Draft RFP Q and A - W519TC-25-R-0045 RFAAP 22Dec2025.pdf

# DRFP Section Solicitation Statement Requiring Clarification Offeror Question USG Response

1 SAM.gov

General Comment On 7/21/25, the USG updated SAM.gov with accessible Adobe Acrobat versions of all PWS attachments without posting an explanation that the newly posted Adobe Acrobat attachments were identical to previously posted MS Word versions of those same attachments. This left industry uncertain as to whether new or modified information existed in the newly posted Adobe Acrobat versions of those PWS attachments.

Similarly, on 8/6/25, the USG updated the main solicitation page on SAM.gov (https://sam.gov/opp/ef5618f1a2cc4b16a49a4670d4254 30a/view) to reflect “Aug 06, 2025” under the “Updated Date” column for some, but not all, Controlled files in the Virtual Technical Library on SAM.gov at https://sam.gov/opp/5376cd70fa994c4cab9df78ef569c9 9e/view. There was no corresponding update to the “Updated Date” column on the VTL site. Additionally, other than the main SAM.gov site indicating that it had been updated on Aug 06, 2025 via a strikethrough (Updated Published Date: Aug 06, 2025 03:12 pm CDT Jul 21, 2025 03:14 pm CDT) in the General Information block, there was no explanation o r notification provided about what had changed on either page.

Will the USG please provide summaries and explanations of postings and changes to the SAM.gov sites associated with this acquisition?

The USG will clarify any changes to SAM.gov postings.

Sec. A - Requirements Summary 2 & 4

(PWS 12) -

2: “PWS 12 – Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support - (ARMS)” is listed as direct-funded. - 4: “The following PWS will be funded utilizing tenant rent revenue: PWS 12 –

ARMS.”

Which funding source governs - PWS 12, direct funding or tenant rent revenue? - Clarify a single, primary funding - stream for PWS 12 (or distinguish phases if mixed) and update the narrative to eliminate conflict. -

No direct funding will be provided under PWS 12.

This PWS will be self-funded via tenant rents.

Section A - page #2, paragraph 8

Section A - page #2, paragraph 8 The draft RFP requests pricing for a five-year base contract, an evaluated five-year option, and two additional unevaluated ten-year option for 30 years of pricing.

Attachment 0019 only reflects the two ten-year options. Please update Attachment 0019 with tabs to include the base five-year contract and option five-year option contract.

The DRFP requests pricing for a total of 10 years, with any remaining periods to be negotiated separately.

4 I-02 and I-04

Natural Gas and Escalation EPA narratives The EPA in Section I-04 of the RFP ties solely to the Producer Price Index (PPI), which does not reflect the significantly higher volatility of significant RFAAP inputs such as Nitric Acid and Cellulose. Over the past 10 years, the maximum annual increase in the PPI has been 8.5% compared to 20.1% for Nitric Acid and 17.9% for Cellulose. Thus, the PPI is inadequate to properly capture the market fluctuations seen on these two critical raw materials for the production of Nitrocellulose. A specific EPA for Nitric Acid and Cellulose should be added. Based on the data above, the cumulative cap for Nitric Acid and Cellulose should be 50%.

Acknowledged. The USG is still evaluating the EPA strategy.

5 General

Integration of Modernization and Operations In the Modernization Approach volume, offerors are asked to describe how modernization will be executed in coordination with production and base operations.

Could the Government clarify whether modernization is expected to be performed as a stand-alone effort or whether integration with day-to-day operations is a key evaluation consideration? Additionally, does the Government expect that the successful offer could propose shut down and demolishing buildings that are largely derelict and made obsolete from capital improvements?

Yes, integration is a critical element of the plan.

Modernization shall not disrupt production operations. Yes, plans to optimize may include demolition of existing structures.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf

General Comment Several incorporated FAR/DFARS provisions do not apply or are not intended to apply in the context of a competitive solicitation. Is this because the USG is trying to include the full list of contract requirements for future negotiated scopes of work/projects? If this is true, for clarity on which requirements the USG sees as applicable to this effort, will the USG parse out the provisions that specifically apply to this solicitation versus ones applicable to future DO/TOs?

Yes, the USG is providing clauses for competition and future sole source negotiations under the awarded IDIQ. No, the USG will not separate the provisions that specifically apply to this solicitation versus ones applicable to future Delivery/Task Orders. All applicable clauses will be included at the base level.

Section A - page #3, Requirement #1

Section A - page #3, Requirement #1

Draft RFP directs that First Article (FAT) costs are included for each ordering period.

Assume this means including FAT costs across all thirty years for each of the CLINs.

Further, recommend Attachment 0019 break out the FAT cost as a stand-alone item and not be included in the unit cost for each of the Ordering Periods. This approach alleviates any potential issues pertaining to savings specifically garnered as a result of waiving the FAT requirement.

The USG is considering pricing matrix entries for FAT costs in the next DRFP. Please refer to Section A in the DRFP.

8 I-02 and I-04

Natural Gas and Escalation EPA narratives The EPA baseline prices should be reset to current market conditions prior to each option period. As seen in recent years, world events, such as COVID and tariffs, have cause significant shifts in the markets justifying the need for this rebaselining.

With the exception of the EPA's contained in the DRFP, the USG does not intend to reset prices prior to each ordering period. The EPA baseline prices are rebaselined prior to each option period (10 years).

Section A, Executive Summary, 7.0

The Government is contemplating Oral Presentations as part of proposal submission requirements.

Can the Army provide additional insight into Oral Presentations - is the Army's focus on long-term vision and strategies for project execution at RFAAP; transition; or sample tasks?

Additional details will be included in a future DRFP.

10 General

Capital Risk and Investment Expectations Will the Government provide additional guidance regarding contractor expectations for investment in capital equipment or infrastructure sustainment outside of the modernization IDIQ CLINs?

Additional details will be included in a future DRFP.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf, A, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, Solicitation W519TC-25-R-0045 is for the production of propellants and the operation and modernization of the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (RFAAP) beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027.

Will the USG please publish its acquisition plan, including projected dates for release of Final RFP and contract award?

The USG will not be posting the acquisition plan.

However, milestones will be provided to Industry when able to share.

Sec. A - Requirements Summary, 2 and Attachment 0019 PWS Matrix. -

"2. The following PWS may be directly funded, for the first ten - (10) years of this contract, subject to availability of funds. It is the Government's intent that funding requirements for these direct funded PWS's decrease steadily over the initial ten-year period with the final year reaching $0.00 funding requirement." -

Considering Attachment 0019’s PWS - Matrix (including the E.1.a.i indirect-pricing directive) and the Contractor Challenge offsets, could the Government structure the final RFP PWS CLINS as a CPAF contract type—anchored to PPP program - milestones key performance targets that demonstrate the contractor’s ability to self-direct maintenance, supply chain actions, and minor process improvements, as part of the award-fee plan—to enable a systematic shift of PWS 1–18 direct funding to zero by Year 10, with clear, objective performance measures to validate the resulting indirect cost recovery?

The USG is not considering a CPAF contract for the items being priced under this RFP. The USG is updating its pricing strategy WRT the phase down of PWS costs.

Section A - page #3, item #9

Section A - page #3, item #9 Can the Government provide an exact date to take over operational control of the facility, i.e. 1/1/27.

Milestones will be provided to Industry when able to share.

14 B-01

In the event unevaluated option periods are executed in the future, the RFAAP contractor agrees to utilize a mutually agreeable pricing curve, in lieu of range pricing, to establish prices for production items

The pricing curve used to establish prices for the unevaluated option periods should be based on the historical actual cost to operate the facility during the first 7 years of the contract. The way the pricing curve is intended to be executed needs to be clearly defined in the RFP as there are significantly different risk profiles depending on what data is used to execute this curve. The USG is requesting actual cost data for performance of the contract via PWS 11. This data should be the basis for the pricing curve.

Please clarify the following:

(1) Please confirm that the Government will not be entitled to impose a pricing curve unilaterally.

Future pricing will be mutually negotiated. The exact methodology will be jointly agreed upon during negotiations.

Section A, Requirements Summary, 1.0

First Article Test (FAT) costs are required to be included for each Ordering Period. Offerors should not assume FAT will be waived and must provide FAT cost as required to be considered for award. However, the Government reserves the right to require or waive FAT throughout the life of the contract.

Would the Army consider waiving FAT throughout the life of the contract for any commercial products that have already been tested and/or in production at facilities outside of the United States?

The USG will consider each FAT on a case by case basis. Please refer to Section A in the DRFP.

16 General

Use of Government-Estimated Quantities in Evaluation

Will the Government clarify whether the estimated production quantities provided for pricing will be used for both cost realism and technical evaluation of proposed approaches, or solely for pricing purposes?

The evaluated quantities will be used as weighting factors only. They will not used for cost realism or technical evaluations.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf, A, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, The resultant contract will consist of a base period with five, one-year ordering periods; an evaluated option for five, one- year ordering periods exercised at time of award; and two additional unevaluated ten-year options.

Therefore, the maximum period of performance is thirty years should both ten-year unevaluated options be exercised based on successful performance of the contract during the initial ten- year period. Performance evaluations during the initial period will lead to an option decision in year seven (7) of the initial period. The resulting contract will also include a one- year transition following the contract's final ordering period to allow for completion of deliveries and ongoing projects.

Will the one-year transition be additive to the final ordering period, such that total period of performance is actually 31 years? We assume the initial (and subsequent) award(s) would not include the one-year transition period. Is this correct?

The one-year transition period is factored into the overall 30-year PoP (i.e., transition year will be year 30).

Sec. A - Requirements Summary, 2 and Attachment 0019 - - -n/a - - - - The draft RFP’s approach to - Propellant Production is promoting reliance on third-party funding sources, beyond traditional appropriations, to underwrite a fixed- price contract.

While we fully support the goal of leveraging commercial partnerships to enhance program affordability and sustainability, the fixed-price model inherently places the full escalation and demand-risk squarely on the contractor. To proceed with confidence, industry requires clear, data-driven visibility into the market assumptions underpinning this blended-funding approach. - - -

The USG intends to provide information regarding budgeted quantities in the final RFP, at the latest.

19 B - Attachment 0019

B - Attachment 0019 Attachment 0019 minimum order size of one does not allow the Contractor to properly plan a feasible execution strategy. Request the Government provide a practical minimum order quantity for each of the CLINS that would be manageable for both parties to execute.

The USG is considering product level price ranges in certain instances.

20 B-01 https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/contra ct_pricing_reference_guides.html

The link provided as a reference for the pricing curve does not work. Information concerning the USG's price curve methodology can be found at the following updated link.

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/pcf/pricing-tools.html

SECTION C -

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFIC

ATIONS/ WORK

STATEMENT, C.04

In the last three (3) ordering periods of the contract, the operating contractor agrees to allow potential bidders to tour the facility on a non-interference basis during normal operations and/or during shut down, as requested by the Contracting Officer, to view the equipment and facilities. Equipment and facilities shall include Government Property as well as contractor property for which title will pass to the Government at the end of the contract.

Can the Government provide an estimated timeframe for when this tour will occur? Will it happen during Industry Day #5 that is tentatively scheduled in the November timeframe?

This language is applicable to the last three (3) ordering periods of the contract resulting from this

RFP.

22 General

Commercial Use of RFAAP Capacity Under the incumbent contract, limited commercial sales from the RFAAP facility were authorized with Government approval. Will similar allowances or restrictions apply under the new contract? If so, under what conditions?

Under the new contract, the USG intends to create an environment that permits, encourages and financially incentivizes commercial work while abiding by USG DPAS rated orders.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf, A, REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY, 11 and L01.F

A Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan is required at the time of proposal submission;

see FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, for details. Small Business goal is as follows:

Small Business: 16.57% The USG has established the following goals for this procurement based on total contract value (including options):

Please explain the small business goal of 16.57%. Is this goal for the participation plan (which looks at total contract value) or the subcontracting plan (which looks at total material value)?

This goal applies to both the participation plan and subcontracting plan.

Instructions for - Attachment 0019 - - -

Instructions for Attachment 0019 (p134):

Offerors will have the - opportunity to demonstrate the beneficial impact of increased business base throughout the POP by entering a - negative value in the "Contractor Challenge" row as an offset to the Government's PWS price for each ordering period. The contractor - challenge entry represents a reduction to the RFP PWS price as a result of additional business base that would absorb fixed overhead. - This entry is not required and will only be evaluated as a component of the total ordering period PWS Price.

Can the Government better define - "Contractor Challenge" as it related to PWS Price in the Ordering Periods? - - -

Under the contractor challenge, offerors are able to demonstrate pricing assumptions concerning additional overhead absorption as a result of new business base in the form of a credit to the PWS price rather than product price. The entry is not mandatory.

https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/contract_pricing_reference_guides.html https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/contract_pricing_reference_guides.html

25 B - Attachment 0019

B - Attachment 0019 Attachment 0019 requests pricing across all CLINs from 1 to various quantities. Many of these quantities are in the millions, with CLIN 0003 set at $15M. Recommend Government consider range pricing as grouped buys, particularly in higher quantities, should be more affordable.

The USG understands this concern and is evaluating its approach.

26 A paragraph 10

The Government has conducted a Baseline Facility Assessment (BFA) and Baseline Environmental Condition Assessment (BECA) at RFAAP for the purpose of presenting the current operating state of equipment and environmental conditions at the facility. This assessment is intended to be used for informational purposes only to assist in determining the suitability and conditions of the processes, facilities, and environmental conditions at the facility. In using any of the information and evaluations in the BFA or BECA, Offerors should independently verify and determine whether to include specific actions in their proposals and plans and must assume all liability for the success or failure of these actions.

Section A0001 of the RFP states that the BFA and BECA are provided “for informational purposes only” and that the Government “makes no representations” as to their accuracy. Although the Government is uniquely positioned to assess facility conditions at RFAAP, this provision places the risk of any inaccuracies in the Government provided reports on the contractor. This requires all offerors other than the incumbent, which has complete access to the facility, to price the risk of inaccuracies of in the BFA and BECA into their proposals. To obtain more favorable pricing and create a level playing field for all offerors, we recommend that the Government incorporate the BFA and BECA into the contract for pricing purposes.

Section A0001 of the RFP states that offerors should “independently verify” the condition of the facility and environmental status prior to proposal submission. Conducting an adequate independent assessment would require access to the Radford facility for multiple weeks prior to proposal submission. Unless the Government is willing to afford all offerors that level of access to the site, the incumbent will have an unfair competitive advantage by virtue of its site access. Incorporating the BFA and BECA into the contract is the only viable approach to enabling offerors to complete on an equal basis.

The USG does not intend to include the BECA or BFA into the contract. The USG is considering a price strategy element that would provide an operator with additional resources to correct facility deficiencies they may identify. Efforts are underway to provide additional access to the facility.

SECTION C -

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFIC

ATIONS/ WORK

STATEMENT C-03 -

Responsiveness to Government

The Operator shall respond, in a reasonable period of time agreed to by both parties, to all Government requests for information

Could the Government define reasonable timeframe to respond to requests for information of managing this contract?

Reasonable timeframes will be defined on a case-by-case basis.

28 General

Post-Award Role in Shaping Modernization Priorities

Will the selected contractor have a role in recommending modernization priorities, sequencing, and investment tradeoffs under the IDIQ modernization CLINs, or will those decisions remain strictly Government-directed?

Yes, contractor input will play an integral role through the yearly call letter process and will be strongly considered by the USG.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf, A, REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY, 11 and L01.F

A Small Business (SB) Subcontracting Plan is required at the time of proposal submission;

see FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, for details. Small Business goal is as follows:

Small Business: 16.57% The USG has established the following goals for this procurement based on total contract value (including options):

- Small Business (SB) - 16.57%

Please explain the USG goals that the SB participation plan will be evaluated against. The DRFP states “The Offeror's proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Attachment 00xx) will be evaluated against the USG's goals for each category”. Are the USG goals referred to in this requirement based on subcontracting plans which reference material dollars?

Yes, the USG goals referred to in this requirement are based on subcontracting plans which reference material dollars.

Sec. A - Requirements Summary, 2 and Attachment 0019 PWS Matrix. - -n/a - - - The USG expects PWS direct funding - to decrease to “Zero” on or before OP - 10. Is it the USG’s expectation that any out year annual PWS - direct-funding price reductions not covered by third-party revenue be placed into propellant production overhead?

The Government intends to make modifications to its current direct funded PWS phaseout model, which will be presented in the next DRFP.

Section A - page #2, item #7 Section B -page #9, item (g)

Section A - page #2, item #7 Section B - page #9, item (g)

Section A, of Draft RFP requests firm fixed prices (FFP) for the contract line items (CLIN).

However, Section B mentions that the contract will contain an economic price adjustment for natural gas and escalation. Please clarify if the US Government is requesting Firm-Fixed Priced CLINs for all thirty years or are you requesting FFP pricing for Ordering Period #1 only and Not-To - Exceed (NTE) for the remaining 29 years?

Please update Attachment 0019 to reflect which prices are FFP and NTE.

Product pricing is only being requested for the initial 10 years of the contract.

32 A paragraph 14

The Government reserves its right to award modernization projects to the prime operator, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or a third party

Projects impacting the production processes of the facility should be awarded to the prime contractor as the prime contractor has the most at stake in the success of the project. As the operator of the facility, the prime contractor will also be the most knowledgeable of the processes and the modernization necessary. Further, performance of modernization projects impacting the production process by third parties increase the risk that such projects will impact the production schedule and result in potential disputes regarding responsibility for such disruption.

For work other than production process specific work, the prime contractor should be given the first right of refusal for the work.

The Government's approach for modernization will balance workload and execute modernization projects in the best interest of the Government.

The Government may utilize the prime contractor, USACE, or MATOC to execute modernization projects.

SECTION C -

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFIC

ATIONS/ WORK

STATEMENT C-07 -

Modernization Support for Incumbent

There may be multiple projects in execution by the incumbent Contractor that will extend beyond the period of performance of its existing facility use contract period of performance end date of 31

Can the Government provide a list of ongoing modernization projects that will extend past Dec 31 2026?

It is not anticipated that there will be modernization projects that extend past Dec 31 2026. This sentence will be removed from the next DRFP.

34 General

Evaluation of Offeror's Performance Management Approach

The DRFP requests a description of the contractor’s approach to managing risk, performance metrics, and accountability across operations and modernization. Can the Government clarify whether the evaluation will prioritize objective measurement systems (e.g., IMS, KPIs, dashboards) or rely more on narrative descriptions?

Please refer to Section M for the USG's evaluation approach.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf, A, REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY, 17

The Minimum Guaranteed Amount (MGA) for the IDIQ contract awarded as a result of this solicitation is $5,000.00. In accordance with (IAW) FAR 16.504(a)(2), Indefinite- quantity contracts, the successful Offeror will receive the MGA and shall provide a process map at the time of contract award. The MGA will be included in the first delivery order.

Section A REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2 states the USG's intent is for direct funded PWS to decrease in direct funding over time and ultimately be covered fully through indirect amortization over product prices. Does the USG intend to increase the minimum guaranteed amount over time to balance risk in consideration for this shift? Or is it the USG's intention that the successful offeror be prepared to cover the full cost of performing the PWS in an environment absent of any USG production orders?

The USG will not be guaranteeing a minimum volume, but will allow the offeror to price a low volume scenario. The Government intends to make modifications to its current direct funded PWS phaseout model, which will be presented in the next

DRFP.

36 n/a - -n/a - - If RFAAP electric or natural gas - providers raise their rates during performance, what allowable surcharge or price-adjustment procedure may we invoke to amend the fixed-price Propellant Production rate? Which contract clause or government-approved escalation formula applies, and what supporting documentation will be required to justify any such adjustment? -

Please refer to the next DRFP for EPA updates. The USG is considering the addition of an electricity EPA.

Section B - page #9, item (e)

Section B - page #9, item (e) DRFP states, In the event unevaluated option periods are executed in the future, the RFAAP contractor agrees to utilize a mutually agreeable pricing curve, in lieu of range pricing, to establish prices for production items . Request more insight as to how and when the pricing curve would be applied. Also, referenced website is not valid.

Information concerning the USG's price curve methodology can be found at the following updated link. The price curve could be applied during bilateral sole source negotiations for contract year 11 and beyond. There are training slides at this link also.

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/pcf/pricing-tools.html

38 Section L Volume 2

Modernization volume Requiring the bidder to independently determine projects and provide a binding bid/proposal provides a significant advantage to the incumbent as they have the most knowledge of what projects would be most beneficial to the facility today and they are the only bidders with proper access to the facility to be able to accurately prepare this proposal to the level of detail the USG is requesting. The level of estimate that is being requested relates to the level of estimate required for a feasibility study, it should not be used to bind the operator to an estimate.

This section should be modified to require bidders to provide non-binding ROM's for 2 or 3 specific projects with a detailed statement of work provided for each project.

Additionally, bidders should be given adequate time on-site to prepare these ROM's.

This approach will provide a more fair competition and increase the likelihood of the ROM's being more accurate and successful completion of the project.

If the USG is unwilling to accept this suggestion of requesting 2 or 3 specific projects, the call-letter and P-25 feeders need to be provided to bidders.

Acknowledged. The USG is still refining its approach to modernization. Additional detail will be provided in a subsequent DRFP.

39 General

Flexibility to Adjust Production Priorities Will the Government retain the right to alter product priorities or shift production demand across product lines? If so, will there be a mechanism to compensate for changes that materially impact the production plan used to price CLINs?

These cases will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

40 Attachment 0019 - -n/a - - Please Provide a Section B schedule - that provides a Unit of Issue (UI) description and respective UI Quantity for the propellant price listing found in Attachment 19. -

UOM's will be provided in the next DRFP

Section B - Attachment

0019, CLIN 0027

Section B - Attachment 0019, CLIN 0027 CAD/PAD (individual orders for multiple TDP's). Range 1 to 5,000. Request clarification as to what US Government is looking for in CLIN 0027? CAD/PAD (individual orders for multiple TDP's).

The USG is currently evaluating all TDP's. An updated list of CLIN's will be provided in the next

DRFP.

42 1.5 Definitions

Corrective Maintenance: Any action required to preserve, repair, or replace active facilities and active equipment in such condition that it may be safely and effectively utilized for its designated purpose.

This section only applies cost limitations to abnormal maintenance. By stating the requirements to “replace” active facilities and active equipment without a dollar threshold puts a contractor at risk to have to replace an entire facility at their own cost should it be necessary. This will undoubtedly result in questions or risk priced in that may not be desired by the government. Recommend applying a dollar threshold (recommended $200,000 per incident) where the government is responsible for replacement vs. the contractor.

Acknowledged. The USG is currently evaluating additional contract features to mitigate maintenance cost risks.

SECTION C -

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFIC

ATIONS/ WORK

STATEMENT C-07 -

Modernization Support for Incumbent

There may be multiple projects in execution by the incumbent Contractor that will extend beyond the period of performance of its existing facility use contract period of performance end date of 31 December 2025 and will extend into the awardee's execution of this RFAAP contract.

Will costs incurred in support of the incumbent be reimbursed separately or should they be included in base pricing?

It is not anticipated that there will be modernization projects that extend past Dec 31 2026. This sentence will be removed from the next DRFP.

44 General

Transition Planning Expectations The DRFP includes a dedicated CLIN and proposal volume for Phase-In. Will the Government provide a list of known ongoing modernization activities or capital projects to be assumed by the incoming contractor to aid in transition planning?

As of December 2025, it is not anticipated that there will be ongoing modernization projects requiring completion by the incoming contractor.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf, A, REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY, 2

The following PWS may be directly funded, for the first ten

(10) years of this contract, subject to availability of funds. It is the Government's intent that funding requirements for these direct funded PWSs decrease steadily over the initial ten year period with the final year reaching $0.00 funding requirement.

Is the USG committed to directly fund all the PWS cost included in the Evaluated price tab for PWS in years 1- 10? Or is it possible there will not be sufficient funds available and the contractor will not receive the PWS price proposed in Attachment 019? Also, are all offerors required to bid $0 in year 10 of the PWS price matrix or does the requirement to be at $0 begin in year 11?

The current strategy for the future of RFAAP is to direct fund PWS's subject to availability of funds.

46 Attachment 0019 - -n/a - - The provide Attachment 19 does not - have the government provided weighting percentages visible in the spreadsheet. Please provide a revised Attachment 19 that contains the respective propellant line item weighting percentages. -

The USG will provide all matrix weighting factors in the next DRFP.

47 2.1.2.5

The MP shall describe in detail how the Contractor will develop and maintain a comprehensive Spare and Repair Parts Program for RFAAP that includes 100% of spare and repair parts for Government furnished property at RFAAP.

Requiring the contract to maintain 100% of spare and repair parts for GFP at RFAAP is over constraining the contractor. The contractor should have the ability to determine and maintain spare parts to appropriate safety stocks based on usage and lead times.

Additionally, this requirement provides an advantage to the incumbent as they are the only bidder with a complete spare parts list for all equipment on site today. This requirement will increase the cost to the USG as bidders will have to price in this added risk. Recommend rewording this requirement to allow the contractor to develop safety stocks based on usage and lead times.

Please provide a list of spare and repair parts that exist as inventory today.

The USG intends to modify this requirement to enable an additional degree of flexibility in spare parts managements. Also, a listing of current spare parts will be released at or before time of final RFP release.

SECTION C -

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFIC

ATIONS/ WORK

STATEMENT Section C- Facility Security Clearance Requirement

Requirements of this contract will require the contractor to have access to classified material up to and including the SECRET level.

Will all Subcontractors be required to hold a Secret FCL or only those subcontractors who require access to classified material?

This will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

49 General

Request for Consideration of FAR 52.211-18 – Variation in Estimated Quantity

The DRFP currently includes FAR 52.243-1 (Changes – Fixed-Price) but does not include FAR 52.211-18 (Variation in Estimated Quantity). Given that production CLIN pricing is based on Government-provided estimated quantities, would the Government consider including FAR 52.211-18 to allow for equitable adjustment if actual quantities deviate significantly from estimates?

The USG does not provide estimated quantities in the price matrix. It provides evaluated quantities for weighting purposes. The USG does not intend to allow for equitable adjustment based on actual order quantities. Please refer to Section B-01, subparagraph (d) in the DRFP.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf, A, REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY, 21

The Government will re-negotiate, as required, the terms and conditions of this contract if future Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) legislation or other Government decisions alter current plant status/missions. The Government shall retain the right to modify the mission of the facility; this may include, or result in, the potential closure of the facility.

If the contractor is responsible for delivering on third party contracts using the facilities, how does the USG envision resolution of the liability to which the contractor is exposed in the event of a change of this nature?

Acknowledged. The USG will bilaterally negotiate such changes with the Contractor.

SECTION A - -

SUPPLEMENTAL -

INFORMATION,

Executive Summary, 14.

14. The Government reserves its right to award modernization - projects to the prime operator, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or a - third-party.

Recommend revising this - statement to provide clarification of when the government would place modernization projects with other than the prime operator. - - Uncertainty in scope and contract - size may deter competition and increase costs. - - Uncertainty in scope and contract - size may deter competition and increase costs. -

The Government's approach for modernization will balance workload and execute modernization projects in the best interest of the Government.

The Government may utilize the prime contractor, USACE, or MATOC to execute modernization projects.

Section B - Attachment

Section B - Attachment 0019 AFP001+ propellant (part number 28081855) for the MK44 rounds was not included in the Draft RFP. Is this intentional?

The USG is currently evaluating all TDP's. An updated list of CLIN's will be provided in the next

DRFP.

53 1.5.13

Government property: All data (e-mail, contact information, calendar content, etc.) is and shall remain the property of the government. The Contractor shall ensure that the government retains access and download capability of all data for research investigation, transfers or migration to other systems

The Government should not have rights to the contractors emails, contact information, calendar content, etc. as this is data that is located on the Contractors business system.

This must be clarified to be only data that is from a Government network/system, not information on the Contractors business system. The statement that "all data … is and shall remain the property of the Government" is inconsistent with H-01(b), DFARS 252.227-7013 and -7014, as well as other DFARS data rights provisions, pursuant to which the contractor retains title.

The USG will modify language in subsequent DRFP to clarify that the USG's intent is not to have rights to the contractors emails, contact information, calendar content, etc. that is located on the Contractor's business system.

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFIC

ATIONS/ WORK

STATEMENT

Safeguarding Section C- 11 Permanent and Enduring Records

Permanent records from this contract and from prior contracts shall be organized, maintained and archived in designated locations for use by both the Government and contractor representatives during this contract

Is this a Government centralized document repository, or will the contractor establish and maintain a Government- accessible system?

The contractor shall establish and maintain a Government-accessible system.

55 General

Clarification on Basis for Equitable Adjustment Requests

If actual Government orders materially deviate from the quantity assumptions provided in the DRFP and used in offerors’ Basis of Estimate submissions, would the Contracting Officer consider such deviations to be grounds for an equitable adjustment under FAR 52.243-1 (Changes – Fixed-Price)?

The USG does not provide estimated quantities in the price matrix. It provides evaluated quantities for weighting purposes. The USG does not intend to allow for equitable adjustment based on actual order quantities. Please refer to Section B-01, subparagraph (d) in the DRFP.

Volume 4: Price (Page -

134) -

Offerors shall propose firm fixed prices for each identified direct - funded PWS for order period's 1 through 10. Direct funded PWS' to be priced are listed below: -

Would the Government consider - converting this requirement from a Firm-Fixed-Price contract to a hybrid structure (e.g., Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee, Cost-Plus-Award-Fee, etc.) -

The USG is not considering any cost-type contracts for the direct funded PWS's.

Section B - Attachment

Section B - Attachment 0019 Will the final RFP include the Current Performance Work Scope (PWS) Allocation Formula to Product Price Matrix/Attachment 0019?

The USG will provide all matrix weighting factors in the next DRFP.

All of the PWS's require that the contractor identify 3 additional KPI's on top of the KPI's already specified within the PWS.

The USG has already identified the KPI's that they have determined to be the key to ensuring the contractor is performing to their standards. Requiring the contractor to identify additional KPI's is adding more administrative burden to the contractor and increased cost to the USG. This section should be removed and the only the KPI's the USG outlines should be included.

Acknowledged. The USG is still evaluating KPIs for inclusion in the DRFP.

59 General

Request to Confirm Pricing Risk Allocation Can the Government confirm that production CLINs under the base contract are Firm Fixed Price and that the contractor bears the full financial risk if ordered quantities fall below or differ significantly from the DRFP’s estimated quantities, in the absence of a formal change order?

The USG does not provide estimated quantities in the price matrix. It provides evaluated quantities for weighting purposes. The USG does not intend to allow for equitable adjustment based on actual order quantities.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf, A, REQUIREMENTS

SUMMARY, 6

Government Property: The Government intends to provide the property listed at Attachment 0024 - Government Furnished Property, to the successful offeror under this contract in an as is, where is condition. The Government will retain ownership of property (including intellectual property) and rights to this property, as well as all property acquired and/or utilized by the contractor.

This is different from the current RFAAP contract, which contains an H-clause that states:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract, the USG shall retain the risk, liability, responsibility and obligation to pay for, remedy and/or defend any and all pre-existing conditions at the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, including but not limited to violations, remediation, corrective actions and closure and post-closure obligations under State and

The USG will not be bound by the terms of the current RFAAP contract. The follow-on contract may have different terms and/or conditions.

Narrative B0001 - Page 9 - -

(e) In the event unevaluated option periods are executed in the - future, the RFAAP contractor agrees to utilize a mutually agreeable pricing curve, in lieu of range pricing, to establish prices for production items. Information regarding implementation of pricing curves in DoD acquisitions can be found at the following website:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpic/cp/contra ct_pricing_refere nce_guides.html -

The link provided does not work, we - received a "404 Not Found" error message. Can the Government provide a link that works? -

Information concerning the USG's price curve methodology can be found at the following updated link.

https://www.acq.osd.mil/asda/dpc/pcf/pricing-tools.html

Section B - Attachment

Section B - Attachment 0019 Can the Government provide reasonable minimum order quantities by product from which to create pricing curves, resulting in consistent data submissions?

The USG is considering product level price ranges in certain instances.

The Government is looking to hire an operating contractor to operate the facility because of, among other things, the knowledge, experience, and skillset possessed by such contractor. The operating contractor brings industry best standards to the facility and is best suited to properly and efficiently manage the operations of the facility. By asking for daily, weekly, and monthly reporting at the detail required by PWS 11, the Government is essentially supplanting the contractor’s knowledge with that of the Government’s, undermining the ability of the contractor to decide how best to manage the facility, and is removing the flexibility that is required to deal with unexpected conditions, market fluctuations, and other macro and micro factors. The level of oversight being imposed by the Government through this PWS adds a significant administrative burden to the contractor, will result in significant extra costs to the Government, and will strip from the contractor the freedom to operate the facility in accordance with the contractor's best judgements and industry best practices.

Any manufacturing operation has times of inconsistent production. Rather than requiring reporting on the minutia of all obstacles faced by the contractor on a daily basis, the general requirements of the contractor should be concentrated on completing deliveries within the delivery period (or per an agreed to delivery schedule) and the contractor should have the ability to manage production as it deems necessary within that delivery schedule.

Acknowledged. The USG will evaluate the inclusion of these reporting requirements.

SECTION C -

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFIC

ATIONS/ WORK

STATEMENT Section C- Safeguarding Permanent and Enduring Records

Permanent records from this contract and from prior contracts shall be organized, maintained and archived in designated locations for use by both the Government and contractor representatives during this contract

How will the Government ensure data security and prevent unauthorized access if these records contain contractor-sensitive information?

Per the requirement, "Procedures shall be established by the contractor to instruct personnel involved in receiving, developing, using or storing records on proper records accession and handling."

65 General

Clarification of Quantities to Be Used for Pricing

Can the Government confirm that the estimated quantities provided in the DRFP for each product will be the basis for CLIN-level pricing, and that these estimates will not be treated as binding minimums or maximums?

The evaluated quantities will be used as weighting factors only. However, the minimum and maximum order size columns do represent the binding quantity range applicable to matrix prices for a given order.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf, A.(a)

The purpose of this document is to obtain industry comment and feedback on its contents prior to release of the Final RFP.

Does the USG anticipate releasing additional draft RFPs to solicit industry feedback prior to release of the final RFP? If so, will the USG please publish its plans in this respect?

Yes, as stated at Industry Day #5, the USG intends to post another DRFP for feedback from Industry.

C-07 MODERNIZATION -

SUPPORT FOR THE

INCUMBENT

OPERATING

CONTRACTOR - H-08

EARNED VALUE -

MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS -

The successful awardee will be required to support the - incumbent's execution of these modernization projects to final completion by entering into agreements with the incumbent… - Clauses 252.234-7001 - Notice of Earned Value Management - System (Deviation 2015-O0017) and 252.234-7002 - Earned Value Management System - (Deviation 2015-O0017) are not applicable to the initial contract award resulting from this solicitation.

EVMS will only apply to modernization efforts solicited after award for which the Contracting Officer has determined EVMS necessary.

Will the awardee be held accountable - for any performance issues the incumbent may encounter in finishing their work? Is there a time limit for how long the incumbent's modernization projects will run into the new awardees contract? - Will the Government require a - certified Earned Value Management System to support modernization efforts?

Or is the Government looking for the Contractor to use EVM principles and reporting to support modernization efforts? -

The awardee will not be held accountable for performance issues beyond its control related to the incumbent's potential unfinished work, however, any potential awardee will be responsible for working closely and allowing access to the incumbent throughout the transition period. As of December 2025, modernization projects currently in execution are anticipated to be completed prior to the end of the transition period. Additional guidance on EVM will be provided at a later time.

Section B - page #9, item (a) & (m)

Section B - page #9, item (a) & (m) Subsection (a) states, price matrix pricing to external parties cannot be different from Government pricing; however, subsection (m) contradicts, stating that contractor shall promptly propose fair and reasonable prices for components and/or propellants and nitrocellulose for third party contracts in support of any government contract. Does this allow for separate pricing on direct commercial sales?

This language will be revised or removed in the next

DRFP.

Maintenance PWS The RFP provides for direct funding of maintenance activities for a number of years with an eventual transfer of such funding to the contractor as an indirect cost. The Government should consider changing the funding of the maintenance obligations to cost plus model for multiple reasons. It is impossible for any bidder (other than the incumbent) to understand the true condition of the facility and adequately estimate maintenance costs over the term of the contract. Further, the access to the facility that has been provided by the Government to potential bidders during the various industry days has been inadequate for any potential bidder to accurately estimate such maintenance costs. The current arrangement proposed by the Government will result in one of two scenarios - either (i) the winning bidder will grossly underestimate the costs associated with maintenance activities and will fail to adequately maintain the facility and/or implement cost cutting measures that will jeopardize the success of the contract, or (ii) all bidders will account for such cost unknowns through inflated pricing resulting in significant increased costs to the Government for this contract. Will the Government consider changing the funding model for the maintenance responsibilities to a cost plus fixed fee model?

The USG is revising its maintenance strategy and plans to include features such as a larger funding pool to address major maintenance issues in the initial year(s) of the contract.

70 General

Clarification on Direct Funded PWS: The DRFP states that all PWS may be directly funded with the intent to decrease steadily to zero by year 10. The PWS Matrix (Attachment 0019) instructs offerors to propose firm fixed prices for each identified direct funded PWS for order periods 1 through 10. Should offerors include increasing levels of PWS costs in the product pricing matrix through order period 10? If so, at what allocation rate? Also, will any PWS (e.g., ARMS support) remain directly funded for the duration of the contract?

The Government intends to make modifications to its current direct funded PWS phaseout model, which will be presented in the next DRFP.

W519TC25R0045

RFAAP Draft RFP.pdf, B, CLIN 1002

All proposed prices for First Article Tests shall be entered into Attachment 0019

Will FAAT quantities be further defined in the final RFP? The USG is considering pricing matrix entries for FAT costs in the next DRFP. Please refer to Section A in the DRFP.

I-10 INDEMNIFICATION -

NOTE: If indemnification is requested, FAR Clause 52.250-1, - "Indemnification Under Public Law 85-804", will be added to the resulting contract(s) upon the approval of the Secretary of the Army. -

Since indemnification is not a - guarantee given the DRFP wording, would the Government provide Indemnification in the Final RFP wording to increase competition via a lower risk alternative. -

Acknowledged. However, the Army cannot guarantee indemnification will be granted.

Section B - page #9, item (h)

Section B - page #9, item (h) Request clarification on what costs can be…