This Pre-Solicitation opportunity from Department Of Defense was posted on June 10, 2026. The submission period has ended. Browse the details below for market research, or find similar active opportunities.
DRAFT RFP - Landing Gear Collaborative Supply Chain Integration II
Contract Overview
Solicitation details, issuing organization, response deadlines, documents, and interested companies for this government contract opportunity.
Active Opportunities Like This One
AI Contract Overview
The contract titled "DRAFT RFP - Landing Gear Collaborative Supply Chain Integration II" is a total small business set-aside solicitation issued by the Department of Defense, specifically managed by the DLA Aviation office located at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. It falls under NAICS code 336413, which pertains to aerospace product and parts manufacturing, and aims to enhance the collaborative supply chain for landing gear systems. This presolicitation notice, posted on March 19, 2026, invites industry participants to engage in one-on-one question and answer sessions during the week of March 30th, conducted via Microsoft Teams. These meetings are designed to address industry inquiries related to the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) designated SPRHA1-26-R-1003. Interested parties are encouraged to coordinate scheduling of these virtual Q&A sessions through the primary point of contact, DLA Contracting Officer Nathan Flinders, with a secondary contact available at the Air Force for additional support. Each session is allocated one hour to ensure thorough discussion and clarification of the RFP details. The effort reflects a collaborative commitment between the Defense Logistics Agency and the Air Force to streamline the supply chain for critical landing gear components, reinforcing support to military aviation needs while fostering small business participation in defense contracting.
General Info
Agency
NAICS
Place of Performance
UT, USASet-Aside
Timeline
Submission Closed
Organization & Contact Information
Full Description
This notice is posted to communicate questions and answers that arose from the most recent Draft RFP posting for this effort.
The questions/answers from the most recent posting are below:
Industry Comment/Question:
Section J. FAR 52.232-16 - Progress Payments and Alternate I, are included. Progress Payments will be limited to the costs of forged items.
- Recommend the verbiage be adjusted to say “limited to forged and long lead items.”
Government Response:
- Recommended verbiage will be used
Industry Comment/Question:
H-001 Supplemental Price Adjustment for Forgings 16 April 2026
1. Will there be any flexibility in funding additional forging costs if the price exceeds the cap rate of 50%? If not, it will likely affect pricing integrity.
2. Regarding the Informal Cost Analysis, the majority of these forgings are sole-source items, making meaningful cost comparisons very difficult to provide. Request the government re-consider.
Government Response:
- The Government will adhere to the 50% cap established in the clause. The annual price escalation provided via Procurement Note C09, combined with the 50% forging price adjustment allowance are the appropriate mechanisms for managing price fluctuations on this effort.
- Section 3 of H-001 does not explicitly mandate a cost comparison. The “market comparison” cited in the clause is provided merely as an example of acceptable supporting documentation to support a fair and reasonable forging price. The prime contractor may submit other forms of pricing support as appropriate.
Industry Comment/Question:
52.219-14 LIMITATIONS ON SUBCONTRACTING (DEVIATION 2021-O0008)
1. Want to clarify that the SB threshold is the term of the contract and not by individual order. Recommend the government check the box which states “By the end of the base term of the contract and then by the end of each subsequent option period.”
Government Response:
- Agreed, the government intent is for the term of the contract and not by individual order. The box referenced will be checked in the final RFP on the referenced clause.
Industry Comment/Question:
TRD 4.6.7 Forging Die Condition and Location
“Delays due to die refurbishment will not be considered cause for OTD metric relief.”
- Recommend the Government reconsider relief for this metric, as there are circumstances beyond a contractor’s control that can significantly impact delivery performance. Forging wear isn’t an exact science and no amount of planning can always avoid delays due to die refurbishment.
One scenario: At baseline proposal, you are given a quote where the forging doesn’t require a die refurbishment so your PLT is based around that quote. The forging die has now been used on a few runs and now requires a refurbishment. The baseline PLT was based on the forging quote that showed no delivery for a die refurbishment.
Another scenario: You are running forgings and half-way thru manufacturing the die needs refurbishment. This was not something that could have been foreseen beforehand and out of everyone’s control so the lead time on a quote you were previously given has changed.
Government Response:
- The Government's position remains unchanged; delays due to die refurbishment will not be considered grounds for On-Time Delivery (OTD) or Days Late metric relief. Bidders are expected to account for the inherent risks of manufacturing, including potential die wear and necessary refurbishments, when establishing realistic Production Lead Times (PLTs). The Government requires dependable PLTs to ensure parts are received within the contracted timeframe with a high degree of confidence, inclusive of any required die maintenance or replacement.