FOGTESTER SOFTWARE ANALYSIS QA PART 3_27AUG2026.pdf

ARMY OPEN SOLICITATION W9128Z-25-S-A002

PROJECT NUMBER W911QY-26-R-FOG

Q&A PART THREE

QUESTION: Section 8.1 identifies the minimum required content as (a) Title Page, (b) Executive Summary, and (c) Software Assurance Requirements. Section 11 establishes four evaluation factors, including Technical Merit and Relevance, Innovation and Uniqueness, and Company Visibility. Would the Government confirm that Offerors should include discrete sections addressing each evaluation factor within the eight-page limit?

ANSWER: Please refer to the Requirements section of the Call when submitting a Solution Brief.

QUESTION: The SAM.gov notice description for this Call references Amendment 2, dated 25 August 2026, adding Section 8.3, “Phase 3 Request for Solution Proposal.” The Call document in our possession states at Section 8 that the Government will utilize up to two (2) phases, and Section 8.2 addresses a Phase 2 Live Demonstration. Would the Government confirm which version governs, and whether a revised Call document will be posted to SAM.gov?

ANSWER: Amendment 2 governs the most accurate and up-to-date information on Call procedures. The contractor is responsible for acknowledging any and all Amendments to this Call as the Call document will not be continuously reposted to SAM.gov.

QUESTION: Section 11 lists Price and Affordability as an evaluation factor, but Section 8.1 does not identify a price submission among the required Solution Brief content. Is a price or rough order of magnitude required in Phase 1? If so, does it count against the eight-page limit, or may it be submitted as a separate attachment in the manner of the OCI analysis?

ANSWER: A price submission should not be included with your Solution Brief.

QUESTION: Section 8.1 specifies eight written pages in 12-point Times New Roman. Would the Government specify the required margins and line spacing?

ANSWER: Normal margins (1” Top, 1” Bottom, 1” Right, 1” Left) Line Spacing: 1.15

QUESTION: Section 12 states that O erors shall ensure the specified Antiterrorism and OPSEC language is included in “the proposed SOW.” Is a Statement of Work required as part of the Phase 1 submission? If so, does it count against the eight-page limit?

ANSWER: A Statement of Work is not required for Phase 1.

QUESTION: Section 8.1 does not specify a file format for the Solution Brief submission. Would the Government confirm its preferred format, and whether the OCI analysis should be submitted as a separate file or combined with the Solution Brief?

ANSWER: Submission can either be via PDF or Word, there is no preference on whether the OCI analysis is submitted separately or combined.

QUESTION: Would the Government state the anticipated period of performance for the resulting Firm-Fixed-Price contract?

ANSWER: 12 months from date of Award.

QUESTION: For Phase 2, if conducted, should offerors expect to demonstrate a working prototype, or is a technical/architectural demonstration anticipated?

ANSWER: Either demonstration would be accepted, specific details would be sent via email to the o erors� whose Phase 1 brief was considered acceptable, if the Government chooses to proceed with Phase 2.

QUESTION: Does the Phase 1 Solution Brief need to include a firm-fixed price or estimated price range? If so, please confirm the expected delivery period or period of performance that offerors should use in developing pricing.

ANSWER: No.

QUESTION: Are the sample data sets, the BarTarget source, and the calibration reference images marked CUI, and if any of them are, what handling do you expect from a contractor working at their own facility?

ANSWER: None of those items are CUI.

QUESTION: The predecessor Sources Sought amendment indicated dual-camera imagery at 2590 x 1942, 16-bit PNG, acquired at approximately 0.2-2 frames per second (roughly 120 frames per camera per 60-second test). Please confirm these remain representative of the current 4th generation Fog Tester configuration, or provide the current parameters.

ANSWER: Those camera parameters are correct, but in the future may change, so ability to edit the code in that respect would be useful but not required at this time.

QUESTION: Section 4.1.7 refers to “the source code deliverable required in Section 9,” but Section 9 of the Call is titled “Non-Government Advisors.” Would the Government confirm the intended reference and identify where the source code deliverable requirements are specified?

ANSWER: “Consistent with the source code deliverable required in Section 9” has been striked out from Section 4.1.7