POGS_Solicitation_QA.pdf

Questions & Answers

Solicitation W81K04-25-Q-1969 Portable Oxygen Generation System (POGS)

Document Status: Official Government Responses

Prepared By: Government Response Team

Release Date: July 2026

Classification: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

Table of Contents Right-click and select 'Update Field' to populate the table of contents.

Solicitation W81K04-25-Q-1969 | Q&A

1. Executive Overview This document compiles the official Government responses to industry inquiries regarding Solicitation W81K04-25-Q-1969 for the Portable Oxygen Generation System (POGS).

2. RPP Section Q1: Cylinder Filling Capability (APP-8) Inquiry: Cylinder Filling Capability (APP-8) is mentioned in the RPP but not at all in the SOW. Is this part of the objectives? Can you please elaborate on the requirements for this capability? Are you expecting this to be a separate device and project?

Government Response:

The Cylinder Filling Capability (APP-8) is a desired optional capability and has been assigned a separate pricing line item (CLIN 0005). The Government is open to approaches where this is either an integrated feature of the main POGS unit or a secondary/standalone device, provided it meets the performance objectives. Offerors should clearly define their proposed physical configuration and interface in their proposals.

Q2: Provisioning and Repair Parts Lists Inquiry: Section 5.2, items 1 and 2: does it make sense to list repair parts at this point in time for a project that may not go through to production?

Government Response:

Initial provisioning and repair parts lists are necessary to evaluate the system’s maintainability and lifecycle logistics early in the prototype phase. However, the Government acknowledges the design will mature over the period of performance. Offerors may propose an alternative, phased delivery schedule for these deliverables in their proposal for Government consideration.

Q3: Deliverable Timelines (D-004, D-006, D-010) Inquiry: Section 6.1, items D-004, D-006, D-010: We believe this timing is too soon and suggest that it be pushed back within the 120 – 180 day development project when the system design is more mature.

Government Response:

Offerors are permitted to propose an alternative delivery schedule for D-004 (Repair Parts List) and D-010 (Special Tools List) to better align with the design maturity timeline. For D-006 (TAA certificate), please refer to the RPP which requires this with the proposal/at award.

Q4: Legacy System Metrics & Weight Thresholds Inquiry: Please provide the Cost and Weight of the 2 components individually for the current POGS-33- HV. Is the 350 weight goal to include the refilling cylinder system?

Government Response:

For informational purposes only, the approximate total weight of the legacy POGS-33-HV components is 790 lbs, with each separate component weighing up to 275 lbs. Historical procurement costs will not be disclosed.

Regarding the weight threshold, the 350 lb weight goal does include the optional cylinder refilling system if configured in one system.

Q5: Follow-on Production Quantities Inquiry: Section 3.5: Does the follow-on production quantity of 304 units include the refilling unit?

Government Response:

Yes, the 304 follow-on units include the refilling unit requirement.

Q6: Past Performance References Inquiry: Section 7.4, Past Performance. Will you accept commercial customers for past performance?

Government Response:

Yes. The Government will accept past performance references from commercial customers, provided the agreements or sales are relevant to portable oxygen generation systems of similar scope and complexity.

3. SOW Section Q1: Cylinder Refill Option Requirements Inquiry: Section 4.2 does not have any requirements for the cylinder refill option. Please clarify what is expected in the POGS as a single device and what is a secondary device.

Government Response:

Please see the response to RPP Q1. The physical configuration (single integrated device vs. secondary device) is left to the Offeror to propose, provided the system meets the performance metrics defined in the RPP for

APP-8.

Q2: Modification of Deliverables Schedule Inquiry: Section 4.5 items D-004, D-006, D-010: This timing isn’t possible since the product will not have been fully designed. These documents will be much more refined at a later date when the system design is more mature. Can you modify these deliverables?

Government Response:

Please see the response to RPP Q3. The Government will consider proposed alternative schedules for these specific deliverables based on design maturity milestones.

Q3: Weight Thresholds and Multi-Case Configurations Inquiry: Clarification of CODS 4 – the threshold is 350 lbs, the objective is 200 lbs. If our system is divided between (2) cases, does that change the total system weight? For example, if each case weighs 266 lbs, would that meet the intent of the requirement? NOTE: 266 lbs is 4-Man carry per MIL-STD- 1472.

Government Response:

No, this approach would not meet the requirement. SOW Section 4.2 states that the total system weight must be ≤350 lbs. Two cases weighing 266 lbs each would result in a total system weight of 532 lbs, explicitly exceeding the maximum threshold. The SOW does not outline exceptions for a 4-man carry division if the total combined weight exceeds 350 lbs.

Q4: Voltage Detection and Power Specifications Inquiry: Clarification of CODS 2 – the requirement states 110-120 Vac and/or 220-240 Vac with automatic voltage detection. Can you please clarify: Is the requirement “dual voltage” meaning it would operate on both voltages specified? Is automatic voltage detection intended to prevent damage if the device is connected to the wrong voltage?

Government Response:

SOW Sections 2.0 and 4.2 indicate that the system may be either single or dual-voltage, provided automatic voltage detection from 110–120 VAC/60 Hz or 220–240 VAC/50 Hz is present. The specific engineering design of the automatic voltage detection (e.g., whether to prevent damage or switch operational modes) is left to the Offeror, provided it safely meets the stated power and performance specifications.

4. Other / General Questions Q1: Budget and Funding Allocations Inquiry: How much funding had been budgeted for this effort for each award by the government?

Government Response:

The Government is not disclosing the specific funding amounts budgeted per award at this time. As stated in Section 9.2, adequate funding is available for this effort.

Q2: Proposal Submission Extension Inquiry: Would you consider extending the due date of proposals at least 2 to 3 weeks after the Amendment with Questions and Answers is posted on SAM.GOV?

The Government does not intend to extend the proposal due date at this time.

Q3: FDA Clearance Support Inquiry: Is the government willing to assist with expediting the FDA clearance process?

Government Response:

Yes, while the Offeror remains primary and ultimately responsible for securing FDA clearance, the Government is willing to support these efforts. Depending on the prototype’s progression, this assistance may include reviewing pre-submission packets, or providing letters of military necessity/support to help expedite the clearance process.

Q4: Prototype Delivery Timelines Inquiry: Would the government accept proposals that extend delivering the prototypes beyond the 180 days?

Government Response:

The RPP currently specifies a delivery timeline of 120-180 days after award. Offerors proposing a timeline beyond 180 days will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis but may incur a higher schedule risk rating.

Q5: Down-Select Evaluation Criteria Inquiry: If there are 2 awardees and both meet the specifications, how will the government down select which product moves on to the production phase?

Government Response:

If multiple prototypes successfully meet the specifications, the Government will conduct a down-select evaluation. Criteria for this follow-on production decision will include, but are not limited to, final prototype performance testing, reliability, total lifecycle cost, user feedback, and manufacturing readiness.

Q6: Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Exceptions Inquiry: We plan to clarify or take exception to CUI — would the following be acceptable:

• [REDACTED] retains all right, title, and interest in and to its products, software, designs, documentation, technical data, know-how, and other intellectual property furnished or developed under this agreement…

• [REDACTED] represents that the products, manuals, documentation, and technical data packages furnished under this agreement do not contain Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)…

• [REDACTED] intellectual property developed exclusively at private expense shall not be designated as CUI unless such information incorporates Government Furnished Information…

• The Government shall not apply blanket CUI markings to Contractor proprietary information without a valid regulatory or contractual basis…

The proposed exceptions are not acceptable. Per SOW Section 4.5, the Government shall obtain Government Purpose Rights (GPR) to all technical data, operator manuals, training videos, and provisioning data delivered under this Agreement. Furthermore, SOW Section 7.0 designates this effort as classified Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and mandates compliance with all applicable security requirements, including

48 CFR 252.204-7012.

Q7: Environmental Testing Levels (MIL-STD-810H) Inquiry: MIL-810H Testing — can you define the levels required for MIL-810H testing, specifically shock and vibration profiles.

Government Response:

While SOW Sections 2.0 and 5.0 require support for Environmental Testing (MIL-STD-810H) to validate system survivability and operational effectiveness, the specific shock and vibration profiles and testing levels are not defined in the SOW. These specifics will be coordinated with the Government prior to the scheduled environmental testing following prototype delivery.