SAWS Industry Day 2 Questions and Answers.pdf

ID Submission Answers 1 What is the significance of the January 1, 2019 date for supporting documentation that was selected...There's a lot of deliveries of relevant materials prior to that...is there a chance that could be extended further?

January 1st of 2019 provides the last seven years to demonstrate experience. This fulflls the fundamental concerns regarding the recency and relevancy of the experience for prospective requirements that this contract will have. The USG does not intend to extend.

2 Regarding AA&E contracts, are we limiting that to production supply contracts or are we allowing services semi-related to

AA&E?

No Services. AA&E Production Supply Contracts only.

3 Are you planning to score deliveries to non- USG/USG Primes such as NATO countries or Australia the same as delivering under a SAWS contract?

The scoring is updated to reflect alternate accepted countries. Please see updated draft RFP and HTRO Matrix.

4 Will attendees receive a copy of the recording? No the recording will not be provided. It will only be for the USG for note taking purposes.

5 When will the July solicitation be due? Proposal will be due at a minimum 30 days after release of Final RFP.

6 Will the slides would be made available? Yes, the slides were posted to SAM.gov on May 26, 2026.

7 When the subset of NATO countries was mentioned, we were talking about Bulgaria and Czech Republic will experience delivering for those countries be included?

No, Bulgaria and Czech Republic will not be included. Please see updated draft RFP for updated list of accepted countries as proof of experience.

8 In addition to NATO and Australia...would the USG consider looking at direct shipments from manufacturers to Ukraine. The USG is looking for countries that hold a level of standardization that is appropriate. Ukraine in and of itself has not established that criteria.

9 Can the government talk to how it made the distinction between propelling and propelling charges? It's a package deliverable product that typically has a level of rigor and test standard that needs to be met.

10 Why is the Czech Republic excluded from delivered to the government as a customer requirements since they're the managers of the 155 initiative for Europe to Ukraine? And also what about the...Baltic countries...Why are some excluded and others are acceptable?

Please see updated draft RFP for updated list of accepted countries as proof of experience. The countries that have been identified on the RFP are what the USG is willing to accept and are consistently within the standard that the USG expects to maintain.

11 Is there a list of these four or five countries in this RFP?...Are are you gonna put that in writing? Please see updated draft RFP for updated list of accepted countries as proof of experience.

12 An economic price adjustment was not allowed, but does FAR 52.243 for an equitable price adjustment apply? No, this contract will have NTE prices for the first delivery order period and neither will apply for that period of time because the USG is not asking for out year pricing.

13 What is the USG's intent for a next step? The USG will post Industry Day Slides, Q&A's from this Industry Day and provide one more additional draft RFP for Industry review prior to the final RFP.

14 Can an EUC or LoC serve as both prospective documentation when in draft form and as historical evidence once finalized and signed? Can the USG provide additional clarification on what specifically constitutes “prospective” documentation?

The USG is seeking up to 3 prospective OR finalized EUC's /LoC's. See updates in HTRO Matrix.

15 Given that the USG is not asking for a schedule to be included with the Price Matrix, does the USG intend to potentially issue an award against the pricing provided in response to the RFP?

The proposed NTE pricing must remain valid for Ordering Period 1.

16 During the Industry Day today, there were questions and conversation around Turkey, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, and Romania as being restricted countries. Did this pertain to past performance or acceptable suppliers?

Please see updated draft RFP for updated list of accepted countries as proof of experience.

17 Reference Category 2.a.2: can a US Government signed EUC supporting delivery under a Foreign Military Sales or other security assistance program be used to satisfy one of the examples?

Yes, a USG signed EUC supporting delivery under a Foreign Military Sales or other security assistance program may be used to satisfy one of the examples.

18 Will a late delivery consideration clause and formula be built into the base contract or individual delivery order requirements?

Consideration formula will be included in the base contract. See updates reflected in the RFP.

19 Reference Categories 1.a.2 and 3.a.2: can a US manufacturer/export license for delivery to a foreign government be used to satisfy one of the examples?

Yes as long as the foreign Government is included within the updated accepted alternate countries list.

20 Can Offerors use evidence of experience delivering to NATO and Australian governments for all categories of the HTRO Matrix?

An updated list of qulaifying countries for past expereince is reflected in the RFP.

21 Please advise if the exclusion of Turkey, Bulgaria, Czechia, and Slovakia is just for showing experience in delivering or if Offerors are also barred from sourcing items from these countries. a. Please provide a final, confirmed list of excluded countries.

An updated list of qulaifying countries for past expereince is reflected in the draft RFP. The USG will not accept any Prohibited Sources as detailed in attachment 0023.

22 Please confirm if there will be equal scoring for experience - will certain information from certain countries hold more weight than others? a. If yes, please explain how supporting evidence will be scored if there is uneven weighting.

Experience will be scored based on the criteria of the HTRO Matrix - See updated RFP.

23 Are Offeror entities and parent companies required to create a teaming arrangement (Joint Venture) in order for Offerors to use parent company experience, or is the JV arrangement for two otherwise non-related entities?

A JV is not needed between a parent company and its subsidary affiliates.

24 Attachment 0016 and Row 16 lists an item described as “.388 Norma Magnum Ball.” request confirmation from the

U.S. Government whether the intended item is .338 Norma Magnum Ball or .388 Norma Magnum Ball to properly source the item and provide an accurate unit price.

The correct item is for .338 Norma Magnum Ball. The RFP is updated to reflect this change.

25 Attachment 0016 Rows 25 through 28 identify drone types. However, multiple configurations, sizes, and capabilities exist for each item described. In order to properly source these items and provide accurate unit pricing, requests that the U.S.

Government specify the required group or class (size), any explosive payload, required range, and intended delivery method for each drone listed.

See updates in draft RFP, Attachment 0016 Price Matrix.