RFI-PGI-20260929-AMD002.pdf

RFI-PGI-20260929

AMD 002

Question ID Question Response Category

15 What will the Navy’s contribution be? The Navy will provide the land. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

18 What role would a company play within the development? Clarifying whether they would be a standalone energy provider, partner to the master developer, or support resilience and excess power opportunities.

Respondents to this RFI could fulfill many roles, anyhere from master developer to energy provider to tenant within the larger facility.

Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

26 Do developers need to show up to this? They sought clarity on whether DoN expects developers to scope land, produce site plans, and manage the environmental/permitting pipeline.

Yes, the DON needs developers to provide responses to this RFI indicating their ability to develop the available land as needed.

Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

27 Is the DON expecting developers to propose the full land use and development plan?

Yes. The DON has no capital and intends to leverage non-excess Navy parcels via a long term lease.

Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

37 What magnitude of commercial investment is expected, and are any federal appropriations budgeted?

The Navy cannot yet speak to expected commercial investment.

Industrial capacity in Hawaii is insufficient today. No known federal appropriations currently exist for Pacific Greenfield.

Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

41 Participation Model for Specialized Technology Suppliers Amendment 001 confirms that specialized small businesses may propose individual manufacturing capabilities rather than developing or operating the entire campus. Would the DON also consider a model in which a specialized company provides proprietary materials, manufacturing processes, equipment specifications, and technical support, while an industrial partner operates the manufacturing cell on Oahu? Would such companies be encouraged to submit independent RFI responses or participate primarily through a larger developer's proposal?

Yes, the DON encourages responses from all types of entities as independent proposals and/or through a larger developer's proposal as is feasible for that entity. The intent of this RFI is to understand what is in the realm of possible, including whether existing respondent partnerships can be leveraged or respondents have niche capabilities that could be included in the overall effort.

Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

42 Integration and Teaming Opportunities Does the DON anticipate establishing a process to connect specialized materials and manufacturing technology providers with prospective campus developers or anchor partners? Alternatively, would the DON consider identifying relevant capabilities from individual RFI responses and facilitating introductions during subsequent phases of the initiative?

Please see Question 41. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

45 Must the Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) lessee and the Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) prototype performer be the same legal entity, or may DON structure these as separate instruments held by different parties?

At this time, the DON has not defined the various instruments to be used and that will be driven in part by information received by respondents to this RFI.

Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

47 Would DON consider authorizing the deployment of modular or containerized manufacturing cells on non-excess Navy property to enable production to begin in advance of permanent facility construction?

Yes. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

48 For a specialized small business proposing an individual process cell, as contemplated in Question 12 of AMD 001, what contracting or real estate instrument would bring that cell onto the site: a sublease from the anchor lessee, a direct license or right-of-entry from DON, a direct OTA with DON, or membership in a consortium arrangement? Which party would hold privity of contract or lease with the Government?

This has not yet been determined. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

50 Does DON intend to facilitate a teaming mechanism, such as an interested-parties list or consortium structure, to help specialized small businesses identify and partner with an anchor developer, rather than requiring each respondent to independently assemble a full-campus proposal?

Please see Question 41. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

Solicitation No. RFI-PGI-20260929, REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - PACIFIC GREENFIELD INITIATIVE (ADVANCED MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL RESILIENCE OPPORTUNITY ON OAHU, HI) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

71 Will the Navy consider a phased start, with work performed off-island ahead of facility build-out on Oahu?

Yes, please provide the associated details of this phased start, i.e. off-island location, associated logistics, timeline. etc.

Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

72 Where the DON uses an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) alongside a prototype Other Transaction Agreement (OTA), would it prefer a single campus agreement holder with subleases or operating agreements for individual process cells, or may several operators hold separate agreements under a common master plan?

Please see Question 41. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

73 Does the DON anticipate separate selections for the site developer, advanced-manufacturing anchor, and individual manufacturing operators, or one integrated selection? May an unincorporated teaming arrangement respond at the RFI stage, with legal-entity formation deferred to a later competition?

Please see Question 41. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

75 Would the DON consider an Intergovernmental Support Agreement (IGSA) or coordinated state/local-government arrangement for infrastructure, workforce training, permitting, or utilities, and which governmental entities would have responsibility for such coordination?

Yes, however the details of this are unknown at this time. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

76 Which federal capital or industrial-base programs, if any, would the DON regard as compatible with privately financed development under an EUL, and would DON coordinate with applicable program offices (for example Office of Strategic Capital, DPA Title III, IBAS, or related programs)?

This has not yet been determined. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

77 Would the DON consider a phased campus approach in which initial process cells, utilities, and footprint are sized to demonstrated capability and market demand, with later expansion subject to defined milestones, rather than requiring full buildout at inception?

Yes, please provide the associated details of this phased approach, i.e. concept, logistics, timeline. etc.

Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

82 Would DON consider a coordinated concept in which manufacturing and mission-critical activities occupy non-excess Navy property, while workforce housing, childcare, training facilities, and commercial support functions are placed on separately controlled off-base parcels? How should the interface be represented in the RFI response?

Sites are anticipated to be off base on non-excess Navy land. Please outline in detail the concept envisioned using mixed parcel types in your RFI response.

Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

83 What role, if any, does the DON envision for Hawaii community colleges, universities, labor organizations, and registered apprenticeship programs in the formation or evaluation of a workforce-development pipeline? Would the DON prefer a single consortium-led plan or operator-specific training programs?

All of these are great avenues for a workforce development pipeline and the DON is open to all potential arrangements at this time, to understand what is in the realm of possible.

Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

84 Are there mission-specific skill, credential, labor-availability, or workforce-readiness measures the DON recommends respondents use when comparing proposals that combine existing workers, apprenticeships, and new technical training capacity?

Not at this time. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

85 Would the DON welcome a staged workforce-training model that begins with classroom and hands-on work at off-base training facilities and transitions qualified personnel into on-base production activities as security and job qualifications permit? What policy constraints should be addressed at the concept stage?

Please see Question 82. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

92 Would the DoN consider occupancy of existing space under an OT or license before an EUL is executed?

That is unknown at this time. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

106 What are the anticipated EUL lease term, consideration structure (cash vs.

in-kind), and antiterrorism/force protection (ATFP) setback requirements?

That is unknown at this time. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

108 Does DON envision one anchor developer with subtenants, a consortium, or several independent performers? Are teaming arrangements encouraged?

Please see Question 41. Development Model & Stakeholder Roles

5 How are you coordinating ERP/MES layers across multiple Greenfield tenants, and have you considered machine level telemetry and traceability?

The Forge has an ERP today, but no specific ERP has been chosen for Greenfield. The government is still determining how systems like DigitalVault will tie in. They have not yet gone in depth on telemetry, cross tenant integration, or machine level traceability and welcome industry recommendations on what should be considered.

Digital Architecture & Data Integration

29 In our response, do you want us suggesting how we can incorporate digital qualification

The Navy is not expecting a digital qualification solution in the response. The digital qualification work shown was to illustrate what the Navy is doing; an RFP may later include requirements to support network compute or qualification capabilities.

Digital Architecture & Data Integration

31 Is the Forge the only place that can provide inputs to Greenfield, and how do technical data packages flow from the services or industry

No, the Forge is not the only input source. Each service maintains its own repository of technical data, and industry partners have their own data packages as well. The Forge may help assemble or prepare technical data packages, but inputs to Greenfield can come from multiple services or industry sources.

Digital Architecture & Data Integration

33 Is there a requirement for Pacific Greenfield to develop technical data packages beyond what the Forge can do?

No. The intention is that military or industry partners bring their own technical data packages. Greenfield is not expected to create them.

Digital Architecture & Data Integration

35 Do unique apps or tools need to exist at both Forge and Greenfield for digital qualification to work

No. Digital qualification accounts for different machines and materials.

The machines do not need to match; they only require similar capability. Subtractive machines must be used for subtractive processes, but otherwise the system can compare output from different platforms.

Digital Architecture & Data Integration

54 What data rights posture does DON anticipate for process data, qualification data packages, and sensor or software intellectual property that a respondent brings to the initiative as pre-existing commercial technology, as distinct from technology developed under government funding?

This will be determined after this RFI. Digital Architecture & Data Integration

64 What data rights framework will apply to TDPs, build parameters, and process data developed at the campus (Unlimited, Government Purpose, or Limited/Restricted Rights under DFARS 252.227-7013/7014)?

This will be determined after this RFI. Digital Architecture & Data Integration

67 What IT infrastructure and applications are being utilized for the digital ecosystem?

Please see Question 5. Digital Architecture & Data Integration

68 What resources/systems are proposed tenants expected to deploy to engage with digital TDPs created by Forge for consumption at Greenfield?

Please see Question 5. Digital Architecture & Data Integration

86 For proposed digital-engineering and part-qualification workflows, should respondents identify their own proposed acceptance authorities, standards, data-rights assumptions, and audit/traceability approach by part family, or is there a DON-preferred governance process for approving production and inspecting parts?

Yes, please propose what you recommend and this can be vetted later against anything the DON may have and/or help inform how the DON should proceed.

Digital Architecture & Data Integration

87 At the concept stage, what baseline cyber, export-control, and controlled-information assumptions should respondents apply to commercial and defense-adjacent process cells (including potential ITAR/EAR, NIST SP 800- 171/CMMC, and classified work), and should security tiers be presented as alternatives rather than a universal requirement?

This is not known at this time. Digital Architecture & Data Integration

98 Where no government-owned TDP exists, will DON authorize reverse engineering, and who holds the data rights to the resulting TDP?

Yes, reverse engineering is planned and data rights to the resulting TDP is TBD.

Digital Architecture & Data Integration

99 What is the intended mechanism for sharing technical data between DON and campus operators? Examples include a government-hosted digital thread or repository, or direct transfer to an accredited contractor enclave.

That is unknown at this time. Digital Architecture & Data Integration

103 What cybersecurity compliance will be required: CMMC Level 2 (self-assessment or C3PAO certification) or Level 3? Will a Facility Clearance (FCL) or classified processing capability be needed at the campus?

Please see Question 87. Digital Architecture & Data Integration

4 What are the preferred land characteristics, such as power availability, water access, and zoning considerations

That is unknown at this time. In your response, please include what requirements you have for your operation and/or if there are certain aspects that you could provide, i.e. utilities.

Land, Utilities & Infrastructure

9 What is the expected utility capability on potential sites? None of the candidate government sites currently have sufficient power or water to meet the needs of a Pacific Greenfield–scale facility. To achieve required capacity, any future developer would need to work with local utilities or generate power onsite. This challenge is part of the ongoing research and RFI process, and industry is being asked to propose feasible infrastructure solutions and timelines for delivering adequate utilities.

Land, Utilities & Infrastructure

13 What type of land (size, constraints, infrastructure) would be available, and what are the Navy's expectations for the site?

The DON is identifying non-excess Navy parcels that can best meet developer and manufacturer requirements as informed by the RFI.

Currently, government sites do not have sufficient utility infrastructure;

therefore DON expects developments to be self-sustaining and environmentally sound.

Land, Utilities & Infrastructure

16 Will the power for the facility be independently procured, or part of a broader master developer contract?

Please see Question 9. In addition, the Navy values resiliency/islanding and energy could be provided under an EUL.

Land, Utilities & Infrastructure

63 What electrical capacity (MW) is currently available at candidate sites, and who owns/operates the distribution grid (DON vs. Hawaiian Electric)?

Please see Question 9. Land, Utilities & Infrastructure

79 For respondents proposing phased industrial development, are there minimum operational boundaries or site-planning requirements that the DON expects all concepts to preserve, such as logistics access, shared safety zones, expansion corridors, or separation of manufacturing processes?

This will be determined after this RFI. Land, Utilities & Infrastructure

80 Should proposals treat connection to existing installation power or microgrid assets as an option to evaluate, or does the DON prefer a demonstrably self-sustaining energy design with dedicated generation, storage, and islanding?

What interface constraints should respondents assume?

Please see Question 9. Land, Utilities & Infrastructure

90 Does the DoN have a planning range for the total campus footprint (acres and building square footage), and for the advanced manufacturing anchor portion? (Horizon sizing)

This will be determined after this RFI. Land, Utilities & Infrastructure

107 Will the site have pier, crane, or heavy-haul access for large structural prints and feedstock deliveries?

This will be determined after this RFI. Land, Utilities & Infrastructure

6 Is repair—via cold spray or other methods—a candidate capability for Greenfield, or is repair work intended only for The Forge and expeditionary elements?

Repair is not a primary fit for Greenfield, which will focus on scale production. Repair, refurbishment, and temporary fixes are better aligned with The Forge or the expeditionary side. Cold spray may still have niche applicability, but it is not expected to be a central Greenfield function.

Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

7 Will Greenfield support both refurbishment/rework and new component production, and how will replacement priorities be managed during widespread demand (e.g., many units needing the same part)?

The government is still determining how prioritization will work and how to balance replacement vs. rework at scale. This is part of what the RFI process is intended to inform—how industry envisions workflows, capabilities, and prioritization methods within a multi tenant environment.

Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

22 Are there warranty limitations when acquiring or producing parts outside of the original manufacturer?

The DON acknowledges this concern but we are not yet at the stage of defining warranty rules or certification obligations for PGI-produced parts.

Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

36 What additive and subtractive modalities does the Forge have today? Forge capabilities include multiple wire machines, laser systems, subtractive machining equipment (3 mills, 2 lathes), voltage analysis devices, 3D scanning equipment, and metrology equipment. More machines will come online, but they are awaiting adequate power infrastructure before activation.

Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

51 Will DON designate a specific naval engineering authority, such as NAVSEA or Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard engineering, as the certifying authority for parts and welds produced under this initiative?

This will be determined after this RFI. Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

52 If a certifying authority is designated, is there an established Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) or Technology Readiness Level (TRL) threshold a process cell would need to meet to achieve initial operating capability within the digital qualification pipeline?

This is not known at this time. Please provide your capabalities in your RFI response.

Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

53 Given that the RFI identifies Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard as a demand source, is there a mechanism for respondents to engage PHNSY engineering directly during the RFI or RFP period to align welding and qualification standards prior to proposal submission?

Not for this RFI and TBD for an RFP. Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

65 Which specific technical authority (e.g., NAVSEA 05, NAVAIR AIR-4.0, or PHNSY local authority) will hold ultimate approval for material or process substitutions?

This will be determined after this RFI. Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

66 How will the Pacific Greenfield campus integrate with PHNSY’s existing AM facilities, the Navy AM Center of Excellence, and NAVSEA qualification programs?

This will be determined after this RFI. Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

96 Will AM parts be expected to serve as permanent replacements meeting full service-life requirements? Or will DON accept interim or "fit-for-deployment" parts with defined service limits until an OEM part is available?

This will be determined after this RFI. Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

100 Will each production order specify the performance requirements the part must meet, such as pressure rating, loads, or environment? Will the producer be responsible for testing and certifying those requirements, or will the government do it? This is a problem that exists today.

This will be determined after this RFI. Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

101 Will certification testing (tensile, hardness, NDE, metallography, etc.) be done by each producer, by a government lab, or by an independent accredited third-party lab on the campus?

This will be determined after this RFI. Manufacturing & Sustainment Capabilities

1 Is there a viable pathway for companies without aviation certifications to contribute to defense manufacturing (e.g., drones, autonomous subsurface vehicles, or other components not requiring OEM certification)?

Yes. Many components needed by the services do not require OEM controlled or aviation grade certifications. Alternative fabrication approaches (including carbon fiber) are often acceptable. In addition, some required parts have no existing OEM support and rapid restoration of capability is often the priority—making local, flexible manufacturers valuable contributors.

Mission & Production Priorities

3 What are potential broad categories of high priority parts (e.g., connectors, hydraulics) planned to be produced

This has not yet been defined and will be partially informed from responses to this RFI.

Mission & Production Priorities

10 Requesting more clarity on the envisioned output, i.e., boundary conditions, priority components, types of components, materials, sizes, applications?

What is the path for commercial demand offtake?

This has not yet been defined and will be partially informed from responses to this RFI.

Mission & Production Priorities

11 What specifically does JBPHH want to build in Hawaii versus CONUS? There are no specific part categories desired to be manuafactured in Hawaii vs. CONUS. It is a matter of building as much as possible in Hawaii to avoid having to reach back to CONUS and succumb to the associated logistics (part availability, lengthy delivery timeline, etc).

Mission & Production Priorities

12 What is the “envelope” of need that defines the business case to determine whether returns justify investment.

This has not yet been defined and will be partially informed from responses to this RFI.

Mission & Production Priorities

19 Does the Navy have an idea of a throughput for this facility? How many kg? Not at this time. Mission & Production Priorities

28 Is the Navy open to considering both this hub and the spoke as part of this particular proposal… including deployable and expeditionary capabilities?

No — not for Greenfield. Greenfield is intended for consistent, industrial-scale production. The Navy is interested in expeditionary capability, but that is not part of the Greenfield transaction.

Mission & Production Priorities

30 Is the only method for production at Greenfield coming from the Forge, or are there other sources?

No, not just the Forge. Other military and industry mechanisms could also provide inputs. The Forge is envisioned as the primary customer, but not the only source.

Mission & Production Priorities

32 Is there openness for dual use capability — supporting other services or even civilian needs?

Yes. This is 100% the intent. Greenfield will support all military services and will have dual use applicability. PACFLT is leading the effort for the entire joint force. Components commonly overlap with commercial sector needs, enabling broad utility. There is recognized value in meeting commercial sector needs, but limited to the extent component demands are prioritized.

Mission & Production Priorities

34 Can you elaborate on deployability of Pacific Greenfield vs. fixed lines? Is any part of Greenfield deployable?

Nothing in Greenfield is deployable. Expeditionary production will be done by Joint Theater Distribution Centers and forward manufacturing cells, not by Greenfield.

Mission & Production Priorities

38 Are there projections or quantities (requirements) known for parts? Broadly: yes, there is significant demand. Hawaii needs local production to support shipyard availabilities. Demand is high and expected to continue. The Navy’s AMCAT (Advanced Manufacturing Cost Assessment Tool) is coming online and will allow for better understanding of parts requirements.

Mission & Production Priorities

39 Are requirements sufficient to sustain a facility of that size? Yes. Multiple services face persistent shortages, immature supply chains, obsolescence, and high demand for parts — enough to sustain Greenfield.

Mission & Production Priorities

40 Is there room at the Forge and Greenfield to scale drone related sustainment (motors, batteries, etc.)?

Yes. The Forge and Greenfield can support manufacturing of unmanned systems components, around 95% of what is needed for these systems. The only exclusion is energetics.

Mission & Production Priorities

43 Functional Materials and Electronics Manufacturing The RFI identifies composites, electronics, wiring, and material feedstock processing among the desired capabilities. Would the DON consider multi-material additive manufacturing of functional polymer composites—including electrically conductive, EMI-shielding, and thermally conductive materials—as a relevant capability for producing replacement electronics enclosures, grounding components, and other specialized parts? Are there particular component categories or performance requirements that the DON would encourage respondents to address?

Yes, the DON would consider multi-material additive manufacturing of functional polymer composites a relevant capability. At this time, the DON is not focused on specific categories and is interested in learning what industry can provide.

Mission & Production Priorities

57 Will DON identify priority part families (critical components, subassemblies, structural parts) prior to the RFP, including drawings, material specs, and target certification levels (e.g., Level I/SUBSAFE vs. non-critical)? If not at this time, can we expect that DON will identify it in the future. Future capability to support DON will be dependent upon this information as all AM is not equal. Some parts will require Laser Powder Bed Fusion, and some will be better suited for Direct Energy Deposition or WAAM.

This has not yet been defined and will be partially informed from responses to this RFI. Please provide the capabilities you can provide to allow the DON to understand what is in the realm of possible.

Mission & Production Priorities

59 Can DON provide an estimated annual demand range (part count or machine-hours) to assist respondents in right-sizing facilities and capital modeling?

This has not yet been defined and will be partially informed from responses to this RFI. Please provide the capabilities you can provide to allow the DON to understand what is in the realm of possible.

Mission & Production Priorities

69 While we understand volumes and specific parts are not available, are there part categories that the Navy is looking to solve with the Greenfield capability? If yes, what are they?

Please see Question 3. Mission & Production Priorities

88 Is the objective to produce/manufacture entire systems on the “Invest Low” side (Low Cost USVs & UUVs, Loitering Munitions & Drone Swarms, etc.) in addition to maintaining/repairing the “Invest High” side (stealth platforms, advanced submarines)?

The facility is envisioned as having the ability to produce at scale across all part categories.

Mission & Production Priorities

89 If so, for production of entire systems on the “Invest Low” side (low-cost USVs, UAVs etc), would design-for-manufacturability be a factor of interest?

I.e. where part of the proposed solution is a UAV/USV design approach that enables rapid prototyping/scalable mass production of entire UAV/USV platforms with low overhead?

PGI is less about design and more about production at scale.

Recommendations from industry regarding "Invest Low" improvements should be referred to specific services or military commands (and not to PGI contacts).

Mission & Production Priorities

97 Who will decide which parts are produced, in what quantities, and by which performer? What role will the Pacific Fleet, PHNSY, NAVSUP, and the technical warrant holders each play?

This has not yet been defined and will be partially informed from responses to this RFI.

Mission & Production Priorities

102 Is DON technology-agnostic, or does it have priorities for specific AM processes? Examples include LPBF, WAAM/DED, additive friction stir deposition, cold spray, binder jet, and polymer/composite processes. What material systems are of greatest interest (steels, Ni-Cu, Ni-Al bronze, titanium, aluminum, composites)?

This has not yet been defined and will be partially informed from responses to this RFI. Please provide the capabilities you can provide to allow the DON to understand what is in the realm of possible.

Mission & Production Priorities

104 To what degree may campus capacity serve commercial and State of Hawaii customers, such as HDOT, utilities, construction, maritime, aviation, and disaster response? Will DON set a minimum share of capacity reserved for government work?

This has not yet been defined and will be partially informed from responses to this RFI.

Mission & Production Priorities

2 What are the candidate locations on the island that fit the Greenfield vision? That is unknown at this time. Site Selection & Location

17 Does the Navy have any parcels in mind for the facility? Please see Question 2. Site Selection & Location 25 Where will this be located? Please see Question 2. Site Selection & Location 61 Which candidate parcels on Oahu are under consideration, and what are their acreage, zoning, existing structures, and known environmental baseline conditions?

Please see Question 2. Site Selection & Location

62 How will commercial customers, non-cleared staff, and foreign nationals access the campus if located inside the installation perimeter? Is an outside-the-fence layout permitted? If not now, will DON request input and incorporate input from private contractors.

The site(s) are planned to be off-installation, but still on federal property AND/OR subject to contractual limitations depending on nature of work to be performed. This will be determined after this RFI..

Site Selection & Location

91 Can space inside or adjacent to an operating industrial activity, such as Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard or the IMF, be proposed as ‘existing non-excess Navy property,’ or are candidate sites limited to separate parcels?

Please see Question 2. Site Selection & Location

8 Should a prospective tenant design its proposed facility footprint and workflows as if operating a standalone site? What level of detail is expected in the RFI response?

Yes—tenants should describe their full capability needs, including utility requirements, special gases/fluids, equipment footprints (e.g., CNC access), inspection workflows, and any downstream or upstream dependencies. Providing this detail helps the government understand what is required for tenants to “walk in and start working” and ensures proper infrastructure planning.

Tenant Participation & RFI Expectations

44 Can a respondent limit its response to manufacturing and qualification capability only, without proposing to develop, operate, or maintain the underlying facility or site?

Yes Tenant Participation & RFI Expectations

55 Will the forthcoming solicitation evaluate and score manufacturing and technical capability independently from real estate development and financing capability, or will offerors be required to demonstrate both to be considered competitive?

Evaluation criteria have not yet been determined for a future soliciation;

however, this endeavor is seeking respodents who can provide varying levels of capability, any or all of the following: manufacturing, infrastructure support, development, etc.

Tenant Participation & RFI Expectations

56 For a respondent proposing only a manufacturing and qualification process cell, are Section 5 (Financing Approach) and Section 6 (Development Timeline) of the RFI response template applicable, or are those sections intended solely for respondents proposing the underlying facility and site development?

Even if proposing a cell, please provide any financial considerations that may be applicable to getting the operation underway, as well as any associated timelines for procuring equipment, personnel, etc for the cell.

Tenant Participation & RFI Expectations

109 Will you be sending out the attendee list from the conference? The list of PGI Industry Day attendees will be posted to SAM.gov. Tenant Participation & RFI Expectations

14 What is the time horizon for the project? As quickly as possible. Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

20 What is the time horizon for award and for having a fully operational facility? Please see Question 14. Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

21 How will production be procured at the Pacific Greenfield Initiative facility? The Navy has not yet defined the exact contracting pathways and encourages recommended pathways to be provided as part of the RFI response.

Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

23 Does using private developers on federal land create concerns due to overlapping state and federal regulations?

Compliance with applicable Federal/State lands will be a requirement throughout the project.

Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

24 What is the timeline for this effort? Please see Question 14. Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

46 If the lessee and OTA performer may be separate, could a prototype OTA for manufacturing and qualification work be executed independently of, and in advance of, the EUL, allowing prototype work to begin before the lease is finalized?

At this time, the DON has not defined the various instruments to be used and that will be driven in part by information received by respondents to this RFI.

Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

49 Does DON intend to conduct a single down-select to one anchor partner for development of the entire campus, or does DON anticipate structuring sequential or parallel awards that would allow additional process-cell providers to join the ecosystem after an anchor partner has been selected?

That is unknown at this time and will be based on insights gained from RFI responses.

Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

58 Can DON provide aggregated data on chronic supply shortfalls, long lead times, or high cannibalization rates across Joint Force platforms? If CUI, what is the protocol for access?

Not at this time. Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

60 Would DON consider anchor-tenancy, minimum-utilization, or capacity-reservation agreements in a follow-on transaction to ensure project bankability?

That is unknown at this time and will be determined/defined based on insights gained from RFI responses.

Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

70 How will demand, funding, and contract structure flow for tenants providing manufacturing services on the site? How will funds be guaranteed for tenants who invest?

That is unknown at this time and will be determined/defined based on insights gained from RFI responses.

Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

74 If a prototype OTA is part of the acquisition strategy, does the DON anticipate using an existing consortium or a direct award process, and would a successful prototype potentially be eligible for a follow-on production agreement under 10 U.S.C. § 4022(f)?

That is unknown at this time and will be determined/defined based on insights gained from RFI responses.

Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

78 Without implying guaranteed DON offtake, would the DON consider evaluating industry-proposed capacity-reservation, priority-access, or equipment-hour commitments as potential in-kind lease consideration or as separate commercial terms? Are there threshold statutory or policy limitations respondents should address?

That is unknown at this time and will be determined/defined based on insights gained from RFI responses.

Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

81 Which entity would ordinarily lead and fund environmental and cultural-resource review for a privately developed EUL industrial site (including NEPA and Section 106), and how should respondents address any parallel Hawaii state-law review and permitting dependencies?

This should be assumed to be handled by the developing entity, but will be further defined later.

Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

93 For parts produced at the campus, who is the customer of record and the funding source (shipyard, fleet, PEO/PAE, working capital)

That is unknown at this time. Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

94 Does the DoN expect priority or surge production rights, such as rated orders, and how would that capacity be compensated given no offtake guarantee?

That is unknown at this time. Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

95 What cybersecurity requirements (NIST 800-171/CMMC, Navy network connection) apply to the production and qualification system?

Please see Question 87. Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

105 Who is responsible for NEPA, Section 106 cultural resources review, and Native Hawaiian consultation: DON or the developer?

Please see Question 82. Timeline, Procurement & Regulatory Considerations

CLEAN-SORT ALL QA since Amend1