Runtime Assured Autonomy

# Q&A Changes Summary **Removed:** 3 questions (Q1, Q2, Q3 from previous version) and answers about CMMC eligibility, scoring weights, and evidence forms. **Reorganized:** Remaining 10 questions renumbered sequentially (now Q1-Q13). Content consolidated with redundancies eliminated and answers streamlined. **Key clarifications retained:** Fleet-level RTAA encouraged; mission-planning focus sufficient; model-based and contract-based detection both valid; A-GRA compliance not required in Phase I; hexacopter use cases discourage proposals.

**Changes Made:** Only one change: **Q1 received a new answer**. The response was updated to clarify that eligibility questions (including CMMC L2 certification status) should be directed to AFWERX, not the technical POC. All other 13 Q&As remain unchanged.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Question Added:** - Q1: CMMC L2 (Self) certification eligibility if completed by July 13, 2026 (no answer provided yet) **Renumbering:** All previous Q1-Q13 shifted to Q2-Q14 due to new CMMC question insertion. **No substantive answer changes:** All existing answers remain identical to previous version; only question numbers were adjusted.

**Summary of Q&A Changes:** Added 1 new question (Q1) addressing evaluation criteria: AFRL will score proposals on merit considering both innovation and testing/analysis rigor equally—innovative ideas without extensive testing can score as well as mature concepts with strong experimental validation. Reorganized remaining questions (renumbered Q2-Q13), with previous Q1 moved to Q2 and answer clarified to "all or some combination" of artifacts acceptable.

# Summary of Q&A Changes **One new question added (Q1):** Requests guidance on preferred evidence types for evaluating Phase I RTAA approaches using desktop scenarios—specifically whether proposers should prioritize architecture/interface design, executable scenario studies, quantitative metrics, contract traceability, or mitigation definitions. **Questions renumbered:** Original Q2-Q11 shifted to Q2-Q12 due to new Q1 insertion. All previous answers retained without substantive changes.

Added 2 new Q&As clarifying Phase I architectural scope: fleet-level RTAA focus encouraged (Q1), mission-planning-level alone acceptable (Q2). Renumbered remaining Q&As accordingly.

Status changed from Pre-Release to Open

Only one change: Q1 now includes an answer directing proposers to "Please see the USAF component instructions" for the Technical Volume page limit, whereas previously it had no answer listed.

Added 1 new Q&A on Technical Volume page limits (Q1). Renumbered remaining Q&As (Q2-Q8). No substantive answer changes—all previous responses retained verbatim with updated numbering.

Q1 received a new detailed answer clarifying acceptable Phase I use cases: standard combat missions (ISR, delivery, patrol, intercept), multi-vehicle tasking, contingency scenarios, and general representative missions demonstrating RTA fault detection mechanisms are all acceptable.

Added 2 new Q&As: Q1 asks whether Phase I proposals should reference specific ACP mission archetypes or remain general; Q2 asks about comparative promise of model-based vs. contract-based fault detection methods. Existing Q&As renumbered but unchanged in substance.

Added 1 new Q&A (Q1) clarifying that hexacopter UAS demonstrations would weaken proposals; focus should be on autonomous collaborative platform (ACP) use cases in Air Force combat missions, with assessment of autonomy's ability to address GPS-denial/maritime constraints and minimize mission impact.

Q1 received a new answer clarifying that A-GRA compliance is not required in Phase I, with Phase II focus on awareness rather than full compliance. Emphasis added that proposals should prioritize fault determination algorithms/methods over mitigation design.

Added 1 new Q&A clarifying Phase I alignment expectations with A-GRA (Assurance case-based Generic RTA Architecture), indicating detailed mapping is primarily expected in Phase II rather than Phase I.

This Q&A addresses a government funding opportunity for Runtime Assurance (RTAA) technology, clarifying that Phase I should focus on detection architecture for autonomous system performance monitoring, with mitigation strategies deferred to later phases.

ITAR/EAR export control restrictions and foreign national disclosure requirements added to the objective section.

Close Date changed from 2026-04-22 to 2026-06-03

Open Date changed from 2026-03-25 to 2026-05-06

Status changed from Removed to Pre-Release

Opportunity DAF26BZ01-NV008 no longer available