Annex 1 - PrSM Inc 4 RFS - Industry Day Q_A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W31P4Q269068
About this file
This is an Industry Day Questions and Answers document from the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Increment 4 prototype competition held on March 23-24, 2026. The document addresses 26 key questions from industry regarding program requirements, evaluation criteria, and acquisition strategy.
The Government seeks a single, complete missile solution compatible with the M142 launcher platform capable of engaging both moving maritime and relocatable land targets at ranges exceeding 1,000 kilometers. Solutions will be evaluated against three primary pillars: range capability, M142 compatibility, and effectiveness against specified targets. The evaluation employs a high-fidelity mission effectiveness model incorporating intel-community authoritative threat models, survivability analysis, and lethality assessments. Industry must submit a complete Rough Order of Magnitude for all three phases with the Solution Brief due May 15, 2026, following the Request for Solutions release on April 15, 2026. Selected performers will receive notification within 30 days and advance to the Request for Prototype Proposal phase by June 15, 2026. The program operates on a shared investment model requiring significant industry funding alongside Government support. Two planned flight tests are scheduled for FY27 and FY28, with the first serving as a downselect event. The Government intends to remain flexible regarding the number of performers advanced, with no predetermined limit. Solutions must be unclassified at the munition and launcher level, comply with Modular Open Systems Architecture requirements, demonstrate operability in the INDOPACOM Area of Responsibility, and address logistics implications if exceeding standard Family of Munitions dimensions. No datalink capability is required, though it is desirable. The award will be made under 10 U.S.C. 4022 authority as an Other Transaction Agreement rather than a traditional FAR-based contract.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| PrSM Inc 4 Request for Solutions_FInal for Submission_Rev2_20260430.docx | DOCX document | |
| PrSM Inc 4 Request for Solutions_FInal for Submission_20260424.docx | DOCX document | |
| Annex 5 - Evaluation Criteria_Phase I Option and II.docx | DOCX document | |
| Annex 2 - PrSM Inc 4 - RFS - Perfomer Eligibility Statement.pdf | ||
| Annex 3 - PrSM Inc 4 RFS - Technical Data Request.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Industry Day One-On-One Session Questions (23-24 Mar 2026) | |
| Question | Response |
| What does the mission evaluation scenario entail and what key factors will be considered? | Throughout Phase I solutions will be evaluated using a high-fidelity mission effectiveness model and a simulation that plays out each solution in a scenario including a specific launcher laydown, resupply vehicles, and target laydown. The primary factor for evaluation is cumulative effects on targets. Maneuverability, trajectory, salvo size, warhead capability, seeker performance and ability to operate in a GPS degraded environment could all be factored into the effectiveness analysis over the course of the program. More specific information is provided in the Mission Scenario provided at Industry Day. |
| What modeling frameworks and data will be used to analyze mission effectiveness? | The primary framework involves using intel-community authoritative threat models to evaluate survivability and lethality. The analysis will be fed by industry-provided trajectories at first, followed by higher-fidelity performance models when available. The goal is to combine demonstrated capabilities and test data with the Government's models to determine the end outcome (targets neutralised). More information regarding the modelling tools could be shared with industry partners during execution of Phase I, however as the tools are products of other Government entities not directly involved in this program, the nature of the information that can be shared remains to be determined. |
| Are there any requirements for specific subsystem modalities (warhead, seeker, propulsion, etc), loadouts, weights, or cost? | The Government is intentionally avoiding being overprescriptive of how the problem is addressed. Each design will be evaluated against the following three pillars: range, compatibility with M142, and effectiveness against the targets. Industry is tasked with putting their best product forward to address these criteria. |
| Will DEVCOM AvMC factor in benefits of innovative technologies or additional capabilities to enhance survivability and/or lethality? | The mission effectiveness model will, when feasible, incorporate the impact of advanced capabilities on survivability and/or lethality. However, the capabilities must rely exclusively on information gathered through the standard, established phases of a military operation, known as the kill chain. The capability cannot be dependent on data from external or non-standard sources. |
| Can Industry provide recommendations for CONOPS, such as salvo size and variant missiles with different effectors? | Yes, these will be considered in the mission effectiveness analysis. In the evaluation scenario, the number of launchers and resupply vehicles are fixed. The impacts to operations, logistics, and sustainment presented by variant missiles and mixed salvos will be included in the evaluation. |
| What are the key requirements and scope for a proposed solution? | A single full missile solution must be provided that will be evaluated against the three pillars: >1000km range, compatibility with M142, and effectiveness on targets. The Technical Data provided with the Solution Brief must describe a single solution concept. Offerors are expected to submit a complete Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for all three phases as part of their Request for Solutions (RFP) response. This ROM should have a higher level of detail for Phase I including the Option for Flyoff 2. The initial contract award will cover work through the second flight test, and the final Statement of Work (SOW) will be defined based on the competitive selection. Since there is uncertainty in future procurement rates and budget, include assumptions made for the Unit Cost calculation. No partial solutions will be accepted. |
| What is the timeline and process from RFS to award? | The program will proceed from a Request for Solution (RFS) to a Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP). The RFS will be sent out on April 15th with a Solution Brief due date of May 15th. Following the receipt of Solution Briefs, there will be a notification within 30 days if selected. The RPP will be released by June 15th with a Statement of Objectives (SOO) and draft Statement of Work (SOW) which will be finalized collaboratively with the Government team. Specific Phase objectives are laid out in the RFS. Oral presentations are not guaranteed and may not be required before the RPP, though the Government reserves the right to request them. |
| What are the target range requirements, and are they strict? | The operational range is a maximum of > 1,000 km and a minimum of < 300km. Solutions outside these ranges will still be evaluated and are not immediately disqualified. |
| What is the target set, and what are the key priorities? | The solution must address both ground and maritime targets, with a specific focus on disrupting the A2/AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) bubble. Land targets are considered relocatable (moved before the engagement) but are not actively moving. Full details will be provided to offerors in a classified target book and reference mission scenario. |
| What is the expected classification for the solution (munition, launcher, missile)? | The missile and launcher must be treated as an unclassified item, not requiring special storage or handling by soldiers. The classification of the program effort will be based on the partner's solution and outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW). |
| Will Increment 4 have its own Security Classification Guide (SCG)? | Performers should assume Increment 4 will fall under the standard MFOM SCG unless informed other wise. The MFOM SCG will be provided post Phase 1 to the awarded Performer(s). |
| Is this new solution (Increment 4) expected to be based on previous PrSM increments (e.g., Inc 2)? | No. The Government is intentionally not sharing technical details about prior increments. The solution does not need to be based on PrSM Increment 1 or 2. The solicitation is open for unique industry solutions within the 3 pillars of 1000km range, M142 compatibility, and effectiveness against the specified targets. |
| What is the Army's position on solutions with ejecta? | Ejecta is allowed, as long as it falls beyond forward line of troops (FLOT), and landing location can be predicted. |
| Is a datalink or the ability to receive In-Flight Target Updates (IFTU) required? | No. A solution that incorporates a datalink is desirable; however, the missile must be fully functional without it. No infrastructure will be provided to support datalink testing during initial flights, but it may be evaluated for future upgrades. |
| Is there a cost per missile requirement? | No, the goal is best value. Cost will be a part of the evaluation, and the Government is prioritizing affordability and quantity over exquisite or high-cost solutions provided they are assessed to be effective in the mission scenario. Include all assumptions in ROM submission. |
| Is there an estimated procurement number? | These figures are not yet defined and will depend entirely on the proposed solution's cost and production capacity. Include all assumptions in ROM submission. |
| What are the key physical and launcher compatibility requirements for the solution? | The solution must be M142 compatible; it does not need to be M270 compatible, but full MLRS Family of Munitions (MFOM) compatibility, including M270 is an objective for the solution. A standalone containerized launcher is not acceptable. EALP dimensions and weights beyond the MFOM standard present increased risk of M142 integration. Refer to Pod Weight/Size Assessment included as an Annex to the RFS. Resupply implications of a longer pod will be assessed in the effectiveness analysis. The Government will support the necessary software integration with the launcher's Fire Control System (FCS). The system should be designed with a Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) to easily accommodate new components, like an updated guidance set, in the future. Access to Launchers for integration testing can be discussed during SOW development with the selected Performers. |
| What are the requirements and trade-offs available for integrating a proposed solution with Army's existing logistics and resupply infrastructure? | The Army does not have pre-defined concepts for alternate resupply; Performer(s) are expected to address logistics in their proposed solution if the solution is larger or heavier than standard MFOM dimensions. While it is highly preferable that a solution fits into the current logistics train, it is not a strict requirement and is considered part of the trade space. Refer to Pod Weight/Size Assessment included as an Annex for the RFS. |
| What is the new acquisition strategy for Increment 4, and why is it different? | The solution must be M142 compatible; it does not need to be M270 compatible, but full MLRS Family of Munitions (MFOM) compatibility, including M270 is an objective for the solution. A standalone containerized launcher is not acceptable. EALP dimensions and weights beyond the MFOM standard present increased risk of M142 integration. Refer to Pod Weight/Size Assessment included as an Annex to the RFS. Resupply implications of a longer pod will be assessed in the effectiveness analysis. The Government will support the necessary software integration with the launcher's Fire Control System (FCS). The system should be designed with a Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) to easily accommodate new components, like an updated guidance set, in the future. Access to Launchers for integration testing can be discussed during SOW development with the selected Performers. |
| How is the Army encouraging innovation from industry for this program? | The Army has defined the core requirements (range, launcher compatibility, and effects on target) and is intentionally leaving the trade space open for non prescriptive innovative solutions to achieve them. |
| What contracting vehicle will be used, and what are the data rights? | There will be a new standalone OTA for this effort (not a traditional FAR-based contract). Refer to the RFS for all data rights requirements. |
| What is the funding and investment strategy for this program? | The program operates on a shared investment model. The Government will provide some funding for Phase 1, but it will be less than the total cost of development. Performers are expected to have significant investment of their own money to be competitive. While not a formal evaluation factor, making such investments is viewed by Army leadership as a hallmark of a successful vendor. |
| What are the objectives and structure of the two planned flight tests (Flyoffs)? | The plan includes two flight tests. One scheduled for FY27 and one for FY28. The Government will evaluate the Performer's ability to demonstrate a closed-loop, target-seeking solution at > 1000km range in both events. The first flight is a downselect event, where the best solutions will be awarded an Option to continue to the second flyoff. A warhead functional test (e.g. arena test) prior to the first flight is required in order to demonstrate effects. |
| How will the flight tests be evaluated, and what are the key criteria? | Evaluation will focus on three key pillars: range, M142 compatibility, and effects on targets. The Government is not being prescriptive and encourages Performers to propose their best single solution. Evaluation criteria are provided in the RFS. |
| What information will be shared with the RFS? | To facilitate teaming, a list of companies that attended Industry Day was posted to SAM.gov (will not be an attachment to the RFS). The RFS release will include the RFS and referenced annexes (Industry Day Questions & Answers, Performer Eligibility Statement, Technical Data Sheet, and Pod Weight/Size Assessment). A list of the survivability tools that will be used for the mission effectiveness evaluation will not be provided with the RFS. |
| What operating conditions must the solution comply with? | The threshold is operability in INDOPACOM Area of Responsbility (AOR), with worldwide operability being the objective. Any type of conditioning requirements for the solution are undesireable. Operability in various weather conditions is part of the trade space. Submit single best solution and state all assumptions associated with operating conditions. |
| Will FTS packaging be required for fly-off testing? | FTS requirements for flight testing have not yet been established, but the ability to integrate an FTS in the solution is required. |
| How will the competition be structured, and how many Performer(s) will move forward? | The Army intends to remain flexible, carrying as many Performers as we are able to fiscally sustain. There is no predetermined number, and the Army reserves the right to bring forward as many or as few as needed to meet the mission. The process is designed to be collaborative; after a contract is awarded, the Army will provide feedback and support but will not provide prescriptive direction. Performers are expected to propose a single solution, and the initial award will cover work through the initial fly off with an option for continued performance through the final fly off. |
| How will the Government provide feedback to Performer(s)? | Feedback will be provided for selected proposals, at which point the SOW will be created collaboratively. A written debrief will be provided to unsuccessful offerors. |
| Can additional flight tests be proposed? | Yes, however the Performer is responsible for coordinating and funding any additional tests with the test facilities. Flight tests outside of the Government-required fly-off events will not be part of the formal evaluation. The Government will not provide any material contribution to the additional flight tests but will provide letters of endorsement for appropriate prioritization a Government test facilities. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .