.

Can the USG provide a complete equipment list with existing operational condition and status for each product line? Meaning, what works vs. what does not.

Yes, this will be provided as part of the Baseline Facility Assessment

(BFA).

Per Volume 2 – Operations, Subfactor 1, Subsection 2g, “optimize the modernized NC facility and linked improvements for the legacy facility,” to confirm, is the USG expecting the incoming contractor to operate both plants once the new NC facility is up and running? What is the transition plan from the legacy facility to the new NC facility once completed?

The intent is not to require the contractor to run NC facilities indefinitely. However, certain buildings will need to remain operational. The USG will list which facilities continue to be operational and will provide in the next DRFP.

79 With respect to US direct and indirect requirements, will Industry receive what the direct work requirements will be?

The USG is currently contemplating a minimum portion of a total annual buy for selected propellant items to be directed and will be determined by DRFP #2.

80 Will subcontractors data rights be covered under the primes data rights assertions rather than being separated out?

The USG is still working the answer to this question.

What level of risk is the USG expecting the Offeror to assume considering existing operational conditions at

RFAAP?

The USG believes it has adequately addressed risk. The USG is providing substantial risk mitigation…