RFAAP - Industry Day 1 - Question - Answer 20Dec2024.pdf

1. What is the anticipated future modernization spend over the life of the new GOCO contract?

The U.S. Government (USG) cannot disclose future modernization funding plans for the new contract; however, on slide 7 of the Industry Day briefing, the USG provided some historical modernization funding over the past 14 years. The USG will provide additional details when able to.

2. What are the future modernization projects at Radford?

The USG is unable to disclose the details of future modernization efforts at this time;

however, investments into Radford's core capabilities and supporting infrastructure will continue subject to the budget; there is no guaranteed modernization funding.

3. What is the prioritization of those modernization projects?

The USG is unable to answer this question at this time; this will be determined as the acquisition strategy is finalized.

4. Is the GOCO responsible for facility sustainment, restoration and modernization (SRM) associated with O&M?

The operating contractor is responsible for SRM associated with O&M.

5. What is the status of the New Nitrocellulose facility?

The New NC facility is currently in the process of being commissioned and expected to be in full operation when/if there is a transition period.

6. How does the govt determine if a modernization project will be done by the operating contractor, USACE or some other entity?

The USG intends to evaluate this decision on a case-by-case basis.

7. What is the status of the NAC/SAC Process Improvements?

The new NAC/SAC Process Improvements project is currently in execution and expected to be in full operation when/if there is a transition period.

8. Are there any modernization projects planned for the tenants at Radford for which the GOCO will be required to provide utilities and infrastructure improvements as directly reimbursable?

9. If so, can and will a list of projects, prioritization, and description be provided to the Industry Day attendees?

The USG is unable to answer this question at this time; this will be determined as the acquisition strategy is finalized. A high-level status of all modernization projects will be provided closer to Request for Proposal (RFP) release or at a subsequent Industry Day.

10. Does a Master Plan exist for the Radford Army Ammunitions Plant (RFAAP)?

Yes

11. If so, can and will it be provided to the Industry Day attendees?

acquisition strategy is finalized.

12. Can and will a site map of RFAAP with current building layouts, building descriptions, occupancy, and functions be provided to the Industry Day attendees?

Yes, some of this will be provided in the Virtual Technical Library (VTL).

13. Does a site map of green/brownfield land/sites within the RFAAP main campus and other RFAAP government sites, if applicable, exist and can it be provided to the Industry Day attendees?

Information on greenfields and brownfields will be included as part of the Baseline Facility Assessment (BFA)/Baseline Environmental Condition Assessment (BECA), which will be provided to attendees via the VTL upon completion.

14. Does Radford have a utility/infrastructure Master Plan? Are utilities privatized? Can it be provided to the Industry Day attendees?

RFAAP currently has an Installation Energy and Water Plan. However, this document will not be included with the VTL due to its documentation classification.

No, utilities are not privatized.

15. Are utilities privatized, or planned to be privatized?

Utilities are not privatized and not planned to be privatized at this time.

16. Can and will a GIS site map of RFAAP utilities, including sizes, be provided to the Industry Day attendees?

A GIS site map will be provided in the VTL.

17. Does a Utility Condition Study exist?

A utility condition study does not exist at RFAAP.

18. Whan was it last updated?

19. Can and will the study be provided to the Industry Day attendees?

20. What stage of completion has Radford done with BUILDER and Paver compliance?

Radford performed BUILDER inspections for all facilities in 2022. This will be a requirement in the facility contract starting in 2027.

21. How is Facility Reduction being handled now?

Demo is either contracted through the operating contractor or US Army Corps of Engineers Huntsville District. It is funded under LIF funding.

22. Will Facility Reduction be part of the GOCO scope in the future?

Yes, Facility Reduction will be part of the GOCO scope in the future.

23. How many env. permits do Radford have and what is their operating status/POP? (Title V, NSR, NPDES, etc.)

RFAAP has six (6) major environmental permits. They are listed below with their expiration dates:

1. Title V- expired in 2013. Administratively continued until the State issues a new permit. Until this time, we have several active minor NSR permits from recent project that will eventually be incorporated into the Title V.

2. VPDES- expired in 2015. Administratively continued until the State issues a new permit.

3. Post Closure Care permits for HWMUs 5 and 16- expired in August 2024.

Administratively continued until State can issue new permit. (one permit for each

HWMU)

4. RCRA (Open Burning Ground) permit- expires September 17, 2031

5. Corrective Action Permit- expires May 1, 2026

6. RCRA (Explosive Waste Incinerator and Contained Burn Chamber)- expires January 16, 2032

24. Can and will the Government provide Radford’s current environmental permits to the Industry Day attendees?

Yes; All of RFAAP's permits are publicly available from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). They will also be provided in the VTL at a future date.

25. Are there any current permit notices of violations issued for Radford and any consent agreements with operational limitations or permit limits agreed more limiting than the current permit limits?

Yes, there is an executed Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) from the EPA (dated 9/27/24). This AOC derived from an EPA-led audit of RFAAP’s Risk Management Program in August of 2023.

Any current notices or consent agreements will be included in the VTL at a later date.

26. Is RFAAP subject to 112(r) Air Risk Management Program?

Yes

27. If so, can and will the CAA Section 112(r) risk management plan to the Industry Day attendees?

Yes; will be provided in the VTL.

28. Does Radford have an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) and Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) of sensitive species/habitat/locations?

Yes; will be provided in the VTL.

29. What active env. projects are on-going at Radford (i.e., site investigations, studies, remediation)?

There is an active remedial investigation studying the potential for Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) contamination in groundwater and soil at five Areas of Interest at RFAAP. Ground water wells were recently installed, and sampling is actively being performed.

30. Are there any areas covered under a Risk Assessment that must be adhered to?

Yes; will be provided at a future date.

31. Does Radford have a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS)/ environmental assessment (EA)?

RFAAP has several environmental assessments associated with specific modernization efforts. Most recently, there have been EAs for the Energetic Waste Incinerator (EWI)/Contaminated Waste Processor (CWP) complex, Chemical Grind, and NG3 modernization projects. The USG will provide EAs for specific modernization projects at a later time if required for the acquisition strategy.

An overall facility EA does not exist. A Baseline Environmental Condition Assessment (BECA) for the facility will be developed and provided in the VTL upon completion.

32. Are any NEPA activities currently underway at Radford?

RFAAP frequently completes Records of Environmental Consideration (RECs) for various small-scale Facilities efforts. There are no active Environmental Assessments (EA) underway at the moment.

33. If so, can and will the reports be provided to the Industry Day attendees?

Copies of the latest completed EA’s may be provided at a later date.

34. Is the GOCO responsible for obtaining/maintaining and compliance with env. Permits?

Yes. The GOCO is responsible for obtaining and maintaining compliance with environmental permits per the Environmental Performance Work Statement (PWS).

35. What hazardous waste is generated today?

Mainly ignitable (D001) and reactive (D003) wastes that are destroyed via either the subpart X or O RCRA permits. RFAAP does generate miscellaneous hazardous wastes that are not ignitable or reactive, such D008, D005, D030 (Lead, Barium, 2.4 DNT) contaminated wastes. The Envirofacts Data Warehouse is available at the following URL: http://www3.epa.gov/enviro

36. In what quantities?

RFAAPs permitted Incinerator treats on average 1,200,000 LBS annually.

RFAAPs permitted Open Burning Ground treats on average 500,000 LBS annually.

http://www3.epa.gov/enviro

Miscellaneous hazardous waste shipped off site on average is ~75,000 LBS annually.

37. How are they stored/disposed?

Hazardous waste is stored in 90-day waste facilities on site until they can be destroyed onsite at either our incinerators or our open burning ground or until they can be shipped offsite to other facilities for disposal.

38. Is the contractor responsible for collecting / handling / managing hazardous waste and associated accumulation sites?

Yes; miscellaneous hazardous waste shipped off site on average is ~75,000 LBS annually.

39. Have there been or are there currently any waste/refuge/garbage disposal or storage sites or landfills on Radford? If so, where? And, have the contents been identified and remediated?

There is one open, active construction demolition debris landfill (SWP 433). There is also a closed industrial waste landfill (SWP 353) and a closed sanitary landfill (SWP 401).

40. If so, where?

All three landfills are on the Pulaski County side of the facility.

41. And, have the contents been identified and remediated?

All contents in landfills have been identified. Closed landfills have completed their post closure care period and require only cap maintenance (mowing). The active Construction/Demolition/Debris (CDD) landfill, SWP 433, will continue with semi-annual ground water monitoring as directed by VADEQ.

42. How will an environmental baseline be established prior to the new GOCO contract?

This information will be provided when it becomes available.

43. Will the GOCO be indemnified from current environmental Issues and only held responsible for releases/issues under their operation?

44. Are there any goals or requirements to reduce the waste stream that a new operating contractor should be aware of?

Army regulations (AR 2001-1) require that sites continually work towards waste minimization efforts and increased recycling capacity.

45. Does Radford have built-in resiliency & redundancy at the plant utility level (electrical power, water, sanitary, wastewater)?

This information will be provided in the VTL and requirements for the PWS (utilities and energy).

46. Will these capabilities be added, or improved to accomplish threat hazard requirements under the GOCO contract, or under USACE, other modernizations efforts?

This information will be provided in the VTL and requirements for the PWS (utilities and energy).

47. Will the USG provide a draft acquisition strategy for review/comment?

While the USG intends to share more details about the acquisition strategy through Industry Days and draft RFPs, the actual acquisition strategy document will not be released. Industry is invited to provide strategy input via white papers at any time.

48. What is meant by “outlying areas” WRT Competition?

Per FAR 2.101, "Outlying" areas refer to: Commonwealths (Puerto Rico and The Northern Mariana Islands), Territories (American Samoa, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands), and Minor outlying islands (Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Atoll)

49. Will any classified documents be necessary to share for bid preparation?

No, but, as noted in the Industry Day slides, the contract may require the generation, handling, and/or storage of classified material up to Secret.

If required, contractors would need to obtain a Facility Security Clearance.

50. If “Whitepapers” are provided, can they be submitted so they cannot be shared with competition?

Whitepapers will not be shared with the competition.

51. To encourage receipt of complete, accurate, and relevant proposals that minimize risk to the RFAAP mission, we strongly recommend the Government include detailed modernization project information in the Virtual Technical Library. Specific information that will help bidders prepare their proposals includes, but should not be limited to, project name, scope, value, contract type (e.g., FFP, CPFF, design/build, design/bid/build), contracting source (via RFAAP contract, USACE, or 3rd party), and current status as well as anticipated schedule during RFAAP transition (e.g., 90% design complete).

Acknowledged.

52. Will the Government provide information regarding objectives and/or structure for transitioning modernization projects? This visibility into modernization project timelines and transition objectives will significantly reduce the risk of mission disruption and drive greater competition for the RFAAP acquisition.

Details regarding transition, once finalized, will be made available to potential bidders.

53. According to slide 11 in the Industry Day briefing charts, one of the overall acquisition strategy objectives is to “establish a new operating paradigm to enable the transition from the current state of the facility to the desired future state for production capabilities, modernization, and overall operating model.” Can the Government provide more clarity on what “new operating paradigm” means? The remainder of the content in the briefing charts appears to be very similar to prior RFAAP and other AAP acquisitions so it is not clear what the Government intends or anticipates changing.

The USG is seeking assistance from Industry to help shape what the new paradigm will look like or entail, and, therefore, welcomes Industry feedback and ideas via white papers for USG review and potential use in development of what a "new operating paradigm" will look like.

54. During past RFAAP and other AAP acquisitions, the Government has explored the concept of two or more contracts. While the ultimate procurement for the aforementioned acquisitions came in the form of a single award (and your briefing charts indicated the intent to award one contract), did the Government consider how multiple contracts (e.g., one contract for production/maintenance of production equipment, and a second contract for facility maintenance and modernization) could contribute to realizing a “new operating paradigm”?

Acknowledged; acquisition strategy is still being developed.

55. Has the Government considered formally incorporating Contractor Investment Plans/Commercial Utilization Plans (CIP/CUP) into the RFAAP acquisition and resulting contract?

At this time, the acquisition strategy is still being developed.

56. To enable industry to develop more thorough and innovative proposals, we strongly recommend the Government provide information regarding the current state/use of technologies including – but not limited to – artificial intelligence, autonomous operations, remote sensing/monitoring, and cybersecurity of IT/OT systems. We also recommend the Government provide historical and technical information pertaining to facilities, systems, and other assets required to meet RFAAP production and sustainability requirements.

57. When does the USG plan to receive approval for the acquisition timeline? What is the projected date for Industry Day #2?

The USG does not have an update on acquisition timeline at this point, including Industry Day #2. The USG will share the projected date for Industry Day #2 when able to.

58. What is the USG’s plan for the outgoing transition on the existing contract including timeline?

59. If the USG’s intent is for the product to include the full cost of the performance work statements, what is the USG’s plan for workloading the site once the 155mm artillery surge has been addressed?

The acquisition strategy is still under development and the USG is seeking assistance from industry to help shape the contract structure to address affordability aspects. The USG is also considering potential evaluation criteria tied to approaches to address affordability.

60. What does the USG mean by a new operating paradigm?

The USG is seeking assistance from Industry to help shape what the new paradigm will look like or entail, and, therefore, welcomes Industry feedback and ideas via white papers for USG review and potential use in development of what a "new operating

61. Based on the Industry Day slide #16, how would the USG plan to release and evaluate a severable price matrix CLIN structure for products?

The USG is currently evaluating this. Industry is encouraged to provide white papers on recommendations and approaches related to this solicitation.

62. How does the USG envision managing the severable CLIN structure for products?

acquisition strategy is finalized. Industry is encouraged to provide feedback, recommendations and approaches via white papers.

63. How does the USG plan to release and evaluate modernization as a part of the competition?

Evaluation criteria is still be finalized and will be provided in the draft RFP for Industry review and comment.

64. How does the USG plan evaluate a transition plan as a part of the solicitation?

Evaluation criteria has not been finalized; however, the USG encourages feedback and recommendations via white papers.

65. What is the government’s concept for commercial and international utilization?

The concept for commercial and international utilization is intended to be defined in the draft RFP.

66. For the purposes of establishing a separate production CLIN, who and with what metrics will poor performance be determined?

67. With a severable price CLIN structure, is the government considering awarding multiple offerors at the onset of the contract?

68. "Chart 11 discusses establishing a new Radford operating paradigm. Please explain what conditions have changed to enable a different Radford operating outcome in the following areas?

1. Acq Strategy

2. Policy

3. Budgeting

4. Facility

5. Production Requirements

6. Other" look like or entail, and, therefore, welcomes Industry feedback and ideas via white papers for USG review and potential use in development of what a "new operating paradigm" will look like.

69. Reduce PWS requirements to max extent. Only include essential CDRLs. Know what you’re going to do with the CDRL.

70. Need well thought-out transition-in strategy if new KTR, especially if only 6 months.

Transition PWS should be CPFF due to so many unknowns and risks to new KTR and success of Radford.

Acknowledged. Acquisition Strategy regarding Transition is still being evaluated.

71. Gov should buy/own production IT network to improve transition, reduce financial risk to a potential bidder.

72. Implement a blanket RUF to reduce cost of operations to Gov and KTR.

At this time, the process with regard to Request to Use Facility (RUF) is still being discussed and evaluated; however, the USG encourages feedback from Industry via white papers on thoughts behind implementing a blanket RUF and impacts that path forward would have both on the USG and the Operating Contractor.

73. For KTR investments, Gov Purpose Rights seems more reasonable than Unlimited Rights, Gov can use the investments for anything Gov related, but avoids commercial entities receiving benefit for non-Gov purposes.

The operating contractor is encouraged to make investments at RFAAP. The ownership of those investments will become USG property with Unlimited Rights (unless otherwise negotiated or unless they are only associated with commercial production).

The USG is continuing to evaluate Contractor Investments and USG rights, however, encourages Industry feedback via whitepapers for consideration.

74. Baseline Facility Audit should include Mechanical Integrity assessment findings of production equipment.

75. Ensure TDPs are validated/updated before releasing to Industry.

Acknowledged/in process.

76. Directly funding the PWS costs (with a separate Army BLIN) will substantially reduce the cost of product prices, reducing risk to Radford’s success and help stabilize product pricing. Avoids G&A and Fee pass thru multiple contractors.

Acknowledged/currently under review.

77. If not directly funding PWS costs over life of contract, consider funding the PWSs in year 1 to reduce transition risk and increase likelihood of Radford maintaining production continuity and success.

Acknowledged/currently under review.

78. What are the planned products and quantities to be procured from RF, particularly MK90? 7 year outlook would enable industry to gauge risk of considering to bid or not.

The USG cannot disclose this information.

79. Reference Chart 11, what industry standards does the Gov want aligned to RF operations?

Production and PWSs? Other? Need to reduce PWS requirements to enable a cost effective and sustainable Radford.

Per Chart 11 within the Industry Day#1 Charts and the Sources Sought, the USG is encouraging feedback via white papers on implementing cost effective solutions and ways to enhance performance, safety, reliability, etc., that may expand approaches and recommendations for the USG based on current industry standards and best practices.

80. How will modernization projects be handled that go beyond the current contract’s Period of Performance?

The USG is currently working with the operating contractor to ensure timely completion of ongoing modernization projects. In the event of schedule delays, information regarding those projects will be captured in the Transition Plan.

81. Chart 18, Cost Reporting. Are Business Systems and utilities metering in place to track costs in each cost area identified? If not, how can the KTR accurately determine cost in that area?

The business system in place would be that of the operating contractor. In some areas, utilities metering is in place; and in all areas, there is some level of business systems in place to track cost of each area.

It will be the responsibility of the contractor to monitor and track the business systems and utilities metering in place. Currently, in some areas, utilities metering is in place, and in all areas, there is some level of business systems in place to track cost of each area.

82. Natural Gas (NG) is a major Radford operating cost and essentially a fixed cost for the Gov being the owners of RF. Will the Gov be able to pay for, or be the provider of, the NG? If not, a NG EPA is essential to reduce FFP production pricing.

This is currently under review.

83. What is the status of the USG qualifying NC with the Hammermill, triple based propellant, new NC facility?

Development and testing efforts are underway. At this time, the USG cannot disclose additional information.

84. Reference Chart 17, what will Indemnification cover over the customary commercial insurance?

Indemnification refers to unusually hazardous risks associated with the requirement.

The USG cannot state in advance what efforts under the contract will be indemnified.

Indemnification requires Secretary of the Army approval.

85. Regarding “Accommodation of Third-Party Operations” on page 16 of the briefing package, can the Government provide feedback on what they would consider as “not performing” and what level of support would the operating contractor be required to give to the third part contractor?

86. If a new operating contractor is chosen, does the government anticipate a 12-month transition period? If so, will that transition period be the last 12 months of the current operating contractors’ contract?

This is currently under review; additional details regarding transition will be provided at a later date.

87. Will the government be providing the industry day 1 tour script in writing?

A copy of the Industry Day Tour Script will be provided in the VTL.

88. "Chart 11 discusses establishing a new Radford operating paradigm. Please explain what conditions have changed to enable a different Radford operating outcome in the following areas?

1. Acq Strategy

2. Policy

3. Budgeting

4. Facility

5. Production Requirements

6. Other"

The USG is seeking assistance from Industry to help shape what the new paradigm will look like or entail, and, therefore, welcomes Industry feedback and ideas via white papers for USG review and potential use in development of what the "new operating paradigm" will look like.

89. Can the Government provide a modernization status, including major milestones & projected completion for all ongoing or planned modernization projects at RFAAP?

The USG cannot disclose this information at this time; however, details for any projects not completed by the end of the current facility contract will be provided as part of the transition.

90. Does the Government anticipate award of any additional modernization projects that will go across the award timeline?

The USG does not anticipate the award of any new projects to the current operating contractor that will go across the award timeline.

91. Can the Government provide an anticipated production range (high / most probably / low) for each product family over the first five years of the contract for economies of scale and planning purposes?

The USG is still evaluating this requirement.

92. Can the Government describe how & when use of the incumbent’s supply contract will stop and when use of the new operators supply contract will start?

At this time, these details are still under review. The USG intends to provide this information with the Request for Proposal.

93. Can the Government provide current maximum & surge production capacity by product type?

Throughput of product and efficiency data with respect to current maximum and surge production capacity by product type will be provided in the VTL.

94. Can the Government provide historical utilities consumption & costs (e.g. natural gas, electricity, etc.) in the VTL?

The historical utilities consumption will be provided in the VTL. The decision to provide cost data is currently under review.

95. Can the Government provide their procurement objective for buildings currently in caretaker status?

If the modernization plan does not have use for buildings currently in caretaker status, they are put on a demo list for when funding becomes available under the LIF program.

Some buildings in caretaker status have potential for being reactivated. Those such buildings would not be demoed.

96. What are the Government intentions regarding railway management?

Rail requirements will be in the RFP. The Operating Contractor would be required to maintain and operate the rail at RFAAP.

97. When the Government went over bullet point #3, “Accommodation of Third-Party Operations,” part on Industry Day, the Government made a comment about how the operation of a GOCO site would only be done by a GOCO operator. If that is indeed the case, say that an interested party already has a prior agreement set with a company that is aiming to be a GOCO Prime operator, and that prior agreement stipulates that by the time the contract is awarded, the interested party would be an official subcontractor of the GOCO Prime operator. So when the Government says that the GOCO operator should be the only one doing the operation at a GOCO site, does that mean the subcontractor cannot also be involved in the operation and the production of the GOCO site?

The USG has privity of contract with the Operating Contractor (Prime). The award will be subject to Subcontract Clause FAR 52.244-2. The Prime contractor is able to subcontract to companies IAW the requirements of the RFP/resultant contract.

98. What is Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RFAAP)’s current operation rate and the target operation rate?

Data with regard to RFAAP’s target operation rate will be provided in the VTL.

99. What are the Government’s mid-to-long-term modernization plans in order of priority?

The USG is not currently able to provide these details.

100. What is the official transition period of the current contract in place?

The transition period of the current contract is currently under review.

101. For the “Modernization Projects may be awarded to the operating contractor, through US Army Corps of Engineers or directly to another 3rd-party” part, can the operating contractor sole source the modernization project to a certain technology provider? Or does the operating contractor need to bid it out?

The awarded contract will be subject to FAR 52.244-5, Competition in Subcontracting, however sole source considerations would require justification on a case-by-case basis.

Details regarding Modernization projects will be included in the RFP.

102. Will the Government consider interested submitters/parties to do an oral presentation for the technology piece of the proposal?

Consideration of an oral presentation is currently under review to determine feasibility.

103. How many more Industry Days/site tours is the Government planning to have, and when will those be announced on SAM.gov?

Currently, three additional industry days are planned and will be announced on SAM.gov approximately 30 days prior. Industry feedback on industry days/site tours is encouraged.

104. Will the new NC facility be commissioned and fully operational prior to transition?

The new NC facility is currently in commissioning and expected to be in full operation when/if there is a transition period.

105. Will the USG provide potential offerors with the current cost to perform the performance work statements (PWS) at Radford?

The USG is evaluating the decision to release cost data related to performance of the PWS’s.

106. Will the USG release the results of any flood damage to industry as an update to the Baseline Facility Assessment in the draft solicitation package?

The Baseline Facility assessment will be provided in the VTL. The assessment is expected to include the current condition of the equipment and will note, as appropriate, the impact of the equipment as a result of flood damage and replacement of equipment if applicable. Additionally, public information was released during the last public meeting on the flood impacts and is available on the RFAAP Facebook page.

107. When will Radford be qualified to produce M31A2 for MACS High Zone and will it be included in the USG price matrix?

This is currently under review. The USG intends to provide at a future date.

108. Would the new operating contractor be required to honor the active CBA agreement?

The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is an agreement between the union and the Contractor. The current CBA expires on 04 OCT 2026, and the USG is currently evaluating the terms of the CBA.

109. How will the government address/define the current operating contractor’s role in transition?

This will be defined in the transition plan to be provided at a later date.

110. One of the slides mentions government products are either purchased directly by the USG (15%) or through a third party (85%). Can you provide more information? Who are the third party buyers and is the operating contractor responsible for identifying them?

Third party work is work in which the USG is still the ultimate customer, but a third party (typically an end item prime contractor) is procuring material from Radford. The operating contractor is not responsible for identifying them.

111. Is a transition plan written in the current operating contractor’s scope? Can you provide details of that scope and duration?

112. How would the “economic price adjustment work”? What would be the timing and frequency?

Details regarding the economic price adjustment are still being reviewed; however, Industry feedback and recommendations are encouraged via white papers.

113. How much weightage would be for modernization and capability expansion? Is there a desire to expand capabilities to support additional products using excess facilities/infrastructure?

Evaluation criteria is still be finalized and will be detailed in the draft RFP.

114. Last time around the government held an Industry Day for this effort and then cancelled the competition deciding to exercise the operating contractors option – due to Covid. Could that happen again due to geopolitical conditions where transitioning to another operator may present unacceptable risk?

The USG is currently planning to compete.

115. On slide 16, it mentions the USG may request compensation for commercial sales. Please explain the current and contemplated structure.

This is currently laid out in the Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support (ARMS) PWS. The updated PWS states, "The consideration for third-party commercial production shall be in accordance with FAR Part 45 and FAR Part 52.245-9. The consideration for third party commercial production work shall be in accordance with FAR Part 45 and FAR Part 52.245-9 and will be calculated based on 4% of the total value of the third-party commercial production work (total contract value)." In addition, the USG receives 50% of the realized profit for all sales that meet the Commercial Utilization clause, primarily with regard to NC sales, not propellant sales. Industry feedback is encouraged WRT the future commercial sales structure.

116. Is the quarterly/annual financial reporting requirement a current requirement on the existing contract? If so, can the USG provide this information as a data point? If not, does the USG have any historical financial data available? If so, can the USG provide as a data point?

Yes, this is a requirement under the existing contract. The USG is currently reviewing the ability to provide this information publicly.

117. For the unevaluated options, how does that structure work? Would there be an option for the USG to unilaterally award these options?

The use of unevaluated options is under consideration in conjunction with the acquisition strategy. Unevaluated options would still need to be negotiated.

118. What is the evaluation criteria and corresponding weighting?

Evaluation criteria is still be finalized and will be detailed in the draft RFP.

119. What is the Government’s criteria for deciding contract type for the modernization projects?

The USG evaluates the contract type decision on a case-by-case basis.

120. What is the Government’s overall strategy for the modernization projects? Is there a plan by year with rankings?

The USG is unable to answer this question at this time. This will be determined as the

121. What is the anticipated award funding over the first 5 years and the 5 option years?

The Government is unable to disclose the data on the anticipated award funding over the projected POP.

122. How does the USG contemplate/evaluate whether to utilize the Prime or go directly to a

Subcontractor for modernization projects? Please also provide a breakout the anticipated percentage of modernization work between the prime and subcontractors per year.

The Government evaluates this decision on a case-by-case basis. Given the individual nature of this decision, a projection cannot be provided.

123. The Government provided historical data on production in pounds. Can the Government share projected volume?

Please refer to Chart 8 in the Industry Day Charts on RFAAP historical production. At this time, the USG cannot provide projected volume.

124. What is the timing of the first draft RFP release and other major schedule milestones (i.e.

2nd draft RFP, final RFP, proposal due date)?

This is currently being finalized and more details will be provided at Industry Day #2.

125. Please provide a definition for maintenance. Is there a threshold for replacement of Government assets that wouldn’t be classified as maintenance and fall outside of this PWS?

Maintenance will be included in the draft RFP and will provide all necessary requirements for maintenance performance at RFAAP.

126. Please clearly define the criteria to classify PWS efforts as either “Indirect vs Direct” equipment maintenance costs.

The USG is currently evaluating this topic. The delineation between direct and indirect PWS's will be included in the draft RFP. The USG encourages feedback from Industry via white papers on this topic.

127. Are there any current or projected secondary funding sources for facility maintenance such as the reincorporation of fees paid by the contractor for commercial utilization of facility assets? If so, are these funds utilized at the contractor’s discretion or is Government approval required? What is the current approval process?

Yes, there are currently secondary funding sources. The USG provides concurrence with Contractor’s requested use of funds.

128. Please advise how the Government will determine which modernization task orders will be

Cost-Reimbursable vs. Firm-Fixed Price. As discussed during the October 2024 industry day one-on-one, task orders issued via Firm-Fixed Price force contractors to own all risk and subsequently Firm-Fixed Price will drive up cost on task order pricing.

Acknowledged. The USG will make this decision on a case-by-case basis.

129. Please advise if the Government will incorporate the Liquidated Damages FAR Clause into the acquisition approach?

At this time, the USG intends to incorporate the Liquidated Damages Clause into the RFP/resultant contract. Implementation will be tailored to each effort.

130. Please advise if the Government will incorporate Professional Labor Agreement (PLA) requirements into the solicitation.

The CBA is an agreement between the union and the Contractor. The current CBA expires on 04 OCT 2026, and the USG is currently evaluating the terms of the CBA and whether or not it will be provided in the VTL. The PLA/CBA requirements will be identified in the solicitation.

131. Please advise of the Government’s anticipated annual modernization project volume for the Radford AAP Operator to assume. Should bidders anticipated $100-150M of modernization task orders per year (with execution by either the Operator, USACE or 3rd Party).

Historical modernization investment data was provided on Slide 7 in the Industry Day slides. Projections will not be provided.

132. Please advise how ongoing modernization projects, ran by the current Operator, will transition to a new Operator contract? Will additional flow-downs and/or FAR clauses incorporated into the new Operator contract be required to be incorporated into the legacy projects? Can the Government please define this transition and provide details of the process?

133. What is the anticipated date for Draft RFP #1 and what is the anticipated date of Final RFP release by USG?

This is currently being finalized, and more details will be provided at Industry Day #2.

134. On Slide 11, can the Government define or describe the Army’s “new operating paradigm”?

look like or entail, and, therefore, welcomes Industry feedback and ideas via white papers for USG review and potential use in development of what the "new operating

135. On Slide 16 under “Utilization of Facilities for Commercial Purposes” regarding “commercialization of the facility”, has the Army ever or would the Army ever say no to sell to a NATO country? What about a non-NATO country like Ukraine?

Facility use is granted through a Request for Use of Facility (RUF) process, and access is subject to evaluation and acceptance of the required packet.

136. In response to the language regarding the severing of production CLINS on Slide 16, how is non-performance defined and evaluated and who will make that decision?

137. On Slide 17 under “Capital Investment & Intellectual Property Rights”, can the Government please elaborate or provide an example for “d. Intellectual Property”?

Intellectual Property will become USG property with Unlimited Rights (unless otherwise negotiated or unless they are only associated with commercial production).

138. Would the Government own the IP should it fund part or all of the equipment necessary for advanced propellant production?

The operating contractor is encouraged to make investments at RFAAP. The ownership of those investments will become USG property with Unlimited Rights (unless otherwise negotiated or unless they are only associated with commercial production).

The USG is continuing to evaluate Contractor Investments and USG rights, however, encourages Industry feedback via whitepapers for consideration.

139. For preparation of future White Papers on the pricing matrix, can the Army provide any historical insights on the amount and/or price of NC they have purchased over the last 10 years?

Please refer to Chart 8 on RFAAP historical production purchased. NC production broken out by DoD vs. Commercial can be determined through Contractor-led market analysis.

140. Will the Government provide a minimum production requirement for the new contract?

The USG is continuing to evaluate this requirement. Offerors are encouraged to provide feedback via white papers on pricing structure recommendations.

141. Can the Government provide a list of KPIs that the contractor will have to meet for production?

The USG intends to provide the names of the Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) within the first draft RFP.

142. On Slide 8, can the Government break out each of the three vertical bar graphs by specific product (see example)? Additionally, can the Government provide the average cost of each of the products being sold? If the USG cannot give the average cost of each product for the 3rd party sales (85%), can the USG give the average cost of each product that it directly buys (15%)?

At this time, providing a breakout by quantity is under review. Costs are proprietary and will not be provided.

143. In the Virtual Technical Library, will a Table of Contents be provided to Industry ahead of time?

Yes; The USG intends to post this prior to Industry Day #2.

144. Regarding access to the On Site Library, will there be a time limit per contractor?

Additionally, will there be a limit to the number of people that can access the library? Will non-US personnel be admitted into the data library?

Guidance and a schedule to access the On-Site Library will be published when it is in place and ready to be accessed by Contractors.

145. Will any of the McKinsey reports be included in the On Site Library?

The USG is currently evaluating whether the McKinsey reports can be releasable on the VTL, contents of which are currently under development.