Questions and Answers 01 - Final for publishing.pdf

# Question Response

1 May contract or task-order funds be used for secure-facility modifications, including open-storage upgrades, compartmented work areas, secure IT/network buildout, access-control systems, and leased off-campus secure space?

The Government anticipates leveraging existing secure facility infrastructure to the highest degree. Initial task orders will be focused on leveraging the Center's capabilities, including facilities, to achieve

6.2 and 6.3 goals. Future task orders could potentially include funding for additional capability build-out.

2 To what extent may contract or task-order funds be used for capital equipment, including manufacturing equipment, robotics, sensing, metrology, and MBSE/digital-thread infrastructure?

See response to Question 1.

3 To what extent should offerors assume Government-furnished equipment, information, representative TDPs, test articles, sites, or classified data will be available to support the initial task?

Government-furnished equipment, information, representative TDPs, test articles, sites, or classified data will not be available to support the initial task.

See response to Question 7

4 For the first task order, may offerors propose integration of existing equipment into a pilot line, or is a largely preexisting pilot line expected?

See response to Question 7.

The task is to perform 6.2 and 6.3 research on agile/flexible pilot line configurations and parameters using current and next-generation advanced manufacturing techniques to demonstrate technology.

There is no restriction on integration of existing equipment into a pilot line.

5 At Step 1, should offerors provide only a rough-order-of-magnitude cost perspective, or does the Government also want an early indication of indirect-rate approach under uniform guidance 2 CFR 200?

At Step 1, Offerors provide only a rough-order-of-magnitude in accordance with the template provided by the Government.

See attached ROM template.

6 For university offerors operating under 2 CFR 200 with negotiated indirect rates rather than FAR-based business systems, are there any specific pricing, cost-structure, or proposal-format expectations the Government would like offerors to address at the solution-brief stage?

See attached ROM template.

7 At Step 1, will the Government place greater emphasis on the long-term center concept or on the credibility of the initial task-order approach?

The Government intends to revise to the Call for Solutions to focus exclusively on the establishment of the Center.

Submission requirements will be clarified in the final Call. Task 1 in the draft Call for Solutions remains a representative task for the Center.

8 Can the Government provide any non-sensitive indication of the expected down-select cohort size for Step 2?

The government intends to invite up to three offerors to submit a full proposal

9 In the early years, does the Government expect funding to be weighted toward center standup/base operations, the initial pilot-line effort, or multiple concurrent task orders?

See response to Question 50

The government anticipates a base amount of Army funding each year to support the award of multi-year task-orders. The number of task orders will depend on the availability of funding and the scope of the task order. Any of the joint services may place task orders for work within the scope of the base contract.

Also see response to Question 31.

10 What level of surge capacity in staffing and facilities should offerors plan to maintain at threshold and objective levels?

The Center should maintain a base level of staffing to run the Center (threshold) and augment with additional staff as needed on a Task Order basis (objective).

11 What does the Government consider ‘meaningful’ small-business participation for a university-led applied research center of this type?

Current requirements for a subcontract plan are found within RFO FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Also see DoW Checklist for Reviewing Subcontracting Plans (May 2026) located at:

https://business.defense.gov/Portals/57/Do cuments/Subcontracting/DoW_Checklist_fo r_Reviewing_Subcontracting_Plans_May20 26.pdf]

12 How does the Government view participation of larger industry participants as long as OCI considerations are taken appropriately.

See response to Question 70.

13 At the solution-brief stage, what is the Government’s expectation for the clearance status of proposed key personnel, including center leadership and initial task-order leads?

The Government does not expect key personnel to have current clearances. In accordance with Factor II, offerors will be evaluated for "the institution's ability to obtain Facility Clearance (FCL), and to clear key personnel (SECRET or higher)".

The Government does not anticipate the task-order topic to require Secret clearance or technology.

Also see response to Questions 7 & 14.

14 Will the Government consider an offeror competitive if some key personnel are clearable but not yet cleared, provided the institution has the requisite FCL and a credible clearance plan?

The ability to support an FCL and cleared personnel will be evaluated on a spectrum and weighed against the other requirements. Having an existing FCL with cleared personnel offers the least risk, but if the offeror shows a path to obtain both, that will be evaluated proportionally with the risk it entails.

15 For classified task orders, does the Government expect key leadership and core performers to be cleared at award, or is a post-award clearance ramp period anticipated?

Both are acceptable plans. Please summarize your plan in your response.

16 Is existing approved open storage required to be competitive, or is a documented stand-up plan acceptable at the solution-brief stage?

The ability to support Open Storage will be evaluated on a spectrum and weighed against the other requirements. Having an existing Open Storage accreditation offers the least risk, but if the offeror shows a pathway to accreditation, that will be evaluated proportionally with the risk it entails.

17 Should offerors assume early need for access to classified networks or compartmented environments, or only on selected future task orders?

The Government does not anticipate the first task order to involve classified information or systems. The offeror should expect the need for access to classified networks or compartmented environments only on selected future task orders.

Also see response to Question 7.

18 Does the required SPRS/CMMC Level 2 self-assessment apply only to the prime at solution-brief stage, or to all proposed teammates and subcontractors that may handle covered information?

This requirement applies to the prime contractor at the time of submission of the solution brief. The prime contractor shall have and maintain for the duration of the contract a current CMMC status at CMMC Level 2 (Self) for all information systems used in performance of the contract that process, store, or transmit FCI or CUI.

Prime contractors are required to flow down the correct CMMC level to subcontracts and other contractual instruments, in accordance with 32 CFR 170.23.

19 How many personnel-clearance billets or sponsorship be provided under the vehicle, or should offerors assume they must supply cleared personnel from existing programs until task-specific sponsorship is established?

The billet system no longer exists. The offeror will be expected to provide the necessary cleared personnel for future Classified task orders.

20 Please clarify the intended scope of the ‘trusted government agent’ role. Is it limited to technical integration and transition support, or does it also include independent assessment and recommendation functions?

The Government intends to request Undersecretary of War for Research and Engineering (USW(R&E)) approval to designate the Center as a University Affiliated Research Center (UARC), post award. While it is not guaranteed that USW(R&E) will approve such a designation, the Center must be structured in a manner that is consistent with the function of a UARC. Designation as a UARC will provide access to government and supplier data including sensitive and proprietary information, and to employees and facilities, beyond that which is common to a DoD contractual relationship. If designated a UARC the Center is required to operate in the public interest and conduct its business in a manner befitting its special relationship with the Government. DoW direction and guidance regarding UARCs can be found in the 2026 University Affiliated Research Center Management Plan.

21 For Task Order 1, is the expected end state a concept design, a partially instantiated pilot line, or a fully integrated physical prototype line by the end of the initial performance period?

A fully integrated prototype line by the end of the initial performance period.

Also see response to Question 7.

22 Should proposals assume access to representative Army technical data packages for the AI-driven workflow-engine effort, or should offerors base their approach on surrogate data packages?

TDP data will not be available in the timeframe necessary to be used for a proposal. Plan on using surrogate data packages initially. The Center will have access to necessary and applicable Government data systems and TDPs.

Also see response to Question 7.

23 Should the first task order address all four areas of manufacturing capability, or is it acceptable to prioritize selected echelons and explain sequencing?

Consider all four areas; however it is acceptable to prioritize selected echelons and to explain your sequencing.

24 For advanced composites, does the Government expect all major composite classes and associated specialized facilities to be resident within the center, or may offerors outsource or rent highly specialized facilities where appropriate on tasks?

The Government does not expect all major composite classes and associated specialized facilities to be resident within the Center. If renting or otherwise obtaining specialized facilities or capabilities is part of your plan, that will be evaluated against the requirements. Also see response to Question 80.

25 Can the government more clearly and technically define the scope of composite materials as those materials relate to the center's emphasis areas. Are all composite classes of equal priority for this call, or are some areas of greater interest to the Government?

All composite classes are of equal priority for this call. The Government anticipates applying state-of-the-art composite technologies in different use-cases at the task order level. The prime contractor and its partners should demonstrate the flexibility to conduct composite research of diverse scope in support of AdvM.

26 For rapid manufacturing tasks, should offerors assume that part design and material allowables will be Government-furnished, or that the center may be expected to perform a broader cradle-to-grave role including material/database development, design, tooling, manufacturing, and test/validation?

The Center will not be responsible for cradle-to-grave production of parts and systems

27 Would the Government view virtual design and manufacturing capabilities such as material/process/tooling/part design, factory-floor design, cost modeling, and digital validation for transition within the scope and of value to the first task and to the center concept more broadly?

See response to Question 7.

28 In developing potential solutions, we may need to engage external entities, including small-, medium-, and large-scale industries, as well as other universities, nonprofit organizations, and national laboratories. Are there any specific protocols or guidelines that we should follow regarding such collaborations?

Subcontracting arrangements made with entities outside the Center (academia, industry, individuals, etc.) are subject to applicable DoW and Federal regulations (including information security and any required flow down of FAR clauses). The Center is responsible for enforcing and ensuring compliance with these requirements.

Also see response to Question 70.

29 For the Task Order - Solution brief document, do you have a specific Army-related component or problem or use case that you would like us to focus on?

Alternatively, should we develop the solution brief more broadly based on the challenges articulated in the draft call and our prior experience working with the Army and other DOD agencies?

See response to Question 7.

30 Does the government envision the Applied Research Center primarily leveraging existing contractor infrastructure, or is establishment of new dedicated facilities anticipated as part of the long-term center concept?

See response to Question 1.

31 Can the government provide any additional insight regarding the anticipated IDIQ ceiling value, expected annual funding profile, or anticipated Task Order cadence to assist offerors in assessing the scale/operational structure necessary to support mission needs?

The government intends to award a single FAR-based indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract (cost plus fixed fee & firm-fixed-price) with a 12-month base period and four (4) 12-month option periods. The estimated combined ceiling for the base and option periods is not to exceed $100,000,000 funded by task orders for the direct procurement of solutions that are determined to meet the government's requirements.

Also see response to Question 9.

32 Given the limited time anticipated between government question responses and the current Step 1 submission deadline, would the government consider extending the response period by one week to ensure offerors can incorporate necessary revisions and ensure full alignment with government objectives?

Submission requirements and deadlines will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

33 Will the government issue an official solicitation along with question responses with incorporated changes?

Yes. However, the Government intends to revise the Call for Solutions to focus exclusively on the establishment of the Center. Task 1 in the draft Call for Solutions remains a representative task for the Center.

34 Can the government please share the anticipated timing between Step 1 notification and Step 2 submission requirements? This will help offerors prepare resources and support

A submission deadline has not been set to allow for necessary rigor in evaluation of Step 1. Selected offeror(s) will be given adequate time to prepare a full proposal.

appropriately should they be down-selected.

35 Can the government confirm that Section 4: ROM does not count toward the 10-page Main Body limitation and has no page limitation?

The ROM does not count toward the 10-page Main Body limitation and has no page limitation. Page limits and references will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

36 Will the government clarify anticipated future investment expectations associated with facilities, pilot line development, specialized manufacturing equipment, and capability expansion? Specifically, should offerors assume required infrastructure and equipment are expected to exist within performer-owned capabilities at contract award, or does the government anticipate future investment opportunities over the life of the IDIQ?

This will help ensure that offerors propose capabilities appropriately aligned to evolving Army advanced manufacturing priorities and emerging technologies.

See response to Question 1.

37 How broadly must the (3.7-k) notification of an award from industry or another DoW Component that will not be included on the primary sponsor contract be applied?

Please clarify if the required notification scope is: a) Restricted to awards received by the Applied Research Center and its direct teammates; OR b) Extended to awards received by the entirety of the parent institution (e.g., requiring a notification of an award from industry for personnel within the larger organization who have no direct involvement with the Research Center).

The scope is the Center and its direct teammates that will be engaged in the work. While there is no prohibition against the Center conducting work for industry, it must screen and document all such proposed work to avoid the appearance of impropriety or COI.

38 What is the desired format for the Rough Order of Magnitude of Cost in the Step 1 Solutions Brief?

See attached ROM template.

39 Has a submission deadline been determined for the Step 2 Written Proposal for the Step 1 Solution Briefs that are selected for future consideration?

See response to Question 35.

40 In both Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the solution brief, the RFP requests that we

Volume 1. The university’s overarching strategy for managing IP among its include an IP disclosure statement–what does this entail?

partners, including any pre-negotiated agreements for disclosing and safeguarding background IP, determining who owns the patents, data rights, publication and commercialization rights for inventions developed jointly by multiple consortium members, and the framework for settling disputes between partners (e.g., binding arbitration) without involving the DoD sponsor should be should be detailed in Volume 1.

Volume 2. To the extent not covered by an overarching agreement, Volume 2 should describe how IP will be managed for each participant of the task order, including negotiated agreements that govern disclosing and safeguarding background IP, determining who owns the patents, data rights, publication and commercialization rights for inventions conceived or reduced to practice under the task order, and the framework for settling disputes between partners (e.g., binding arbitration) without involving the DoD sponsor.

Also see response to Question 7.

Task Orders. For task orders issued under the base IDIQ, restrictions on the use, release, or disclosure of technical data and software shall be identified in accordance with the provision at DFARS 252.227-7992, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions.

(DEVIATION 2026-O0036). Disclosure of technical data and software previously delivered to the government shall be identified in accordance with the provision at DFARS 252.227-7028, Technical data or computer software previously delivered to the government.

41 How broadly must the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) analysis and policy be applied? Please clarify if the required OCI scope is: a) Restricted to the Applied Research Center and its direct teammates or subcontractors; OR

b) Extended to the entirety of the parent institution (e.g., requiring an OCI assessment for personnel within the larger organization who have no direct involvement with the Research Center).

Once an acceptable mitigation plan is in place (see below), the required OCI scope applies to the Center and its direct teammates or subcontractors.

When the Department of Defense (DoD) does not contract with the Center as an independent entity and it contracts with the parent university as the prime contractor, any OCI generated by the Center affects the entire university under RFO FAR Subpart 9.5. To prevent the Center from restricting the rest of the university's faculty from competing for standard federal grants or partnering with industry, the parent institution's central research administration must build an internal mitigation plan. Often the mitigation plan involves the separation of personnel and data. For example, the university may mandate that the Center researchers operate within separate, secure facilities (often requiring security clearances) on separate IT networks, i.e., a firewall where standard academic faculty (e.g., a professor in the standard College of Engineering) are not allowed to access Center task order data.

42 Given that Security Clearance Readiness (FCL and PCL) is an evaluation criterion, can the Army confirm whether it will sponsor a Department of Defense Form 254 (DD254) and staff clearances if required?

Yes. The Government will issue the appropriate DD254. If necessary Government will submit a sponsorship letter.

43 Section 3.7.k states, “Upon receiving notification of an award from industry or another DoW Component that will not be included on the primary sponsor contract, the contractor must notify its Primary Sponsor in writing. The written notification for such awards must include a COI Disclosure Statement. This statement shall affirm the contractor has conducted a preliminary review of the proposed work against the OCI principles in FAR Part 9.5 and must include the outcome of the review, noting any potential conflicts and proposed mitigation strategies”. Can you clarify the scope of observance for this requirement within a given university? Is this solely within the Advanced Manufacturing Research and Technology Development Center, or does this extend to potential partner centers and institutes across a given university. Additionally, does this potentially cover university departments, colleges or other higher-level university divisions?

See response to Question 37.

44 Can you clarify the page limit requirements for Volume 1 (Center) and Volume 2 (Task Order)? There seems to be conflicting guidance between sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2, 7.2.3 and 7.3. Also, in 7.2.1 there is reference to inclusion of required sections as described in section 8.3.2 which does not seem to exist in the call.

Perhaps this is referring to 7.3.2?

Page limits and references will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

45 For the project management portion of the center, can you further define the scope, in terms of number of projects to be managed per year as well as average length of these projects?

The number of task orders has yet to be determined. The government anticipates a base amount of Army funding each year to support the award of multi-year task-orders.

The number of task orders will depend on the availability of funding and the scope of the task order. Any of the joint services may place task orders for work that falls within the scope of the base contract Also see response to Question 31

46 “Must have ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology), CHEA (Council for Higher Education Accreditation) or equivalent accredited engineering programs in relevant fields of study to support the recruiting and sustaining of subject matter experts at the Research Center.” Do ABET accredited graduate (MS) engineering programs satisfy this requirement?

You qualify for this requirement as long as you have at least one accredited program associated with the AdvM core competencies. ABET accredited graduate (MS) engineering programs satisfy this requirement.

47 Is having an ecosystem for translation of basic research to applied research of importance, or is the emphasis purely on applied research without the translational aspect?

Technology transition is of great importance.

48 “Offerors must comply with the Phased Implementation of the Department of War's Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program in accordance with 252.204-7021. A Level 2 self- assessment must be completed and acknowledged within the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) at the time of submission of solution brief. Any Offeror that is not compliant as of the close of this Call will not be considered for award.” Does this include all subs, or just the prime?

See response to Question 18.

49 Both Volume 1 and Volume 2 request ROM budgets. Are you requesting a ceiling budget for the IDIQ, or budgets just for the IDIQ base and first task order?

Without any budget ceiling in the solicitation, it is difficult us to understand the level of management and technical staff necessary for the ROM budget. Any additional budgetary guidance that can be provided would be appreciated.

See response to Questions 9 and 31.

50 Are management staff allowable on the base IDIQ funding?

The Government intends to fund the management staff and overhead associated with setting up and administering the Center up to 12-months under an initial task order to achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC). Thereafter, these indirect costs will be apportioned to individual Task Orders.

Also see response to Question 9.

51 Can MIIs be part of the proposal team, whether funded or unfunded? It would appear that MIIs would not be funded through this IDIQ, but by other direct funding sources. Is that correct?

* MIIs may not be part of the proposal team

* MIIs will not be funded through this IDIQ.

* This Center may compete for MII funding

* Technologies may be transitioned to MIIs

52 With respect to the following statements:

Will the Army partners and stakeholders be defined and selected before, during, or after the R&D activities? Ideally these partners and stakeholders would be collaborating during the R&D phases of projects.

a. “Research and development of processes that support large scales, large volumes, adaptive and additive techniques for both air and ground domain system applications.”

b. “The ability to transition technologies to partners and stakeholders such as government agencies, industry and Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MII).”

This is Army-led RD&E Center that serves and supports joint-service stakeholders.

The Army is the primary sponsor of the Center and DEVCOM Soldier Center is the Lead Organization, but joint services are able to provide future task orders as work sponsors. Work sponsors will be defined on a task-order basis.

53 How will various ongoing requirements be assessed? For example, “Maintain a comprehensive understanding of the technical areas in the core competencies.

Task orders will be assessed based on the metrics established in the order. These metrics will differ based on whether the task order is "level of effort" or task-completion".

If the Center is approved as a UARC, every five years the primary sponsor will conduct a comprehensive review of the UARC in accordance with the DoW Reference Guide for Comprehensive Review of UARCs.

54 "Additionally, the contractor shall have an identified certified Level II OPSEC coordinator per AR 530-1." Is this required at the time of proposal, or the time of award. We have and OPSEC team but none of them have this particular certification. We called the Army office responsible for training and all training is booked through government FY26. We are happy to get this certification, but cannot do it before proposal submission.

Provide a plan to obtain the training as soon as possible following award.

55 The Call mentioned a “central hub.” Does this hub need to be centralized physically or is it more of an administrative centralization?

The Center is a conceptual hub, not a geographically centralized location. Also see responses to Questions 70, 79 and 80.

56 The Call seems to suggest that the proposal with provide specific approaches to address technical tasks but those technical tasks are not particularly clear.

Are these tasks the core competencies listed in Section 3.4?

The first task "AGILE, MULTI-MODAL

PILOT MANUFACTURING PLATFORMS"

(see Section 13) is designed to use and incorporate all four core competencies to address the task order's problem statement, i.e., pioneering new production platforms that are inherently flexible, modular, and intelligent.

Also see response to Question 7.

57 What is the expected ceiling of the contract?

See response to Question 31.

58 Section 7.2.1. What is the ROM cost for Volume 1 expected to cover? Is it expected to be for program management costs for running the center?

Yes. The ROM for Volume 1 is expected to address the overall cost of running the Center for the base period and each of the four option periods.

59 Section 7.2. Step 1 Solutions Briefs states that “Volume 1 is described in section 8.3”. There is no section 8.3. Is there a section missing that further describes Volume 1?

Section references will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

60 Section 7.2.1. Page limits are described as identified in Sections 8.3.2 and Section 14, however neither reference appears to match the text. Can clarification be provided?

Section references will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

61 Section 13. Are there limitations on scope and ceiling under Volume 2/Task Order?

See Response to Question 7.

62 Section 13.4. Challenge describes “3) OCONUS US-operated production capability (“Hub”) with local approval authority.” Expanded clarification is requested on what is included in this capability. Does this include foreign manufacturers?

See response to Question 7.

63 Section 13.5. For the Hybrid Pilot Line, what does the government anticipate as the level of physical and information controls required (CUI, ITAR, Classified)?

Does the government anticipate the line to be performed at a controlled level, open level, or both?

The government anticipates the Task to require CUI, and possibly ITAR depending on the proposed solution. Initial Task Orders will not be Classified.

64 For developing ROM, in section 7, the government articulates that this will be an IDIQ and give the examples for cost plus fee and firm fixed price.

Are these the two that you prefer or are can we propose others like FPAF, CPAF, Cost (no fee).

We anticipate most tasks will be awarded on a FFP, CPFF or Cost (no fee) basis and the ROM should be limited to these pricing models. However, at the task order level, the awardee may propose what best fits the requirement. It will be at the Contracting Officer’s discretion what will be allowed or accepted.

65 Can we apply different indirect rates for task orders based on security requirements or should we budget the center operations at the highest security protocol (and highest cost)?

You may apply different indirect rates on task orders based on security requirements. You should budget the Center operations at the secret security classification.

66 Will you accept Letters of Support from commercial and government entities as part of the Solution Briefs, and if so, should they be included within the page limit or attached as a separate appendix excluded from the page count?

No. Letters of support will not be accepted.

67 Several places that referencing sections are mislabeled. We can send you the sections if that is useful. It seems fairly obvious what was intended, we just want to ensure that we have the final version and not an earlier draft.

Section references will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

68 On Page 21, Factor IV appears to be missing.

See response to Question 7.

69 Do you have guidelines for typical task order scope and anticipated number of task orders expected per year?

Currently, we do not have this available.

70 Section 3.2 describes the Applied Research Center as a collaborative hub connecting government, academia, and industry, and Section 7.3 lists a Subcontracting Plan as a required element of the full proposal. Can the Government clarify whether non-university industry partners and small businesses may be named in Volume 1 and 2 Solution Brief as part of the Applied Research Center's team structure?

Yes, non-university industry partners and small businesses can be named as part of a Center’s team structure provided the university remains the absolute prime contractor and the industry partners are limited to non-core and firewalled subcontracting roles. The Center is fundamentally an educational research and development center that is established to maintain essential capabilities within the Center. As such, core competencies are maintained by the lead university and partner universities to collectively fulfill and maintain the Center's officially designated core competencies. The Center cannot subcontract out its "core competencies" to its industry partners.

71 To what extent does the Government anticipate leveraging existing manufacturing infrastructure versus establishment of new facilities or capabilities?

See response to question 1.

72 Does the Government anticipate integration with existing Army digital engineering, MBSE, or technical data package ecosystems?

Yes, The Center will have access to appropriate government data, sites, test articles, and TDPs.

73 What role does the Government envision for Manufacturing Innovation Institutes (MIIs) within the Applied Research Center ecosystem?

It is envisioned that the Research Center will transition technologies to the MIIs, including having the ability to respond to MII solicitations.

Also see response to Question 51.

74 How will the Government balance evaluation of centralized infrastructure scale versus ecosystem integration capability and distributed execution?

Strength of Program Management.

75 Does the Government envision the Applied Research Center serving as a centralized manufacturing capability or as a broader national coordination and integration hub?

The Applied Research Center will not typically serve in a manufacturing role, mainly AdvM R&D. But the government does envision the Center to be able to act as supplemental support manufacturing capability on an emergency basis as part of the Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network.

76 How does the Government define successful “technology transition” under this effort?

Technology transition is the process of taking a developed technology and integrating it into operational systems, commercial markets, or other practical applications. In this case, the Center will transition technologies to the government stakeholders, industry, other academic partners, and MIIs in the interest of the government.

77 Does the Government anticipate substantial task-order execution by consortium partners under the base IDIQ?

Yes. Given the Center is intended to be structured as a research organization within a university or college that is established to provide or maintain essential engineering, research, and/or development capabilities through a long-term, strategic relationship with DoD, the government anticipates substantial task-order execution by the consortium partners.

The lead university and its network of partner universities collectively fulfill and maintain the Center's officially designated core competencies. Non-university industry partners and small businesses roles are limited to non-core and firewalled subcontracting roles.

The lead university, however, cannot simply act as an administrative "shell" or pass-through entity that immediately subcontracts 100% of the work. The lead university must possess substantial, independent research capabilities in at least some of the core competencies and must perform a significant portion of the research internally to justify its status as the Center's lead.

78 For large university-led consortia involving multiple industrial and nonprofit partners, what level of OCI mitigation detail is expected at the Solution Brief stage?

The offeror shall provide an overview of how the Center will manage OCIs and personal conflicts of interest in the solution brief. If invited to submit a full proposal, the offeror shall perform a comprehensive OCI analysis and submit the results of that analysis and a mitigation plan, as required, to address any identified OCI.

See the response to Question 41

79 Does the Government envision the Applied Research Center as a single-site facility, a lead institution with distributed partner nodes, or a federated national network?

There must be a single educational institution identified for contracting purposes. However, all three are acceptable solutions.

A lead institution with partner nodes is a hub-and-spoke (centralized control) model.

A single entity sits at the center, holds the funding, and dictates the standards, while subordinate partner nodes execute the work.

A federated national network is an alliance-based model where autonomous, equal peers join together under a shared set of standards or agreements with a single educational institution identified for contracting purposes.

Also See response to Questions 70 and 80.

80 May required core competencies be distributed across consortium members, or does the Government expect all capabilities to reside within the prime institution?

Required core competencies can be distributed across the university and members of a Center consortium. While the prime (lead) university holds the prime contract and retains ultimate management responsibility, it is not required to house 100% of the technical capabilities within its own physical labs. The lead university may integrate a network of partner universities to collectively fulfill and maintain the Center's officially designated core competencies.

81 How will the Government evaluate consortium structures where significant execution capability resides within major partners rather than exclusively within the prime institution?

All solution briefs will be evaluated against the requirements. The government understands that more partners brings more capability, but it also brings more complexity. This trade-off will be evaluated as part of the Center's proposed management structure/plan.

82 Will the Government permit onboarding of additional consortium members during contract execution as technical requirements evolve?

Yes. However, the offeror must identify this approach as part of its proposed organizational structure. The government will evaluate organizational structures via the Management Evaluation Factor.

83 May classified work be requested to be executed through consortium members possessing existing cleared infrastructure and personnel?

Yes, however all performers must be cleared to the appropriate level.

84 What level of classified infrastructure and secure manufacturing capability is expected at time of award versus phased maturation during contract execution?

See response to Question 14.

85 What level of manufacturing maturity is expected for the prototype hybrid pilot line at initial execution?

The Task is expected to mature technologies from TRL 3 & 4 to TRL 6 resulting in technology demonstrators. The Task is expected to mature MRLs up to

MRL 5.

Also see Response to Question 7.

86 How autonomous does the Government envision the AI-driven workflow engine described in Section 13?

See response to Question 7.

87 Does the Government envision a single integrated pilot line or a network of interoperable manufacturing cells and nodes?

The Government envisions integrated pilot line(s) and/or a network of interoperable manufacturing cells and nodes.

Also see response to Question 7.

88 To what extent will the Government evaluate the ability to coordinate geographically distributed manufacturing ecosystems and partner networks?

This is part of the program management requirement and will be evaluated as part of Factor II, Management & Security.

89 Does the Government prefer open architecture and modular interoperability approaches for manufacturing orchestration and AI-enabled workflow systems?

Yes.

90 Would the Government consider a federated testbed architecture consisting of distributed manufacturing nodes and interoperable pilot-line facilities to be responsive to the intent of this solicitation?

Yes. Also see response to Question 79.

91 To what extent will evaluation consider contributions toward manufacturing resilience, surge adaptability, and contested logistics support capability?

Research and development contributions in these areas will be considered as part of the Core Competency assessment.

92 Does the Government anticipate requiring classified manufacturing execution environments specifically for pilot-line operations, or only for associated program data and technical information?

The government does not expect this initial task order to include any classified work.

Also see response to Question 7.

93 Open storage timing and pathway Reference: Section 6; Section 10.1, Factor II, Criterion 6. Section 6 states that when task orders with specific security requirements are initiated, the contractor shall work with the sponsor to accredit the

Offerors may demonstrate current capability and/or a credible pathway to open-storage accreditation when required by a task order/DD254. However, the ability to support Open Storage will be evaluated on a spectrum and weighed against the appropriate AIS and build the requisite areas. Factor II, Criterion 6 evaluates the offeror’s ability to conduct SECRET-or-above R&D in a secure facility with open storage. Please clarify whether offerors may demonstrate current capability and/or a credible pathway to open-storage accreditation when required by a task order/DD254, or whether DCSA-approved open storage must already be in place at Solution Brief submission or award.

Suggested edit: Revise Factor II, Criterion 6 to evaluate the offeror’s “current capability or demonstrated pathway to conduct SECRET-or-above R&D in a secure facility with open storage when required by a task order/DD254.”

other requirements. Having an existing Open Storage accreditation offers the least risk, but if the offeror shows a pathway to accreditation, that will be evaluated proportionally with the risk it entails.

94 Past performance and transition pathways. Reference: Section 10.1, Factor IV.

Please confirm that relevant past performance may include DoD/federal contracts, cooperative agreements, OTAs, CRADAs, subcontracts/subawards, federally sponsored center or consortium leadership, and demonstrated transition to Army, Joint Service, OIB, DIB, MII, or industry partners—not only prior DoD prime contracts or programs of record.

Suggested edit: Revise Factor IV to evaluate “relevant DoD and federal research performance as a prime or significant performer, including contracts, cooperative agreements, OTAs, CRADAs, subcontracts/subawards, center or consortium leadership, technology transition, TRL/MRL maturation, and transition to Army, Joint Service, OIB, DIB, MII, or industry partners.”

We will consider updating the language to broaden the definition.

95 Volume 1 page-count clarification:

Reference: Section 7.2.1.

For Volume 1, please confirm whether Sections 2–4—Intellectual Property Statement/Agreement/Disclosures, OCI Analysis/Mitigation Plan, and Rough Order of Magnitude Cost—are excluded from the 10-page Main Body limit.

Page limits and references will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

96 Volume 2 format and submission method.

Reference: Section 7.2.2 Please confirm that Volume 2 should be submitted as an Adobe PDF and whether Volumes 1 and 2 should be submitted as separate PDF attachments in the same Step 1 email or as separate emails.

All Volumes should be submitted as PDF attachments. You may submit both in the same email if they are not too large.

Sending separately is also acceptable.

Also see response to Question 7.

97 Administrative cross-reference and numbering cleanup. Reference: Multiple sections. We noted a few apparent cross-reference and numbering issues that may benefit from cleanup in the final Call.

Examples include references to submission instructions, OCI Section 13 versus Section 12, evaluation criteria Sections 11.1/11.2 versus Section 10, Task Order instructions Section 14 versus Section 13, deliverables table references, and Section 13.5 objective numbering listed as 6.2 and 6.3.

Section references will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

98 “Trusted government agent” clarification, Reference: Sections 1, 2, and 3. Please clarify that “trusted government agent” and “neutral, trusted agent” refer to a neutral technical/research performer or advisor supporting the Government, and do not include performance of inherently governmental functions.

These terms refer to a neutral technical/research performer or advisor supporting the Government, and do not include performance of inherently governmental functions.

See response to question 20.

99 Task Order 1 representative component / material / TDP. Reference: Section 13.5.

For Task Order 1, may offerors propose representative unclassified components, material systems, and Technical Data Packages for the Solution Brief, or does the Government anticipate furnishing representative components/TDPs after award?

Yes, offerors may propose representative unclassified components, material systems, and Technical Data Packages for the Solution Brief.

Also see response to Question 7.

100 Task Order 1 energetics / munitions / hazardous-material assumptions.

Reference: Section 2(d); Section 13. For planning purposes, please clarify whether Task Order 1 is expected to require energetics, munitions, or hazardous-materials handling, or whether non-energetic representative components are acceptable unless otherwise specified by task order.

Task Order 1 is not expected to require energetics, munitions, or hazardous-materials handling. Non-energetic representative components are acceptable unless otherwise specified by a specific task order.

101 The call states that submissions must include: “Security Classification:

UNCLASSIFIED, no CUI”. My question is: Should that appear in the body of Volumes 1 and 2, in the email subject line, in the body of the submission email, or perhaps all of the above?

(1) Mark the title page with the following legend:

Mark the title page with the following legend: This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed – in whole or in part – for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this offeror as a result of, or in connection with, the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract.

This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and

(2) Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.

102 On page 15 of the draft call it states:

“7.2.1 Volume 1: Applied Research Center

– Solution Brief Submission Requirements Page Limit: Maximum 10 pages (excluding cover page, executive summary and Sections identified at 8.3.2, below)” However, there does not appear to be a Section 8.3.2 below, and Section 8 does not identify any sections to include in Volume 1.

Section references and page limits will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

103 OCI is referenced in Section 13 in two places, though it actually appears to be in Section 12.

Section references will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

104 Section 7.2 mentions “Volume 2 is for the first Task Order and instructions can be found in section 14.” However, the Task Order instructions appear to be in section 13.

Section references will be revised in the final Call for Solutions.

105 Should all solution briefs and full proposals be submitted as a single institution, or is collaboration appropriate or encouraged?

There must be a single educational institution identified for contracting purposes. If a consortium arrangement is proposed, your solution brief must delineate roles and responsibilities for each member.

Also see response to Questions 79 and 80.

106 Task Order: Is the definition of hybrid manufacturing strictly additive manufacturing + subtractive? Or are other combinations also considered hybrid.

Hybrid manufacturing is a broad term that speaks to the ability to combine two or more manufacturing techniques or processes into a single workflow to improve efficiency, reduce waste, enable complex geometries, or achieve another desired end state. The term is not limited to additive and subtractive manufacturing.

Also see response to Question 7.

107 Task Order: Is there a desired largest achievable geometry and/or the smallest achievable feature size?

There is no desired achievable geometry.

Also see response to Question 7.

108 Task Order: Are there targeted material systems for the hybrid platform? e.g.- Is it expected to be metallic? Combination of material systems?

There are no targeted material systems.

The system should focus on multi-material and multi-capabilities.

Also see response to Question 7.

109 Task Order: What is the difference in scope/TRL level for the flexible cells versus the hybrid platform?

Both are expected to mature technologies from TRL 3 & 4 to TRL 6 resulting in technology demonstrators. The Task is expected to mature MRLs up to MRL 5.

Also see response to Question 7.

110 I would like to confirm for the Open Solicitation W9128Z-25-S-A002 that the Army is ONLY looking at college and university laboratories and university-affiliated non-profits as identified in Paragraph 2.

The Army is only looking at college and university laboratories and university-affiliated non-profits as identified in Paragraph 2.

Also see response to Question 20.

111 I just read through the AdvMARTDC (CFS) and would like to clarify...In the actual draft it states Solutions Brief is due 19 Jun, where as on sam.gov it has a closeout date of 22 May? Is the 22 May date the last day for questions or is that when the Solutions Brief is due?

Yes, this is was the only the draft Call for Solutions for comment. This draft closed on 22 May 2026. The draft time period is to allow for comments and questions during this period only. Some of the questions and comments may be incorporated in our FINAL call. The final call will be a separate posting. We will provide a link to the final posting on the draft posting site. The final call will contain date for solutions brief due date.

112 Reviewing all Section 3, there is a requirement of 3.6 Workforce Development. My understanding of this requirement is the awardee is required to have an ABET Accredited (or the like) engineering program vs being able to staff from an ABET Accredited (or the like) engineering program.

Either approach is acceptable.