Yes, please see below for the recording of our Q&A Session. The transcription of the meeting can be found in the document linked below.

The session was led by Charles Edens (ATI). ATI teammates were present to support Q&A. Tyler Gwatney (project manager for the forging program) is also a primary contact.

ATI and FIA (Forging Industry Association) run the Forging Defense Manufacturing Consortium (FDMC) to pursue DoD‑relevant R&D, especially with DLA Cast & Forge R&D (a ManTech program). AMC (in metal casting) is a “sister organization” with its own long history.

Twofold intent: (1) help DLA procure parts, and (2) strengthen the domestic forging industrial base so it is robust and available to DoD—especially in times of crisis—rather than drifting offshore.

A participant noted DLA “lost about 27% of its vendor base since COVID,” highlighting reshoring, defense industrial base robustness, vendor‑lock risks, and long lead times as motivators. This was presented as participant perspective during the session.

The team wants a more nimble portfolio: many shorter projects (often 1–3 years; some 1‑year “quick wins”), rather than a handful of 5‑year projects that can go stale. Larger, multi‑year efforts are still allowed but may be less attractive if they tie up funding without being critical.

Yes. The BAA includes language (new vs last cycle) that DLA may find funding for transition/implementation if they see success and benefit. Proposers should include both project cost and a separate, ROM transition cost and show how the work crosses the “valley of death” to the factory floor.

Two high‑level buckets: Procurement Solutions and Manufacturing Technologies. Manufacturing Technologies includes three broad sub‑areas:

• Materials (e.g., alloys, die materials, lubricants)
• Processing/Industry 4.0/automation/process improvements
• Workforce development (e.g., training including “forging university,” robotics training, facility‑captured best practices shareable with industry)

The team stressed broad interpretation of these categories.

Split them. Submit separate one‑page quad charts for distinct ideas—even if they’re related—so they can be evaluated independently (avoid “take‑it‑or‑leave‑it” bundles). You may describe logical A/B/C gating; the team might select one piece (e.g., “B”) if it’s most critical.

Yes. Workforce development is explicitly welcomed, and examples were cited. Don’t artificially narrow your thinking—these categories are intentionally broad.

A one‑page quad chart using the provided template (remove prompt text) and follow the companion instructions. If you send early, ATI can do a compliance check; last‑minute submissions reduce that chance.

• Abstract / Goals & Impact: Innovation vs. current state; industry benefit; include ROI numbers if you have them; outline the transition intent.
• Technical Plan: High‑level SOW steps, expected results, key milestones, known risks/challenges and mitigations; mention transition aspects if applicable.
• Cost & Schedule: Provide ROM by Government Fiscal Year; include a separate ROM for transition (build your own small table by FY). Break out Government cost, Cost share, and Total.
• Area of Interest: Indicate Procurement Solutions or Manufacturing Technologies, and if the latter, which sub‑area.
• Partners & Letters: List known supporting organizations (or note you’re still confirming). Letters of support may be included; only the quad chart is page‑limited. Provide POCs for submitter and (if known) partners.

Either is acceptable. Many past efforts were university‑led. Given the emphasis on transition, some efforts may be industry‑led with university support; suppliers to the industry may also propose.

Expect roughly 20–25% of the government cost (depending on calculation approach). “High‑quality cost share” is required—well‑documented contributions such as labor, in‑kind materials, purchased equipment, or unbilled university labor columns are typical examples.

Yes. Overhead/IDC varies by university/program and is treated in the cost proposal with a reasonableness check; prior ATI projects have included overhead.

No detailed category list was given in the call. The team emphasized that at full cost‑proposal stage, ATI conducts reasonableness checks and provides templates/instructions, working iteratively with performers to ensure compliance.

At award, performers need a CAGE code, DD2345, and an IT self‑assessment (SPRS); organizations should maintain eligibility if requirements change over time. These are not required at quad‑chart submission, but no award can be made without them.

Timelines vary; as an example, FIA took about three months in a recent cycle. Bottlenecks and back‑and‑forth for corrections can add time; ATI encourages starting ~3 months in advance once you believe you’re likely to proceed.

ATI aims for a balanced portfolio across the four areas (Procurement + three Manufacturing sub‑areas) and will use industry feedback to “rack and stack” ideas. DLA will select what to fund from a robust package ATI submits.

ATI’s first goal is to deliver the white paper to DLA and get it accepted; then DLA will request cost proposals. The team is still finalizing the exact packaging/management approach for this new, more agile model.

Historically, ATI sees award in Q4 (a token amount to launch/close prior‑year funds) and bulk funds in Q1 of the next fiscal year. For this cycle, when asked about releasing funds/commitments, the answer clarified FY27 (1Q27) is the relevant window (not FY26). These are historical patterns, not guarantees.

ATI maintains a portfolio activity that supports DLA with part procurement—finding sources, materials, reviewing drawings, etc. Many outside organizations will engage more with Manufacturing Technologies, but both areas are in scope.

If you have ROI or quantified impact, include it in the abstract/goals. The team cares about impact, but recognizes ROI is hard to track before implementation.

ATI here is Advanced Technology International, not Allegheny Technologies.

Use the contacts listed in the RFI (e.g., Charles Edens). Tyler Gwatney is the project manager and will be heavily involved.