Day 1 APBI Q A Report_Completed_21 May.pdf

Question Answer - transcript Answer - Summary plus context What are the specific measures in C2/CC2 to validate the premise of acquisition reform? How much time saved, how many new systems in the field, how much better capability, etc?

Speed is very clearly the overarching consideration and acquisition reform if you read what secretary Hegseth within the Department of War, Department of the Army acquisition chance information, it's very clear. here that is you know that's what we're biased towards. So we're going to be measuring things like the kind of capability and how rapidly we were able to get that out to the force in terms of describing the quality of the capability. The things that I've been looking at most recently. We you know in some ways it's a little hard to compare we can say how long it used to take to do something and how long it would take under a modern system so NGC2 we probably have the best examples of right now. You could you could take an example like being ready for a digital fires mission. Connected through your C2 system to be able to actually execute you could look at the entire targeting process and what we do right now at a division level versus what more automation will enable us to do almost in every case that I've started looking at capability comparisons from our old systems in terms of time we're looking at things like on the order of like 90% reduction in that time and it's not just a reduction in 90% it's not just not just a time bound thing, it's also what are the other capabilities that can be brought in on top of it that we never had before the analogy i think of is if you were to decades ago map out a route for going on vacation or whatever and you'd take out an atlas or you maybe go AAA or something it would take some time to go figure this all out now you can measure the time difference in terms of just going using google maps, Waze Maps, whatever. Probably even greater than 90% reduction in time but also like an atlas never gave you traffic information so there's additional qualities on top of that so when i think about that when we start talking about time savings I'm looking at orders of 90 in terms of what we're doing cognitively and then in terms of speed we're really looking to get into a commercial tech refresh window it kind of depends on the technology that we're talking about there are still some more expensive capabilities that are expected to last many years by large mini commercial systems three to five years that starts looking like a window for tech refresh you start getting 10 years and beyond which is where we really were with our legacy systems and i think that's too slow. We're going to continue to refine our metrics in terms of what we're looking at but those are the kind of the major ones that I think about as PAE.

Department of War's guidance on acquisition reform makes speed the overarching metric for success.

The focus is on rapidly fielding automated systems that drastically cut operational timelines and transitioning to faster commercial tech refresh cycles to maintain a tactical advantage.

NGC2 is a good example where this is being accomplished. There they are achieving approximately a 90% reduction in cognitive, targeting, and execution times for missions like digital fires.

This isn’t just about speed—modern systems also provide new capabilities that weren’t possible before, much like the leap from paper maps to real-time navigation apps.

Our goal is to align tech refresh cycles with commercial standards—ideally every 3–5 years, rather than the 10+ years of legacy systems. We’ll continue refining our metrics to ensure continuous, relevant modernization, but time savings and enhanced capability are our primary measures.

What tangible changes will industry see in the risk tolerance and decision-making speed at the operational level to move from "interest" in these tools to widespread, effective implementation?

Industry will see several tangible changes in the Army’s risk tolerance and decision-making speed at the operational level, driven by acquisition reform. The Army is moving away from lengthy, risk-averse processes toward rapid fielding and iterative improvement to accelerate the delivery of effective solutions.

First, the Army is actively encouraging self-teaming amongst vendors. By combining unique strengths and technologies, vendors can deliver more innovative, integrated, and interoperable solutions. Early collaboration helps address integration challenges before fielding, reducing technical risks and costly rework.

Second, the commercial-first approach means the Army is adopting proven commercial technologies, which shortens procurement cycles and leverages industry innovation. This reduces the time and risk associated with bespoke government development, and industry should expect more calls for solutions through CSOs.

Third, the Army is institutionalizing fast iteration cycles by placing industry partners side-by-side with soldiers, program management offices, requirements teams, and test partners. Real-time feedback and rapid adaptation in operational environments accelerate capability maturity. This “test, learn, iterate” model, seen in programs like Project Convergence and NGC2, empowers leaders to make adjustments based on real-world data, enabling faster decision-making and greater risk acceptance.

Finally, the Army is streamlining decision-making authorities and increasing risk tolerance at lower levels, empowering operational leaders to make fielding decisions and accept incremental improvements. This shift moves promising tools from pilot to widespread use much more quickly than before.

How do you see small business playing a role, as your requirements have evolved? Small businesses are crucial as requirements shift, especially with the move toward commercial-first solutions. We recognize the challenge in forecasting demand through traditional forms (like P- and R- Forms and the J book), so we're working to improve transparency and provide clearer demand signals.

Identifying and sharing common core capabilities across divisions will help small businesses align their investments and innovation efforts. We continue to encourage industry self-teaming and collaboration to adjust capabilities to commander priorities, operational needs and emerging technologies.

In terms of 'getting into the ecosystem' as an industry provider what specifically is the suggested way to connect with the requiring activity to engage on solutions and related presentations?

For CPE C2IN, contact the Technical Industry Liaison office:

https://jtnc.experience.crmforce.mil/JTNC/s/cpe-c2in-tilo

For CPE ISW, visit their website to schedule a meeting: https://cpeisw.army.mil/industry/

For CPE ST3, visit their website: www.cpest3.army.mil

For C5ISR Center, you can partner with them by visiting: https://c5isrcenter.devcom.army.mil/partner-with-us/. You can also request a Technical Exchange Meeting:

https://forms.osi.apps.mil/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=D9fm-kuVEUiStgUw1vhMQ4lfS7KNdSpIg4yOofYcfUBUMlBJRVFKWDRTOU5YVVY0MkhBUEZYNThBSy4u. Other industry inquiries can be directed to Mr. Ron Seldon, Technology Transfer Specialist, at ronald.a.seldon.civ@army.mil can I get a copy of the last presentation by BG Taylor?

richard.l.guzman2.civ@army.mil

All slides will be published to SAM.gov. You can also reach out direct to Public Affairs at CPE C2IN at usarmy.apg.peo-c3t.mbx.pao-peoc3t@army.mil.

VECTOR - Why couldn't PM's add the integration, SW Development, and Lab services to their respective SETA contracts?

VECTOR is not intended to be used as a SETA contract. The VECTOR effort is for highly specialized SMEs in the areas of engineering, software development, and integration. In addition, this contract will allow CPE ISW PMs to efficiently utilize lab space across our portfolio. VECTOR will be a centralized vehicle for PMs to procure requirements vs the current method of leveraging several contracts both within and

Will there be a TEM 16? If so, when and where.

No date is currently set for TEM 16, but continue to watch Sam.gov and CPE C2IN social media for future updates.

ARMY MAPS IDIQ: When does APG anticipate completing answers to questions and releasing an Amendment and proposal due date extension.

Answers to questions have been posted on SAM:

https://sam.gov/opp/ae1d5f81975f40019a93cb1769354caa/view. The Army announced on 19 May 2026 that the proposal due date of 20 May will be extended 30 days. Amendment 008 is forthcoming.

APBI Mailbox question:

Hi, The ADOC effort was not discussed ( apologies if I missed it), we realize this is a proof of concept at IOC and mostly being executed by Gov employees. This effort will most likely require industry partnership and we would like to be engaged in any way we can/ learn what ever we can now , in any capacity, and on our on expense.

For ADOC, please reach out to Hector Rodriguez hector.s.rodriguez.civ@army.mil

Please connect me if you can with anyone I can speak with.

Thank you !

Question Answer Apologies this is a delayed question, who was the speaker for alt PNT in the earlier session? Christopher Jais PM C2I did NGSS replace PSFS? No, it is not intended to replace the PSFS effort.

Pl C2 Enablers - INOC III is it full and open or SB set aside?

Market research is currently nearing completion which will shape that determination.

Who was the speaker for AECC in the previous session? Nancy Richardson, Deputy PM IEN (under CPE C2IN) Apologies, I missed the slide from the previous session and the answer. Who was the speaker briefing the Army Edge Compute Capability that followed Lisa Bell's segment. Nancy Richardson, Deputy PM IEN (under CPE C2IN) will AECC be a SB set-aside No.

when C2IN acquires new hardware via an OTA award are the PMs informing CECOM and working with them to coordinate sustainment or is the contractor to engage CECOM

It is the PM's responsibility to coordinate with CECOM to see if organic support is viable.

How many awards have been made through the AOS.

To date, there have been 22 awards made through Army Open Solicitation.