SAWS Questions and Answers_14OCT2026.pdf

Reference Industry Question USG Answer Attachment 0023 / Section J & L Attachment 23: Confirmation statement includes previous solicitation number. Please confirm that this is to be used or corrected to reflect the updated solicitation number. *"By submitting this proposal, [INSERT OFFEROR'S LEGAL COMPANY NAME HERE] hereby acknowledges, certifies, and agrees that it will fully comply with the prohibitions on restricted and prohibited sources as detailed in the Certification of Compliance with Prohibited Sources (Go/No-Go Requirement) of solicitation W519TC-26-R-0001."

Updated Attachment reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA0360001

Page 4, Section A / Section L Ref page 4, ‘Ammunition and Explosives (AA&E)’: should Attachment 0018 be completed and submitted with the proposal? If so, under which volume?

Clarification provided in Amendment W519TC26R00360001

Page 56, 58, Section L Ref page 58 ‘Volume 2 - Technical Proposal’: Does supporting documentation for Volume 2a.1 and 2a.2 need to be submitted as one pdf file? Are multiple file (by category or work sample) submissions permitted due to file size constraints?

Refer the PIEE Solicitation Module for Attachment Placeholder for each Volume.

The file size limit in in the PIEE Solicitation is 1.9GB.

Pages 67, 71, 74, Section L Ref pages 67, 71, 74 ‘Sourcing Documentation/Delivery Verification’: is documentation for all bullets required, or one?

Documents such as IICs and DD Forms are not applicable to all deliveries/work samples.

Solicitation Amendment reflected in Section L - Category 1,4, and 6 of Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Pages 58, 77, Section L Ref page 77 Price Proposal: Confirm the Volume 3a.1 (Supporting Documents) requirement has been removed. There is no Volume 3.a.1 in Solicitation W519TC26RA036.

Pages 63, 64, 67, Section L Category 1 - 1.b.1. Would primed brass cartridges, for .50 cal and .416 small arms ammunition, be considered an energetics-based end item or component, and therefore would examples of successful delivery of primed brass cartridges be accepted?

Refer to Volume 2 Technical Proposal of the Solicitation for the definition of Components.

Page 71, Section L Category 4 - 4.a.4. The requirement asks for evidence of use of U.S.-Flag Vessels or use of U.S.-Flag Vessel Waiver.

Would the U.S. Government accept evidence of use of a U.S.-Flag Air Carrier?

No, for Category 4.a.4. the USG is seeking Transportation plans invololving ocean transport and thus only evidence is specific to using of U.S. Flag Vessels, or Flag Vessel Waivers is acceptable as specified in Solicitation W519TC26RA036.

Pages 55, 65-66, 88, Section L & M

May a joint venture Offeror that does not itself hold FFL Type 11 or DDTC registrations satisfy Factor 1, Questions 1 and 2, by submitting the current registrations of the joint venture member that will perform the corresponding regulated scope of work?

Yes.

Reference Section L - Joint Venture or Predecessor Experience

Although this section primarily discusses "experience," it is reasonable to infer that this principle extends to the necessary licenses and registrations held by the members of the JV, specifically if the member holding the registrations will perform the regulated work. Offerors must still provide the details to justify the claims.

Page 55, Section L Would the Government treat that approach as consistent with the Solicitation's treatment of the joint venture as a single Offeror, and with the limitation permitting only a formal, legal joint venture, such that reliance on a member's registrations within the joint venture is not considered a prohibited teaming or prime and subcontractor arrangement?

Yes.

The Solicitation explicitly permits a "formal, legally constituted Joint Venture (JV)" and considers the JV as a "single Offeror." The document distinguishes this from "prohibited teaming or prime and subcontractor arrangement."

In accordance with the Solicitation a formal legally constituted JV, relying on a member's registrations is consistent with the Solicitation and would not be considered a prohibited arrangement.

Pages 66, 79, 88, Section L & M On SAM registration timing: Factor 1, Question 3, and FAR 52.204-7 refer to an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission. Please confirm whether the joint venture Offeror's SAM registration, with corresponding CAGE code and UEI, must be active as of the proposal submission date, and that a registration which has been submitted but is not yet active (that is, pending) as of that date would not satisfy Factor 1, Question 3.

Solicitation Amendment reflected in Section M - Factor 1, Question 3 of Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Pages 64, 67-68, Section L For category 1.a and 1.b, if the offeror or affiliate is a manufacturer, is it acceptable to provide a contract or purchase order from the USG, a USG Prime Contractor, or a country on the alternate country list? Please confirm that a contract from a USG, USG Prime, or Alternate Country List customer and the associated delivery verification document meet the criteria to satisfy the requirements in Category 1.

Solicitation Amendment reflected in Section L -Category 1.a and 1.b of Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Pages 70-71, Section L Category 4 – Not all customers sign a DD 250, 1349 or 1148. Is a delivery verification document that is not one of these 3 documents, such as a DVC signed by the customer acceptable verification of delivery completion?

Solicitation Amendment reflected in Section L - Category 1,4, and 6 of Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Pages 71-72, Section L Category 4 – The only transport documents listed as acceptable delivery verification are signed Bills of Lading, Air Waybill, or paid invoices. Bill of Lading is primarily applicable to ocean shipments and Air Waybill is appliable to air shipments. Are signed CMRs (ground shipments) and CIMs (rail shipments) also acceptable delivery verification documents even though they aren’t specifically listed in the RFP? These are equivalent to a BoL or AWB for road and rail shipments.

Solicitation Amendment reflected in Section L - Category 1,4, and 6 of Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Page 74, Section L Category 6 – Delivery documents are not relevant to Lot Acceptance Testing although it appears that delivery verification is requested for this category in the RFP. Delivery verification has been covered extensively in categories 1 and 4. Will the USG remove the Delivery Verification requirement with LATR documentation if the LATR documentation is clearly signed and approved by the USG customer or DCMA representative?

No, delivery verification documents are requested to substantiate the successful production acceptance of ammunition and/or components with energetics.

Pages 67-68, Section L Category 1.a and 1.b, delivery verification documents are listed as:

• DD Form 250, IICS, or WAWF-RR

• IIC

• Signed BoL or AWB

• DD Form 1349 or DD Form 1148 Is this an exclusive list of documents for delivery verification or are these just examples of some of the possible acceptable documents? For example, signed BoL and AWBs are listed as acceptable evidence of delivery and are applicable for shipments completed by air and by sea, but CMRs and CIMs are not listed even though these documents show same thing but for road and rail shipments.

Additionally, the DD forms mentioned are USG specific, will similar documents that are not these specific DD Forms be acceptable for deliveries made to countries on the alternate country list? Would a receiving country Delivery Verification Certificate be considered acceptable evidence of delivery completion?

Solicitation Amendment reflected in Section L - Category 1,4, and 6 of Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Section K For those representations and certifications required by Section K but unavailable to be completed in the SAM.gov offer-level representations and certifications module, is it acceptable for the offeror to print the full text of the clauses, complete any fill-in fields, and include in Volume 1b, alongside the offeror s downloaded SAM.gov representations and certifications?

Clarification provided in Amendment W519TC26R00360001

Section A & L Can you please advise if quotes from the following countries listed below will be acceptable? Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Bosnia in reference to Attachment 0024

The Solicitation explicitly states where Attachment 0024 - Alternate Countries List is applicable.

Refer the Section L - Volume 2a HTRO Self-Score Matrix definitions:

Alternate Countries List - The approved list of countries pertaining to the customer only. Does not apply to the supplying or producing countries.

Section L, Pgs. 57-59 Could you please advise where an Offeror shall include this justification? The subject RFP/Solicitation does not specify if this should be included in our cover letter or in another separate section (possibly in Volume 1). Request clarification from the U.S. Government to ensure we place it within the correct section of our proposal.

Clarification provided in Amendment W519TC26R00360001

Section A, B, C & J Regarding the 107mm HE rocket in the BM-12 weapon system, can the U. S. Government please provide additional specifics (i.e. confirm country of origin or any other details on the item) to ensure we are pricing correctly. It appears the 107mm HE rocket may need to be sourced from a sanctioned country.

Updated Attachment reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA0360001

Section C & J, Pgs. 9, 39-40 Regarding 122mm M-21 OF Rocket (GRAD); are these 20km or 40km? Updated Attachment reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA0360001 Can you confirm the contract reference in attachment 0023 should be W519TC-R-A036, rather that W519TC-R-0001?

Updated Attachment reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA0360001

Section G & I, Pg. 18 & 26 Will the USG provide Performance Based Payments as a financing method for this contract? Contract Financing in the form of Performance Based Payments are not guaranteed and will be considered on a Delivery Order by Delivery Order Basis.

Section A & J Please confirm that offerors can use the item descriptions in Attachment 0001 to identify Federal Supply Codes for delivered items based on the item descriptions in offeror's documentation

Yes, as long as, the Federal Supply Code is clearly identified in the work sample submission.

Section L, Pg. 67 Can you confirm that only one of the four sub-bullets under Delivery Verification on page 67 (Categories 1.a.1 - 1.a.3 and Categories 1.b.1 - 1.b.3) validate the requirement? Example: If a DD250 or IICS were provided, does it waive the requirement for DD 1348?

The Offeror may provide a cumulative total of ten work samples for Category 1.a.1 and Category 1.b.1. Each work sample provided as evidence for Category 1.a.1 and Category 1.b.1 will be used to substantiate points claimed for Categories 1.a.2 - 1.a.3 and Categories 1.b.2 - 1.b.3, respectively.

Only the document(s) needed to substantiate the Offeror’s self-score should be provided.

Please note that an amendment to the Solicitation has been made regarding the work samples specific to this question -reference Section L - Category 1,4, and 6 of Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Section K, Pg. 67 If the IICS contains supplier information and the DD250 contains delivery order number, does the offeror still need to provide an LoCs and Proof of contract?

Yes, both are required to be provided as part of the work sample documentation as evidence.

Section A – Ordering Periods;

Attachment 0026

Language from RFP Reference: Section A identifies Ordering Period 2 as 366–731 DAA, Period 3 as 732–1097 DAA, Period 4 as 1098–1463 DAA, and Period 5 as 1464–1829 DAA. Attachment 0026 instead uses 366–730, 731–1096, 1097–1461, and 1462–1826 DAA.

Question/Comment: Please confirm the correct start and end dates/DAA ranges for all five ordering periods and whether the Government will revise Attachment 0026 to reflect the same ordering-period schedule.

Updated Attachment reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA0360001

Attachment 0023 – Certification of Compliance with Prohibited Sources; Section L, Factor 1

GO/NO-GO

Language from RFP Reference: Attachment 0023 requires Offerors to reproduce the certification statement verbatim;

however, the statement references Solicitation W519TC-26-R-0001 rather than W519TC26RA036, and Attachment 0023 does not provide a signature block although Section L requires a signed certification.

Question/Comment: Please confirm the correct solicitation number and required method for executing/signing the certification. Will the Government issue a revised Attachment 0023, or should Offerors replace the solicitation number with W519TC26RA036 and add an authorized signature and date to the certification?

Updated Attachment reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA0360001

Section E – FAR 52.246-11 Higher- Level Contract Quality Requirement

Language from RFP Reference: FAR 52.246-11 identifies ISO 9001-2008 and contains an uncompleted Contracting Officer insertion/tailoring placeholder.

Question/Comment: Please confirm whether certification/compliance to the current ISO 9001:2015 standard satisfies the ISO 9001-2008 requirement and clarify whether any additional tailoring was intended in FAR 52.246-11.

Updates reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA360002

Section L – Volume 1b, Section K Language from RFP Reference: Section L directs Offerors to complete required Representations and Certifications in SAM.gov, annotate nonapplicable items “N/A,” and confirm they remain current throughout the evaluation period.

Section M states that the Government will validate submitted Section K representations and certifications.

Question/Comment: Please confirm whether Volume 1b must include a printed/exported copy of the Offeror’s SAM.gov Representations and Certifications, or whether active completion in SAM.gov plus a statement confirming currency is sufficient. If a SAM.gov field does not permit entry of “N/A,” please confirm that no additional annotation is required.

Updated Attachment reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA0360001

Section L – Volume 1a Cover Letter

Language from RFP Reference: The Cover Letter must identify the Offeror’s “SAM.gov registration date.”

Question/Comment: Please clarify whether “SAM.gov registration date” means the entity’s original registration date, most recent activation/renewal date, or current registration expiration date.

Solicitation Amendment reflected in Section M - Factor 1, Question 3 of Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Section L – Factor 1, GO/NO-GO Item 1.6

Language from RFP Reference: Offerors must provide signed, verifiable documentation demonstrating completion of screening against the DDTC Debarred Parties List, OFAC SDN List, BIS Entity List, and Section 1260H List.

Question/Comment: Please confirm the acceptable form of evidence for Factor 1 Item 1.6. Will a single dated and signed Offeror self-certification identifying completion of all four required screenings satisfy the requirement, or must supporting search results/screenshots or other system-generated evidence also be submitted?

This was answered in the SAWS draft RFP #3 Questions from Industry.

In accordance with Solicitation W519TC26RA036 - Section M explicitly states that documentation which includes the Offeror's self-certification with signature will be used to verify compliance of screening completion against the DDTC List, OFAC SDN List, BIS Entity List, and Section 1260H List.

Section L/M – Factor 2 Documentation Period

Language from RFP Reference: Factor 2 documentation must be dated and “remain valid” from January 1, 2019 onward; documentation preceding the timeframe will not be considered.

Question/Comment: For historical work samples such as completed contracts, export licenses, quotes, EUCs, transportation documents, and LATRs, please confirm that “remain valid” means the documentation was valid when the underlying performance occurred and was dated January 1, 2019 or later, rather than requiring the historical document to remain currently unexpired at proposal submission.

Confirming it is reasonable to infer that "Remain valid" means the documentation was valid for the performance period dated January 1, 2019 or later.

Section L – Work Sample Quantity Limits

Language from RFP Reference: Section L states that the “up to Quantity Limit” applies to work samples, but its example states that if the limit is 10 “documents” and 11 are submitted, only the first 10 will be reviewed. A work sample may otherwise consist of multiple supporting documents.

Question/Comment: Please confirm that multiple documents supporting the same work sample collectively count as one work sample toward the applicable Quantity Limit, rather than each supporting document counting separately.

Please refer to the definition of Work Sample in Section L - PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS.

There is no limit on the total number of documents, however, the number of work samples is limited.

Factor 2 – Category 1.a.1 / 1.b.1 Language from RFP Reference: Category 1 evaluates delivery of energetic items directly to the USG, to U.S. Prime Contractors supporting a USG contract, or to alternate countries in Attachment 0024.

Question/Comment: For an FMS contract awarded by the USG where the ultimate recipient is an Attachment 0024 country, should the work sample be claimed under Category 1.a.1 or Category 1.b.1? May the same delivery support both categories, or must the Offeror assign it to only one?

Where a work sample meets the criteria of more than one category—such as an FMS contract awarded by the USG where the ultimate end recipient is an Attachment 0024 country—the USG does not mandate which specific category an Offeror must select. Rather, the Offeror should evaluate the scoring structure and submit evidence for the applicable Category that yields the highest point value.

Factor 2 – Category 1.a.2 / 1.b.2 Language from RFP Reference: Category 1 accepts historical LOCs/formal quotes and contracts or POs from a supplier/manufacturer, while related scoring elements award points for different foreign manufacturers.

Question/Comment: If an Offeror sourced an item through a U.S. distributor or supplier but the supporting documentation clearly identifies the actual foreign OEM/manufacturer and country of manufacture, will that foreign manufacturer qualify for Category 1.a.2 or 1.b.2 scoring?

The foreign manufacturer qualification for Category 1.a.2 or 1.b.2 will correspond to whether the evidence was claimed for Category 1.a.1 or 1.b.1.

Factor 2 – Category 1.c.1 Language from RFP Reference: Category 1.c.1 permits signed prospective LOCs or formal quotes from foreign or U.S. manufacturers but does not specify an express validity period.

Question/Comment: Please confirm whether prospective LOCs/formal quotes submitted for Category 1.c.1 must remain valid for 180 calendar days from the solicitation closing date, or whether the 180-day commitment requirement applies only to Category 7.a.

Please refer to Section L - Volume 2a.2 Factor 2 HTRO Technical Matrix Supporting Documentation for Category 1.c.1 validity period.

Factor 2 – Category 2.b.1 Language from RFP Reference: Category 2.b.1 permits prospective or draft EUCs and requires the EUC to contain all language required by the issuing country.

Question/Comment: Please clarify whether an Offeror-prepared draft EUC containing the required country-specific language is acceptable for Category 2.b.1, or whether the prospective/draft EUC must originate from or be endorsed by the prospective foreign end user or government.

Please refer to Attachment 0002 SAWS Statement of Work for the requirements regarding Draft / Prospective EUC contents.

Factor 2 – Category 2.a.2 / 2.b.2 Language from RFP Reference: An EUC identifying different issuing and exporting countries may count as two distinct countries toward the country limit.

Question/Comment: For an EUC supporting a U.S.-origin FMS transaction, may the United States be counted as the exporting country for Category 2.a.2/2.b.2, or must both countries counted toward the score be foreign countries?

Yes, the U.S. would be counted as the exporting country.

Factor 2 – Category 3.a.1–3.a.3 Language from RFP Reference: Category 3 permits up to five export-license work samples and separately scores the number of different FSC codes represented.

Question/Comment: If a single approved foreign export license covers multiple ammunition items representing multiple eligible FSC codes, will that document count as one work sample for Category 3.a.1 while supporting each distinct eligible FSC represented on the license for Category 3.a.3?

Each work sample provided for Category 3.a.1. will be used to substantiate points for Category 3.a.2 and Category 3.a.3.

Factor 2 – Category 4.b.1 Language from RFP Reference: Category 4.b.1 permits prospective Transportation Plans, but the solicitation does not identify minimum required plan contents.

Question/Comment: Please identify the minimum required contents for a prospective Transportation Plan under Category 4.b.1. May an Offeror develop the prospective plan specifically for this solicitation, and is supplier/carrier signature or third-party verification required?

Category 4.b.1 work samples must have verifiable documentation that demonstrates the Offeror's ability to provide prospective Transportation Plans which would support successful the transport of AA&E.

Factor 2 – Category 4.a.4 Language from RFP Reference: Ocean transportation receives scoring credit when documentation demonstrates use of a U.S.-Flag Vessel or an approved U.S.-Flag Vessel Waiver.

Question/Comment: Please clarify what constitutes an “approved U.S.-Flag Vessel Waiver” for Category 4.a.4, including the acceptable approving authority and documentation required to substantiate the waiver.

An approved U.S.-Flag Vessel Waiver should include a USG approving authority and documentation associated.

Factor 2 – Category 5 Language from RFP Reference: Historical TDPs must demonstrate compliance with technical data elements of the current PdL SAWS General Specifications, Attachments 0003–0007.

Question/Comment: For a historical USG- or alternate-country-approved TDP developed before issuance of the 2026 SAWS General Specifications, may the Offeror demonstrate that the historical TDP contains equivalent required data elements through a cross-reference, or must the historical TDP itself have been developed specifically to Attachments 0003–0007?

Refer to Solicitation W519TC26RA036 Section L Categories 5.a.1 - 5.a.2 and Categories 5.b.1 - 5.b.2 for the minimum evidence of compliance that must be included for USG or alternate country of each TDP.

Factor 2 – Category 5 Supporting Documentation

Language from RFP Reference: Required TDP evidence includes top-level drawings, dimensions, markings, net explosive weights, packaging, manufacturer information, and evidence of the Offeror/manufacturer relationship.

Question/Comment: Because TDPs may contain manufacturer-proprietary or export-controlled technical information, may Offerors redact proprietary details while leaving the information necessary to validate the Category 5 score visible? If so, please identify the minimum TDP information that must remain unredacted.

Redaction of proprietary information is allowed, however, the unredacted information must have enough content visible to determine that the required technical data elements are present.

Factor 2 – Category 6.a.1–6.a.3 Language from RFP Reference: Category 6 requires an “approved” LATR demonstrating successful production acceptance, delivery verification, and test-site city, country, and name for Category 6.a.2.

Question/Comment: Please clarify who must approve the LATR for Category 6.a.1 (e.g., USG QAR/acceptance authority, U.S. Prime Contractor, or another authorized customer representative). Also, please confirm that a qualifying LATR conducted at a U.S. test site may score under 6.a.1 and 6.a.3 even though it would not earn a foreign-test-site point under 6.a.2.

Solicitation Amendment reflected addresses this topic in Section L Category 6 of Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Factor 2 – Category 7.a Language from RFP Reference: Category 7 requires a signed LOC or formal quote for one listed UAS/UAV and identifies supplier/manufacturer information, supply type, 180-day commitment, and signature requirements; the Government states a preference for an individual authorized to bind the manufacturer.

Question/Comment: May a signed LOC/formal quote from an authorized distributor or supplier of one of the listed UAS/UAV systems satisfy Category 7.a, or must the commitment originate directly from the OEM/manufacturer?

Solicitation Amendment reflected addresses this topic in Section L Category 7 of Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Factor 2 – Category 8 Contract Value

Language from RFP Reference: Category 8 defines contract value as cumulative funds obligated and requires the evidence to show AA&E scope.

Question/Comment: When a qualifying contract/order contains AA&E items together with transportation, ancillary services, spare parts, or other non-AA&E CLINs, may the entire obligated value of the qualifying award/order be included in Category 8 contract value, or only the dollars specifically attributable to AA&E items?

The entire obligated value of any contract inclusive of AA&E can be included under Category 8.

Section A / Safety Requirements – Attachment 0018; PASS/ESSP

Language from RFP Reference: Offerors must be prepared to provide Attachment 0018 for facilities and sub-tier suppliers performing AA&E work, after which the Government will request a Pre-Award Safety and Security Survey.

The solicitation also states that all designated A&E/touch-labor PoPs require a PASS and approved ESSP.

Question/Comment: Please clarify the required timing for Attachment 0018, PASS inspections, and ESSP approval.

Is Attachment 0018 required with the initial proposal? Must all proposed suppliers/PoPs complete PASS/ESSP approval before IDIQ award, or may these requirements be completed after IDIQ award but before award/performance of a Delivery Order or supplier PO involving energetics?

Clarification provided in Amendment W519TC26R00360001

Section L – Volume 3; Section F/Future Delivery Ordering

Language from RFP Reference: The Price Matrix unit price must include fabrication, testing, inspection, packaging, and certain local OCONUS ground transportation, while the “transportation unit cost” is excluded and competed at the Delivery Order level.

Question/Comment: Please clarify exactly which transportation costs must be included in the Attachment 0016 NTE unit prices and which are excluded for later Delivery Order competition. Specifically, please clarify treatment of manufacturer-to-port/warehouse transportation, export-country inland transportation, international freight, final-destination transportation, and the referenced local OCONUS ground transportation for USG personnel.

Solicitation Amendment reflected addresses this topic in Section L Volume 3 Price Proposal of Amendment

W519TC26RA0360002

Section A / Future Delivery Ordering – Ordering Periods 2–5

Language from RFP Reference: Attachment 0016 establishes NTE pricing only for Ordering Period 1, and the solicitation states that Ordering Period 1 prices will not apply to an order issued in Ordering Period 2.

Question/Comment: Please clarify how contract NTE/range pricing will be established for Ordering Periods 2 through

5. Will the Government request annual pricing updates and incorporate new NTE prices by modification, or will Delivery Orders issued after Ordering Period 1 be competed without established contract-level NTE ceiling prices?

Solicitation Amendment reflected addresses this topic in Section H - Future Delivery Ordering Procedures of Amendment

W519TC26RA0360002

Section L – Volume 2a.1 and Volume 2a.2 Submission Format

Language from RFP Reference: Section L identifies Volume 2a.1 and Volume 2a.2 as Adobe PDF submissions using a single file-naming convention. Elsewhere, Section L states that each work sample must be a “standalone document,” while also allowing a work sample to contain multiple supporting documents.

Question/Comment: Please clarify the required submission structure for Volumes 2a.1 and 2a.2. Should Offerors submit one consolidated PDF for each Volume containing all applicable work samples, or should each work sample be submitted as a separate PDF within PIEE? If a work sample contains multiple supporting documents, should those documents be combined into one PDF under the applicable work-sample identifier?

Volume 2a.1 and Volume 2a.2 are each identified based on the specific Factor's Supporting Documentation required. Each Volume should contain all documentation for that Factor.

Refer the PIEE Solicitation Module for Attachment Placeholder for each Volume.

Section L – Work Sample Documentation

Language from RFP Reference: Work samples must contain sufficient evidence for the Government to validate the claimed score, and the Government will evaluate only the specific information referenced in the Cross-Reference Matrix.

Question/Comment: For lengthy historical contracts, delivery orders, subcontracts, and other supporting documents, may Offerors submit only the relevant pages/excerpts necessary to substantiate the claimed score, provided the submission includes sufficient identifying information to establish the document, contract/order number, parties, and context?

Refer to Solicitation W519TC26RA036 Section L - PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT

All pages within the work sample shall include the unique identifier, with the specific evidence location(s) clearly marked as identification to facilitate USG validation of the Offeror's proposed self-score.

The Offeror shall submit the work sample that contains the evidence required for the USG to validate the claimed self-score.

The file size limit in in the PIEE Solicitation is 1.9GB.

Section L – Work Sample Identification

Language from RFP Reference: The Offeror must assign a unique identifier to each work sample, include that identifier on every page, and clearly mark the specific evidence locations used to substantiate the self-score.

Question/Comment: Please confirm that Offerors may add work-sample identifiers, Bates/page numbers, highlighting, boxes, callouts, or similar annotations to copies of historical source documents solely to identify the evidence supporting a claimed score, provided the underlying source-document content is not altered.

The burden of proof to substantiate the Offeror's claimed self-score rests with the Offeror.

Please refer to Solicitation W519TC26RA036 Section L Volume 1C Cross-Reference Matrix.

Section L – Searchable PDF Requirement

Language from RFP Reference: Section L states that scanned documents must be legible and that work samples must be submitted as searchable Adobe PDFs.

Question/Comment: For historical signed documents that exist only as scanned/image-based records, please confirm that Offerors may apply an OCR/searchable text layer to the document without the document being considered altered.

If an original document cannot reliably be converted to searchable text, will a legible image-based PDF be accepted?

Refer to Solicitation W519TC26RA036 Section L - PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT

All scanned documents must be legible and not password protected.

Work samples shall be submitted as searchable Adobe PDFs.

Section L – Proprietary Work Sample Information

Language from RFP Reference: Category 8 expressly permits proprietary subcontract pricing to be redacted provided total award value and AA&E scope remain visible. Other Factor 2 categories may also require supplier quotes, purchase orders, export documentation, TDPs, and similar proprietary material, but the solicitation does not expressly address redaction of those documents.

Question/Comment: May Offerors redact proprietary pricing, personally identifiable information, bank information, or other sensitive information from Factor 1 and Factor 2 work samples when that information is not required to substantiate the claimed score, provided all information necessary for the Government to validate the claim remains visible?

Solicitation Amendment reflected addresses this topic in Section L PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT of Amendment

W519TC26RA0360002

Section L – Non-English Work Samples

Language from RFP Reference: If a work sample is in a language other than English, the Offeror must submit both the original and a certified third-party translation.

Question/Comment: Please confirm that the original foreign-language document, certified translation, and translator certification collectively constitute one work sample for purposes of the applicable Category quantity limit.

Refer to Section L - Volume 2 Technical Proposal of Solicitation W519TC26RA036 for the definition of "Work Sample"

Section L – PIEE Submission / Volume 2 Supporting Documentation

Language from RFP Reference: Proposals must be submitted through PIEE, and Volumes 2a.1 and 2a.2 have no page limit and may contain a substantial amount of supporting documentation.

Question/Comment: If the supporting documentation for Volume 2a.1 or Volume 2a.2 exceeds a PIEE single-file upload or file-size limitation, may the Volume be submitted in multiple sequentially numbered PDF files? If so, please provide the required naming convention.

Refer the PIEE Solicitation Module for Attachment Placeholder for each Volume.

The file size limit in in the PIEE Solicitation is 1.9GB.

Section L – Volume 1a Cover Letter

Language from RFP Reference: Volume 1a is limited to three pages. The solicitation does not state whether a separate title page or Table of Contents is excluded from the page limitation.

Question/Comment: Please confirm whether the three-page Volume 1a Cover Letter limit includes any cover/title page and Table of Contents, or whether those pages are excluded from the page limitation.

Volume 1a should contain the required information stated within the three page limit.

Section L – Volume 2, Stand-Alone Volumes

Language from RFP Reference: Each Volume is to be evaluated independently, and the Government will not cross-reference other Volumes to locate required information. The same contract documentation may support both Factor 1 and Factor 2.

Question/Comment: If the same supporting document substantiates both a Factor 1 GO/NO-GO requirement and a Factor 2 Technical Matrix score, must the document be duplicated in both Volume 2a.1 and Volume 2a.2, or may the Cross-Reference Matrix identify its location once for both Factors?

Refer to Section L - Volume 1c Cross-Reference Matrix

A submitted work sample which substantiates multiple category elements in the HTRO Self-Score Matrix (Attachment 0008) is only required to be submitted once within a proposal volume. The Cross-Reference Matrix allows Offerors to cross reference a single document to support multiple claimed scores, precluding the need to submit the same document within a proposal volume multiple times.

If it is in different proposal volumes then it needs to be included in each volume submission.

Attachment 0008 – HTRO Self- Score Matrix, Technical Matrix, Category 8; Section L – Categories 8.a–8.d

Language from RFP Reference: Section L states that the Offeror may provide a maximum of one work sample for Category 8.a, 8.b, 8.c, OR 8.d and should submit evidence for the applicable Category yielding the highest point value.

SAWS_Solicitation___W519TC26RA0… Attachment 0008 provides separate Offeror Response and scoring cells for each of Categories 8.a through 8.d. Although the workbook includes a data-validation rule intended to limit the combined entries to one, the individual scoring formulas will calculate points for more than one Category 8 entry if multiple response cells are populated.

Question/Comment: Please confirm that Offerors may claim only one of Categories 8.a, 8.b, 8.c, or 8.d. Also, will the Government issue a revised Attachment 0008 that restricts Category 8 scoring to one response/work sample, or are offerors permitted to change the data validation rule in the Category 8 cells to correct the scoring limitation?

Refer to Section L Category 8 of Solicitation W519TC26RA036

Offerors shall not change, adjust, unprotect, or manipulate any formulas or cells within the HTRO Self-Score Matrix (Attachment 0008) MS Excel file. Any unauthorized modification may result in the proposal being rendered non-compliant and rejected.

Attachment 0002 – SOW §3.3.1.1 and §3.3.1.2, Technical Data Package

Language from RFP Reference: Section 3.3.1.1 identifies CDRL A001 as DI-SESS-81003F/T, while Section 3.3.1.2 identifies the same CDRL A001 as DI-SESS-81033F/T.

Question/Comment: Please confirm the correct Data Item Description (DID) applicable to CDRL A001, Technical Data Package. Should both SOW §§3.3.1.1 and 3.3.1.2 reference DI-SESS-81003F/T?

Updated Attachment and Exhibit reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Section K / Attachment 0012 – Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

Language from RFP Reference: Section K incorporates FAR 52.203-11, and Attachment 0012 provides SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities. However, the Volume 1b instructions do not specifically identify Attachment 0012/SF- LLL as a required proposal document. The SF-LLL instructions state that filing is required when payments or agreements to make payments to lobbying entities are applicable.

Question/Comment: Please confirm whether Attachment 0012, SF-LLL, is required with the initial proposal only when an Offeror has reportable lobbying activities, or whether all Offerors must submit Attachment 0012 in Volume 1b, with “N/A” entered where applicable.

Clarification provided in Amendment W519TC26R00360001

FAR 52.216-19 – Order Limitations / Attachment 0016

Language from RFP Reference: FAR 52.216-19 establishes minimum and maximum order limitations based specifically on the quantities in Attachment 0016 for Ordering Period 1. The IDIQ, however, contains five ordering periods and encompasses items beyond those used in the Ordering Period 1 Price Matrix.

Question/Comment: Please clarify how the minimum and maximum order limitations under FAR 52.216-19 will apply during Ordering Periods 2 through 5 and to SAWS items not included in Attachment 0016. Will applicable minimum and maximum order quantities be established in subsequent Delivery Order LOCs/RFPs or by contract modification?

Reference future Requests for Proposals for Delivery Orders.

Attachment 0002 – SOW §12 / Exhibit A CDRL A017

Language from RFP Reference: SOW §12 identifies the Postaward Conference presentation requirement as CDRL A017, DI-ADMN-81373/T. In the embedded CDRL data in Exhibit A, A017 identifies a different Data Item Description

(DID)

Question/Comment: Please confirm the correct DID applicable to CDRL A017, Postaward Conference Presentation Material?

Updated Attachment and Exhibit reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Technical Proposal The file naming convention states offeror should use “File Naming Convention: Volume 2a.1_Offeror Name_SD or Volume 2a.2_Offeror Name_SD”. Will the Government please confirm the _SD in the naming convention should be replaced with a work sample number and shown in the name as _WS1, _WS2, etc. to correspond with the identified work sample; i.e. Volume 2a.1_Offeror Name_WS1 or Volume 2a.1_Offeror Name_WS2 and Volume 2a.2_Offeror Name_WS1 or Volume 2a.2_Offeror Name_WS2?

Refer to Section L - PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT

The Offeror shall assign a unique identifier to each work sample (e.g., WS1, WS2). All pages within the work sample shall include the unique identifier, with the specific evidence location(s) clearly marked as identification to facilitate USG validation of the Offeror's proposed self-score.

Technical Proposal Will the Government please confirm that the work sample supporting documentation providing contractor proof points can be submitted as individual documents provided they are properly identified as belonging to a specific Work Sample using the _WS1, _WS2, etc. naming convention?

The Solicitation states that each Volume shall be organized on a stand-alone basis; therefore, the contents of each Volume will be evaluated independently. Work samples are to be complied per Volume they are being used for evidence to substantiate an Offeror's self-score.

Technical Proposal Since there are multiple supporting documents that will be provided for each Work Sample, will the Government please clarify whether they wish for the specific documents to be identified using numbers or letters after the WS1, WS2 designation to ensure the Government can easily find referenced information; i.e. _WS1.01 or _WS1.a for first document, _WS1.02 or _WS1.b for second document? Does the Government have a preference as to the specific numbering format used?

Refer to Section L - PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT

Category 1 - Category 7 Many of the sourcing documents required for Category 1 through 7 reside on DoW systems and the offeror is prohibited from moving those work sample files from a Government system to a non-Government system. Can the offeror provide verification of the required work samples by citing the PWS/SOW and/or other contract documents along with the Government Contracting Officer (CO)/Contracting Officer Representative (COR) contact information?

Refer to Section L for the definition of Work Samples.

Work Samples - The supporting documentation submitted by the Offeror which contains the sufficient information to substantiate each claim towards the Offeror's self-score for the respective Category. A work sample can contain multiple supporting documents.

Category 1 - Category 7 Due to Department of War's (DoW) Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) / Operations Security (OPSEC) sensitive data / Export-Controlled (ITAR) data / Sensitive Government Information restrictions, would the Government accept a signed letter from the contracting officer(s) verifying the offeror performed the specific acceptable work samples listed throughout pages 67-76 in lieu of the actual list work samples?

Refer to Section L - General Submission Requirements for Past Experience

The Government will not perform external validations or contact references to verify scoring criteria. The burden of proof to substantiate all points claimed in the scoring matrix rests solely with the offeror within the submitted proposal.

If physical work samples cannot be submitted due to security restrictions, offerors must submit redacted, unclassified versions of the sourcing documents that demonstrate compliance with the Category 1-7 criteria, or provide officially signed/approved public-releasable contract deliverables (e.g., signed transition plans, approved monthly status reports) that do not contain CUI but explicitly prove the capability.

Price Matrix (Attachment 16) Price Matrix (Attachment 16) the 30mm and 120mm items have been specified as the M93 P1 and M62P3/M62P10 respectively.

For these two calibers is it required to bid only on these newly specified designations, or would the US Government be open to accept a bid for any suitable 30 & 120 mm munition per the previous iteration of the Price Matrix?

Is the US Government aware of any potential exposure to Russian supply chain of items listed on the Price Matrix?

The USG is only looking for quotes the Price Matrix items.

Refer to the Sourcing and Prohibitions outlined in Section A of the Solicitation.

Section K Section K, 52.209-13. Please provide the corrected link or the report associated with this clause.

Attachment 0016 Attachment 0016, as revised by the October 2 mod, identified specific Serbian produced models for 30mm HE and

120mm Mortar HE. Will equivalent models manufactured outside Serbia be acceptable under these LINs?

The USG is only looking for quotes the Price Matrix items.

If an Offeror cites experience from multiple affiliated entities that are under common ownership and control of the same parent company, may the Offeror provide a single Commitment Letter from the ultimate parent company that identifies each affiliated entity, the experience being relied upon, and the specific resources that will be made available to the Offeror for contract performance? Or is a separate Commitment Letter required from each individual affiliated entity whose experience is cited?

For each cited affiliate experience, the proposal must include a separate, individual formal Commitment Letter issued directly by that specific affiliated entity.

Guaranteed Minimum and Contract Maximum Quantity states “An initial Delivery Order will be awarded to each IDIQ Contractor for a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) deliverable. The dollar value is set at $1,000.00 and will satisfy the guaranteed minimum.” What CDRL would be required?

Reference Section A reflected in Amendment W519TC26RA0360002

Category 5 - Will a USG approved TDP be considered acceptable if the offeror or the offeror's affiliate performed as a subcontractor on the TDP and is listed as the supplier or manufacturer, but the TDP was ultimately approved for another Prime contractor?

Please clarify if we should follow the instructions starting on Page 57, PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION AND VOLUME STRUCTURE in the solicitation or if we should break out the documents to follow the PIEE portal. The solicitation instructions state on Page 57, “PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION AND VOLUME STRUCTURE, Offerors shall adhere strictly to the file naming conventions and format requirements outlined below.” However, there is a discrepancy between the portal upload and the solicitation instructions. For example, the solicitation instructions state, “ Volume 1 shall consist of three separate files”… and continues with how to name these three separate files. However, within the PIEE upload portal, for example Volume 1b – Contractual Documentation consists of five file uploads, which breaks out the supporting contractual documentation individually instead of allowing for one upload of the document titled Volume 1b_Offeror Name_Contractual Docs.

Proposal submissions instructions are updated in the Solicitation Amendment. Offerors shall adhere to the submission format present in the PIEE Solicitation tool when submitting their documentation.

If the guidance is to follow the instructions in the solicitation, is Adobe Acrobat PDF Portfolios acceptable? Adobe Acrobat PDF Portfolios provide a convenient way to provide a number of discrete, identifiable documents in a single PDF file. Will the Government accept a PDF Portfolio for each category submission? Is a PDF portfolio compatible with the customer's AI tools, and is it an acceptable format?

Work samples shall be submitted as searchable Adobe PDFs.