Questions Answers for Industry Day Aug 20.docx

PMA-264 DDVLA Industry Day Questions & Answers 20 August 2025 | Precise Systems, Lexington Park, MD

Questions/Responses during Brief and in One-on-Ones Q1: When is the Request for White Paper (RWP) going to be released?

A1: Current plan is to release an RWP at the end of the calendar year 2025.

Q2: What is the contract type?

A2: Government intends to pursue a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Competitive Other Transaction Agreement (OTA).

Q3: Who will this OTA be through?

A3: Naval Aviation Systems Consortium (NASC)

Q4: Will the OTA have milestone reimbursements? Can that timeline be advertised?

A4: That is the Government’s current intent. The timeline is TBD.

Q5: What is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL)? Have the buoys been air deployed?

A5: TRL 6; yes, they have been air-deployed.

Q6: Are there functional requirements not finalized that are anticipated for the EMD Phase?

A6: A Production Sonobuoy Specification (PSS) will be provided for the SSQ-145 along with a Technical Data Package (TDP) for the acoustic array assembly.

Q7: Will information such as the upper stack battery design and assembly size be provided?

A7: Technical data on the prototype battery will be provided. However, battery performance and qualification are the vendor’s responsibility.

Q8: For the battery redesign that was mentioned, is redesign required? Is the split battery the preference?

A8: Government is agnostic, but cost and qualification requirements should be considered. Government is open to having battery redesigned but it is not a requirement; battery design will be included in the TDP, but it will not be qualified. Battery performance is not guaranteed. Vendors should include full battery qualification and potential redesign into their schedule.

Q9: Does the power of the prototype upper and lower stacks meet requirements?

A9: It is not guaranteed that prototype batteries will meet the requirements.

Q10: Is the increased button spacing on the upper stack required as this has the potential to drive redesign/costs?

A10: Government is undecided but open to conversation/discussions on the matter prior to RWP.

Q11: Will there be a statement of work (SOW)?

A11: Government’s intent is to release a statement of need and work the SOW as a collaborative effort.

Q12: What are your cost targets?

A12: Cost targets will be discussed with the Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP).

Q13: How will industry ask any other questions about this effort? Will the Government handle all relationships with SeaLandAire (SLA)?

A13: It is the Government’s intent to facilitate the relationship between vendors and SLA. With regard to this effort, all questions should be directed to the Government Contracts team for coordination with SLA via the formal Request for Information (RFI) process. Please submit any questions to Anthony Gatlin and Regina Ford using the RFI template that is also attached to this posting. To reduce administrative burden, please bundle your questions into as few RFIs as possible and submit next round of question by 30 September 2025. Also note that all Questions and Answers will be distributed to industry.

Q14: What Data Rights are in the TDP? And what Data Rights is the Government pursuing from this effort?

A14: TBD

Q15: What parts of the lower stack have the highest risk? Will the testing results be shared?

A15: Government intends to provide the unclassified risk and test summary reports at a later date.

Q16: Who will be responsible for software maintenance and updates? Who has design authority on software?

A15: The government will maintain configuration management of the TDP through the completion of Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) for the lower.

Q17: Government brief emphasized speed, have you considered how speed will introduce more Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs). Is there a weighting to cost versus design?

A17: Government is aware of the potential for more ECPs. Acquisition decision on weighting/priority of cost versus design has not been decided yet.

Q18: Speed will be more easily achieved in Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) if production plan is running parallel to EMD? Has the Government considered this?

A18: Government’s current intent is to pursue an OTA. A successful EMD contract may lead to a LRIP contract.

Q19: If the TDP and other requirements documents are provided at RPP, a 30-day turn-around is likely not achievable. Has the Government considered draft documents being released prior to final RPP?

A19: The Government is currently discussing alternative paths to the 30-day RPP as well as looking into our ability to release the draft documents. More to come as our desire is to provide as much information as early as possible. If you have a list of information you believe you would need prior to final RPP, please submit a prioritized list via the formal RFI process mentioned in a previous question.

Q20: What is the full-length allocation (the full size of the lower) for the new sonobuoy? And can that be provided prior to RPP?

A20: This information is included in the TDP.

Q21: Is a Security Classification Guide (SCG) required, and if so when will it be provided?

A21: Yes, SCG will be required and will be distributed once it is finalized.

Q22: Will this buoy need to be built in a classified building?

A22: No.

Q23: What is the contractor expected to fund versus what will the Government be funding specifically with regard to government required tasking and activities?

A23: Government expectations are to have similar funding structures based on how our current OTAs are set up.

Q24: Will the lower stack meet the shelf-life requirements?

A24: With the exception of the battery, the array components are expected to meet shelf-life requirements. However, packaged buoy shelf-life requirements must be met by the complete buoy and are the responsibility of the vendor (including testing).

Q25: Will the lower stack meet the shock requirements?

A25: The lower stack is designed to meet shock requirements. However, packaging of the buoy components are the vendor’s responsibility as are meeting all shock and vibration requirements for the entire buoy (including testing).

Q26: Does the lower stack contain secret source?

A26: Does not include secret source.

Q27: Will SLA be a directed source under the OTA or will they be a member of the Government integration team? Will a subcontractor agreement be required? Are they funded for integration?

A27: SLA will be the design agent and a member of the Government integration team; they are funded for Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) and expected to update the TDP throughout EMD. No official subcontractor agreement is required, however, Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) will be required.

Q28: Is battery qualification included in EMD or is that a separate effort? And will the government team or other agencies be available for battery qualification and/or support during qualification.

A28: All qualification is included in the EMD phase and Government team will be available. Latest battery qualification requirements will come as part of the RPP.

Q29: Does the Government have estimated quantities? Will this replace other buoys?

A29: Quantities will be provided in the RPP. The Government’s current intent is not to replace a buoy, but in the future, buys may be equal quantities of Q-145 and Q-101. The goal of EMD is to ultimately go to LRIP.

Q30: Will vendors have to buy licensing from SLA?

A30: Buying licensing from SLA is not a government requirement.

Q31: What are the deployment depths, the should-costs, and NRE budget?

A31: These have not been finalized yet.

Q32: What specialized tooling will be needed and will it be provided?

A32: If there is any, the TDP will cover it.

Q33: Will radio encryption be required?

A33: No

Q34: Will a PSS be provided?

A34: Yes.

Q35: Is the expected quantity for Production Validation & Verification (PVV) the same as usual?

A35: As of this moment, that is the Government’s intent.

Q36: Is the goal to have two vendors for EMD and two vendors for LRIP?

A36: No.

Q37: Will there be a list of piece parts and are any of them sole source?

A37: Piece parts will be provided in the TDP; any unique or sole source parts will also be provided.

Q38: Design and prototype are part of what phase?

A38: Development

Q39: Does software exist in a deployable state or will it need to be tweaked?

A39: Intent is for initial sonobuoy firmware and software to be in the TDP for the lower stack. Development of vendor specific interfaces for inclusion in the lower array design and TDP is expected to occur during EMD.

Q40: What is the anticipated release of the PSS?

A40: PSS will be released with the RPP; action has been taken to see if the Government can release a draft version sooner.

Q41: What does the Government consider the biggest risk of the program?

A41: Reliability because of desired speed; vendor capacity to produce quantities in EMD at speed; qualification schedule; expecting minimal technical risk as the TDP decreases risk associated with buoy lower unit.

Q42: Can we have a copy of today’s brief?

A42: It is an attachment to this posting.

Q43: Will solid models in digital format be provided as part of the TDP?

A43: Yes, solid models in digital format will be provided as part of the final TDP.

Q44: Can the Government supply Q-145 buoy operating depths?

A44: The operating depths will be specified in the PSS.

Q45: Is there a should-cost for the battery?

A45: No.

Q46: Are there special Sonobuoy Launch Container (SLC) requirements?

A46: No.

Q47: What is the communication cadence prior to Request for Proposal (RFP)?

A47: The formal RFI process will be used.

Q48: Will MIL-STD-464D still apply?

A48: Yes.

Emailed Question Q1: Can the Government provide a list of the Industry Day attendants?

A2: Yes. It is an attachment to this posting.