(DRAFT2) MTC Request for Prototype Proposal (PDF Version).pdf

Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited.

PEO GCS OPSEC# OPSEC-2026-232

Other Transaction Agreement (OTA)

Request for Prototype Proposals (RPP)

For

Mobile Tactical Cannon (MTC)

Issued by:

Army Contracting Command – Detroit Arsenal (ACC-DTA)

RPP Issue Date: XX XXX XXXX

Due Date for Proposal Submission in PIEE:

XX XXX XXXX, 1600 ET

PROTOTYPE PROJECT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENTS and APPENDICES: The Offeror shall review the Prototype Project Agreement, all Attachments and Appendices in their entirety prior to its proposal preparation and submission.

Prototype Project Agreement – Mobile Tactical Cannon (MTC)

Attachment 001: Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) - Mobile Tactical Cannon (MTC)

Attachment 002: Cyber Control Compliance Description

Attachment 003: Supply Chain Market Checklist

Attachment 004: Assertion of Restrictions

Attachment 005: As-Built Configuration Template

Attachment 006: Indentured Bill of Materials (I-BOM) Sample

Attachment 007: Mobility Analysis Tool-Computer Edition (MATCE) Input Datasheet Wheeled

Vehicles

Attachment 008: Memorandum For Record – MIL-STD-6017 Initial Integration for MTC (CUI)

Attachment 009: Proof Gun System Overview Distro A

Attachment 010: TDP Option Worksheet CAD

Attachment 011: TDP Option Worksheet

Attachment 012: MTC Test Schedule Breakdown

Attachment 013: ATTLA Universal Data Sheet

Attachment 014: Petroleum Oils and Lubricants (POL) Guide

Attachment 015: Key Characteristics Description (Draft)

Attachment 016: MTC Sample Special License Agreement (SLA)

Attachment 017: US Army 155mm Artillery Ammunition Interfaces for Compatibility Evaluation

(DRAFT)

Appendix A – Project Articles

Appendix B – Project Other Terms and Conditions

Appendix C – Representations and Certifications

Appendix D – Reserved

Appendix E – Milestone Pricing Template

PART I - INTRODUCTION

Army Contracting Command – Detroit Arsenal (ACC-DTA) issues this Request for Prototype Proposal

(RPP) for the Army’s Mobile Tactical Cannon (MTC) requirement, in accordance with the authority at 10

United States Code (U.S.C) §4022.

1.1 Terms and Conditions

1.1.1 All attachments, as well as Appendix A – Project Articles, Appendix B – Project Other Terms and

Conditions, and Appendix C – Representations and Certifications, will become part of the Prototype

Project Agreement (PPA) award.

1.1.2 The Government reserves the right to select for funding any, all, part, or none of the proposals received.

1.1.3 The Government will not fund projects that do not meet one of the conditions of 10 U.S.C.

§4022(d)(1).

1.2 Project Cancellation

The Government may, at any time, within its own discretion, cancel the RPP. The Government will issue a notice of RPP cancellation.

PART II – PROJECT OVERVIEW

2.1 Project Objective

2.1.1 The purpose of this RPP is to solicit Fixed Price (FP) proposals for the initial modification, testing, and experimentation of mature and available wheeled Mobile Tactical Cannon (MTC) systems. “Mature and available” is intended to describe systems that are objectively available from existing, “hot,” production lines with a credible amount of test and evaluation already completed. For the Purpose of this

RPP a “MTC System” consists of one (1) wheeled Mobile Tactical Cannon (it does not include associated resupply vehicle or other related equipment).

2.1.2 The overall objective of this project aims to prototype MTC systems and determine their overall suitability, through experimentation and other assessments, to replace M777 towed artillery systems within the United States Army. This experimentation and assessments will be used by the US Army to integrate the MTC into a US Army system-of-systems approach to field artillery modernization.

2.1.2.1 Allow US Soldiers opportunities to conduct training and operations utilizing mature and available artillery systems for the purpose of socializing equipment capabilities, documenting Soldier feedback, and determining potential revisions of US Army Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs).

2.1.2.2 Provide US Soldiers opportunities to conduct operator maintenance and sustainment operations using provided equipment for the purpose of determining future logistics and maintenance requirements for the system.

2.1.2.3 Conduct integration training using as many available enablers and unit capabilities as possible to document all incremental upgrades each platform would require integrating with US Army Doctrine, Organization, Training, Material, Leadership and Education, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy

(DOTMLPF-P).

2.1.2.4 Obtain Offeror input on required modification(s) to Offeror systems to integrate MTC systems into existing and/or future US Army fires network.

2.1.3 The Government anticipates awarding one (1) Prototype Project Agreement (PPA) as a result of proposal evaluation. However, the Government may award more than one (1) PPA or make no awards within its sole discretion.

2.2 Follow-on Production

The Government anticipates follow-on production. Section 3.0 of the PPA contains follow-on production details.

3 PART III – PROPOSAL CONTENT, PREPARATION, AND SUBMISSION h

3.1 Administrative Information

3.1.1 The Offeror may submit any clarification questions and/or concerns directly to Sarah Teschler at sarah.j.teschler.civ@army.mil and Ashley Velazco, at Ashley.l.velazco.civ@army.mil with the subject

“RPP XX-XXX Questions/Comments”. All questions/comments must be submitted by 1600 ET, on XX

XXX XX. The Government will review and consider all timely submitted questions/comments but is not obligated to respond.

3.1.2 The Offeror’s proposal must be submitted through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise

Environment (PIEE) at https://piee.eb.mil/ by the due date and time specified in the below Submission

Requirements Table.

3.1.3 Only one (1) proposal shall be submitted per Offeror. Proposal submissions must include the required files identified within and below the Submission Requirements Table. Emailed submissions will not be accepted, unless identified in the Submission Requirements Table.

3.1.4 LATE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

3.1.5 Proposal Content, Preparation, and Submission Requirements

RPP XXX SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS TABLE

Proposal Document File Type Size/Limit Due Date

Eligibility Volume

Reference Section 3.2 below for all required submissions

One (1) file in MS Word or

PDF

10 pages

Limited to 6 MB

XX XXX

XX

NLT1600 ET

Technical Volume

One (1) file in MS Word or

PDF

30 pages

Limited to 6 MB

XX XXX

XX

mailto:sarah.j.teschler.civ@army.mil https://piee.eb.mil/

Reference Section 3.3 submissions

Technical Volume –

Substantiating

Documentation

Reference Section 3.4 submissions

One (1) file in MS Word or

PDF

or

Multiple files in ZIP format

Limited to 15 MB

No page limit

XX XXX

Schedule

Reference Section 3.5 submissions

One (1) file in MS Excel, MS Word, or PDF

Limited to 6 MB

5 pages

XX XXX

Cost Volume

Reference Section 3.6 submissions

One (1) file in ZIP format:

Completed Appendix E –

Milestone Pricing

Template and

Cost Narrative with supporting documentation

Limited to 6 MB

No page limit

XX XXX

Prototype Project

Agreement

Reference Section 3.7 submissions

One (1) file in MS Word or

Multiple MS Word files in

ZIP format:

Completed Prototype

Project Agreement via tracked changes.

Limited to 6 MB

No page limit

XX XXX

Appendix C

Representations and

Certifications Form

Reference Section 3.8 submissions

One (1) file in MS Word or

Multiple MS Word files in

ZIP format:

Completed Appendix C:

Representations and

Certifications

Limited to 6 MB

No page limit

XX XXX

3.2 Eligibility Volume: GO / NO GO

The Eligibility Volume shall address the following criteria. It shall contain all substantiating data and shall not exceed 10 pages.

3.2.1 The Offeror shall affirm that the proposed system for this effort is based on a wheeled chassis. The

Offeror shall briefly describe the system sufficient for the Government to confirm this eligibility requirement is met.

3.2.2 The Offeror shall identify and substantiate that the proposed system has a caliber between 49 and 56 calibers. Caliber is defined as the ratio of the total gun tube length divided by the projectile diameter. The

Offeror shall identify and substantiate that their MTC weapon system can fire 155mm class artillery ammunition.

3.2.3 The Offeror shall affirm that the proposed system can meet all thresholds identified in the Key

Characteristics Definition (Attachment 015).

3.2.4 If an End User Certificate(s) (EUC) applies, and the EUC(s) offered does not allow the US Army to execute the scope herein, does not allow third-party contractors to work with the system, does not allow deployment of the system outside the United States, or does not allow export of the final system to United

States allies then the proposal may be deemed unacceptable.

3.2.4.1 The Contractor, and its subcontractors or suppliers shall obtain and specify any required end-use/user certificates or permits for technology, hardware, and software sourced from outside the United

States. This is to include use or transportation of the technology, hardware, computer, or software either as an embedded element of the vehicle or vehicle system, or as a stand-alone part/system as in the case of shipping spares.

3.3 Technical Volume

The Technical Volume shall not exceed 30 pages. The Offeror shall submit the Technical Volume and

Technical Volume Substantiating Documentation as separate document submissions. The Technical

Volume submission should demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the project requirements and shall provide sufficient technical detail and analysis to support how the proposed approach will be conducted to meet the prototype project requirements. The Offeror shall submit a clear, concise proposal showing how project objectives will be met. At the minimum, the Technical Volume shall contain the following:

3.3.1 Factor 1: Technical Performance and Maturity

3.3.1.1 Sub-Factor 1.1: Maturity

Offerors shall provide a comprehensive system overview and supporting documentation to demonstrate the maturity of their proposed self-propelled howitzer system. This documentation should include, but is not limited to, evidence of design stability, completed developmental and operational testing results

(including reliability), descriptions of how reliability and supportability are tracked and improved, and details of any previous operational use. To substantiate claims, Offerors may submit Systems Engineering artifacts, test reports, reliability metrics and growth models, operational availability reports, public press statements, or assessments from foreign military partners. Additionally, a Safety Assessment Report

(SAR) or industry equivalent for the proposed system must be included in the submission.

3.3.1.2 Sub-Factor 1.2: Technical Performance

The Offeror shall describe how their system meets Key Characteristics by documenting compliance in the

Key Characteristics Description (Attachment 015 and shall provide a comprehensive technical volume that substantiates these claims. This volume must contain technical evidence and quantitative substantiating data to validate all performance claims against the key characteristics, which include threshold performance, desired performance levels, and future improvement capabilities. The submission should be clear and concise, providing sufficient analysis to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the key characteristics and how the proposed system will meet thresholds.

3.3.1.3 Sub-Factor 1.3 Cyber Risk

The Offeror shall describe how their system addresses cyber controls by documenting compliance in the

Cyber Control Compliance Description (Attachment 002) and shall provide a comprehensive technical volume that substantiates these claims. The Technical volume may include a narrative description of all system functions, detailed hardware and software architecture diagrams, and a complete Software Bill of

Materials (SBOM). The purpose of this volume is to demonstrate the Offeror’s system’s cybersecurity posture and to provide sufficient technical detail for the Government to assess the primary cyber controls of the system.

3.3.1.4 Sub-Factor 1.4: United States Artillery Ammunition Compatibility

Offerors shall submit a technical volume detailing the compatibility of their proposed self-propelled howitzer system with current United States-inventory ammunition. Interface information for the ammunition below is provided in US Army 155mm Artillery Ammunition Interfaces for Compatibility

Evaluation (Attachment XXX). The volume shall include technical assessments and any existing test data related to ammunition interoperability, with emphasis on the prioritized ammunition list below. A detailed description of the system’s fuze setter capability is also required, addressing its functionality with the specified munitions.

Priority 1: M795, M232A2 (3-5 increments), M231 (1-2 increments), M782 (Multi-Option Fuze for

Artillery (MOFA) Fuze)

Priority 2: M232A2 (6 increments), M1128, M739A1, M982 (Excalibur), M1156 (Precision Guidance Kit

(PGK) Fuze)

For programmable fuzes, the offeror shall include the compatibility of currently integrated fuze setters with the fuzes described as well as the ability to integrate with the M1155 Enhanced Portable Inductive

Artillery Fuze Setter (EPIAFS) shall be described.

3.3.2 Factor 2: United States Integration

3.3.2.1 Sub-Factor 2.1: Commerciality/Supportability

The Offeror shall submit a completed Supply Chain Market Checklist (Attachment 003) and a narrative describing their approach to obsolescence management for the proposed system. This submission should demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to support the system by providing a clear and concise overview of their supply chain’s health and readiness. To reduce assessed risk, the Offeror should highlight the percentage of parts with National Stock Number (NSN)/North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Stock Number assignments, any parts commonality with existing U.S. platforms, demonstrated performance of delivering critical parts, and the responsible use of established commercial supply chains.

3.3.2.2 Sub-Factor 2.2: Production Onshoring and Organic Industrial Base Utilization

The Offeror shall provide a detailed plan for transitioning to the domestic production of the proposed self-propelled howitzer system. The plan must detail a timeline to establish U.S. based production no later than two years after initial award of this contract, identifying probable production locations within the contiguous United States and considering the potential use of the Organic Industrial Base (OIB). The submission shall outline key risks and mitigations, and major milestones associated with this transition.

Furthermore, the plan must demonstrate the capability to achieve a production rate of 24 systems per year for the first two years of production, with a subsequent ramp up to 48 systems per year. The Offeror should include information regarding any existing industry partnerships or agreements that would facilitate a rapid transition.

3.3.2.3 Sub-Factor 2.3: Technical Data/Software, Data Rights, and Digital Acquisition

The Government desires rights and content as specified within the PPA. The Offeror shall complete and submit Attachment 004 (Assertions of Restrictions Template) and provide any proposed edits or red-lines to Attachment 016 (Specially Negotiated Rights License Template). The Offeror shall assume that all

Technical Data and Software options are exercised. The Offeror shall also provide a narrative describing the type of technical data, software, etc. offered and how that information and rights offered meets the purposes stated in Sections 4.7.5 – 4.7.8 of the PPA.

Proposals that offer deliverables that completely address the stated purpose with the data rights stated in the PPA will be viewed more favorably than those that offer a limited amount of information and/or with less rights than requested. Proposals that describe how the Offeror can collaborate with the US Army on

Digital Acquisition in the narrative will be viewed more favorably.

For Engineering Data For Provisioning (EDFP) and Operations, Maintenance, Installation and Training

(OMIT) data, proposals will be viewed as least favorable if the proposed data is incomplete or data rights less than those equivalent to Government Purpose Rights without conversion to unlimited rights are provided.

For Technical Data Packages for Target Subsystems and Software Package for Targeted Subsystems, the

PPA includes a list of subsystems that the U.S. Army is seeking data on. Some of these subsystems have greater value to the U.S. Army than others and are prioritized as follows.

Priority 1: Fire Control System, Cannon Assembly, Human-Machine Interfaces (armament)

Priority 2: Electrical Power Generation/Storage/Distribution System, Ammunition Handling System, Cannon Mount/Recoil/Pointing System, Wheel and Tire Assembly

Priority 3: Armor, Integrated Fire Suppression System, Climate Control System

3.4 Substantiating Technical Volume

For all performance claims, the Offeror shall provide substantiating data that is complete, specific, and relevant to the specific requirement of the project. This information may include, but is not limited to, test data, historical information, commercial literature, manufacturer’s specification sheets, materiel release information, analytical support, design documentation, or other substantiating data supporting conformance with the proposed performance levels. The Offeror may submit US Government test data/reports, Foreign Government test data/reports, Offeror test data/reports, modeling and simulation reports, simple analysis including hand calculations and photos/videos, or existing Offeror literature (not created for the purpose of responding to this RPP) containing information about the vehicle as substantiating data. The offeror is responsible for all collection and authorizations necessary to release any Foreign Government data.

Substantiating data that reflects technical performance in operational fielded conditions will be viewed the most favorably. Data that reflects technical performance under simulated operational test conditions will be viewed favorably. Data that reflects technical performance under simulated laboratory conditions will be reviewed and considered based on USG subject matter expert judgement. Simple analysis or literature will be viewed as least favorable. For example, for cannon and ammunition range, data from user training reporting acceptable performance (firing tables, etc.) will be viewed as the lowest risk while data from a modeling and simulation report without simulation details will be viewed as moderate risk.

3.5 Prototype Delivery Schedule

Offerors shall provide a comprehensive delivery schedule detailing the timeline for the delivery of all prototype vehicles. This schedule should be presented in comparison to the Government’s desired delivery schedule as outlined in the PPA, section 8. The submission must include a supporting narrative that describes the Offeror’s production plan, manufacturing capacity, supply chain strategy, applicable

EUCs, and administrative processes that enables them to meet their proposed timeline. The narrative should provide sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear and realistic path to achieving the proposed delivery dates.

3.6 Cost Volume

The Offeror shall complete and submit (Appendix E) – Cost Volume. Instructions for completing

(Appendix E) are within the attachment.

3.7 Prototype Project Agreement (PPA)

The Offeror shall fill in the PPA cover page and the following PPA sections via tracked changes. The PPA sections referenced below are in red font within the PPA. If the Offeror fails to fill in the sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 via tracked changes, the Government will reject the PPA submission. If the due date for proposal submission has not passed, the Offeror may resubmit a new PPA that contains revisions via tracked changes. Otherwise, the Offeror’s proposal may not be considered eligible for award.

Additionally, if the Offeror revises any language outside of the sections mentioned above, the

Government will not review those changes.

3.7.1 Milestone Payment Schedule

The Offeror’s PPA submission shall contain a completed Section 3: Delivery and Pricing/Invoicing along with a completed Table X: Cumulative Resource Sharing Table (if applicable). The Offeror shall reference Appendix X – Solicitation Provisions, Section X, Milestone Payment Schedule Instructions, for instructions on proper completion of all Milestone Payment tables contained within the PPA.

3.7.2 Intellectual Property/Data Rights Assertions

The Offeror shall reference Appendix X– Solicitation Provisions, Section X, Data Rights and Copyrights, for instructions on proper completion of Table X within the PPA.

3.8 Representations and Certifications Form – Appendix C

The Offeror shall complete and submit Appendix C – Representation and Certifications Form. Instructions for completing Appendix C are contained within the Appendix.

PART IV: PROPOSAL EVALUATION

4.1 Eligibility for Award

To be eligible for an award, the Offeror shall be compliant with 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d). If the Offeror’s completed Section A, Appropriate Use of Other Transaction Authority within Appendix C – Certifications and Representations does not sufficiently describe how the Offeror will satisfy at least one of the conditions of the statute, then the Offeror may not be eligible for an award.

4.1.1 The Offeror shall not be a firm, nor have a subcontractor at any level, that is owned, operated, or controlled by the Government of a country that is a state sponsor of terrorism as defined in https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism.

4.2 Evaluation Factors and Relative Order of Importance

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal on two (2) Technical Factors and two (2) Non-

Technical Factors. For all Technical sub-factors, the Government reserves the right to validate the

Offeror's submission by conducting an independent assessment using publicly available information and internal Government sources. The Government may assign strengths or weaknesses based on the proposal's alignment with these objectives. The Relative Order of Importance of the Evaluation factors are as follows:

4.2.1 (Non-Technical) Delivery Schedule

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed delivery schedule to assess the risk associated with their ability to deliver vehicles in accordance with PPA requirements. This evaluation will be a narrative risk assessment based on the feasibility and aggressiveness of the proposed timeline when compared against the Government’s baseline delivery schedule outlined in the PPA. Proposals that demonstrate an ability to meet or exceed the schedule will be viewed most favorably.

4.2.2 (Technical) Technical Performance & Maturity

4.2.2.1 Sub-Factor: Maturity

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's submission to assess the developmental maturity and associated risks of the proposed system. This evaluation will consist of a review of the provided documentation to form a narrative risk assessment. Systems with a well-documented history of successful testing, reliability/availability tracking, and operational deployment will be considered to pose a lower risk. The submitted Safety Assessment Report (SAR) will be evaluated for its completeness and determine whether the system’s safety risk is acceptable to the Government. Safety reports that are written in accordance with MIL-STD-882E, CH1 will be viewed more favorably.

4.2.2.2 Sub-Factor: Technical Performance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submitted Technical Volume to assess the proposed system's compliance with the Key Characteristics Definition in Attachment 001. The evaluation will focus on the competency of the Offeror's approach and the quality of substantiating data provided to support performance claims. Systems demonstrating the highest levels of validated compliance, supported by robust data such as extensive test rounds fired or operational miles driven, will be assessed as having a lower risk. Additionally, systems showing the possibility of addressing objectives will be viewed more favorably. A weakness may be assigned for unsubstantiated claims, while a failure to meet any threshold characteristic(s) will be viewed as an extremely high risk.

4.2.2.3 Sub-Factor: Cyber Risk

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s cyber controls to understand the proposed system's cyber posture and identify any existing gaps in relation to Army policy. The evaluation will favorably assess proposals that demonstrate a thorough understanding of cyber controls and provide detailed descriptions of how the cyber controls are implemented.

4.2.2.4 Sub-Factor: United States Artillery Ammunition Compatibility

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical volume to assess the extent to which the proposed system is compatible with the designated tiers of US-inventory ammunition, including projectiles, fuzes, and propelling charges. This evaluation will assess the risk associated with firing this ammunition from the proposed system, based on the information provided. Proposals that demonstrate a higher degree of compatibility across all tiers, substantiated by robust and extensive test data and independent assessments, will be viewed more favorably and considered to be lower risk. Proposals that include information on cannon interior ballistics and the complete ammunition handling path (internal to the system, inclusive of maximum allowable ammunition envelope and acceleration forces) will be viewed more favorably.

4.2.3 (Technical) U.S. Integration

4.2.3.1 Sub-Factor: Commerciality/Supportability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to support the proposed system by assessing the information provided in the Supply Chain Market Checklist (Attachment 003) and the Offeror’s obsolescence management approach. The evaluation will assess the Offeror's approach to meeting the project's supportability requirements, and the Government may assign strengths for approaches that decrease risk.

4.2.3.2 Sub-Factor: Production Onshoring and Organic Industrial Base Utilization

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s domestic production transition plan to assess the feasibility of the approach and determine the risk associated with establishing a U.S.-based production line and supply chain. The Government’s evaluation will consider the comprehensiveness and achievability of the proposed plan, including the timeline, identification of production facilities, and strategy for utilizing a

U.S. supply chain. Offerors that demonstrate an existing U.S. presence and provide a clear, detailed strategy for achieving the required production rates will be considered more favorably.

Proposals that show a plan to onshore in excess of 2 years will be considered but will be viewed less favorably than offers that show a viable plan within 2 years of award of this initial contract. Proposals that show a plan to onshore that is less than 2 years will be viewed as incrementally more favorable than proposals at or near 2 years.

The US Army’s intent is for a selected offeror to be on a "wartime footing" with US-based manufacturing within 2-years of award of this contract. Proposals will be evaluated on the strength and credibility of their plan to achieve this state. A "wartime footing" is defined as the ability to produce the proposed system while the United States is exposed to diminished sources of supply, compromised sources of supply, contested shipping of material from outside North America, and/or similar geopolitical scenarios.

As a foundational requirement, substantial final assembly must occur in the USA. However, the key differentiator in this evaluation will be the degree to which an offeror’s proposal convincingly demonstrates an aggressive and viable strategy for maximizing domestic sourcing and ensuring supply chain resiliency. Offerors must explain how their approach meets this intent and why their proposed level of domestic content constitutes the best and most realistic path to achieving a wartime footing.

4.2.3.3 Sub-factor: Technical Data/Software, Intellectual Property, and Digital Acquisition

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to assess the risk in the Government’s ability to achieve its objectives. The evaluation will consider the completeness of the Offeror's breakdown of all offered data, the associated data rights, any restrictions, and the cost to acquire these rights as detailed in the Offeror's completed Assertion of Restrictions (Attachment 004) and proposed edits to the

Specially Negotiated Rights License Template (Attachment 016). A proposal that offers Specially

Negotiated Rights equivalent to Government Purpose Rights for the specified deliverables within the PPA will be assessed as lower risk. Additionally, proposals that enable collaboration on technical data between the Government and the Offeror in a common digital environment or Authoritative Source of Truth will be viewed favorably as further reducing risk and may be assessed as a strength.

4.2.4 (Non-Technical) As-built Production Unit Cost

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed system cost for the long term affordability of the acquisition. Of the Proposals that meet the eligibility criteria, the offeror’s unit costs within the lower 1/3

(lowest unit cost) of qualified proposals will receive a Good rating, middle 1/3 will receive an Acceptable rating, and upper 1/3 (highest unit cost) will receive a Marginal rating.

4.2.5 Rating Definitions

4.2.5.1 The Government will assign one of the following ratings to Technical Factors:

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Moderate Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

4.2.5.2 The Government will assign one of the following ratings to Technical Data/Software, Data

Rights, and Digital Acquisition:

Outstanding The Offeror’s proposed terms and conditions for delivering the requested Data and granting the data rights sought in the PPA are highly favorable to the Government.

The Proposal clearly outlines the terms and conditions, all associated costs, and no conditions precedent (e.g., time limitations for exercise, minimum quantities purchased, etc.) for the Government to exercise the Option and obtain the additional data and rights.

Good The Offeror’s proposed terms and conditions for delivering the requested Data and granting the data rights sought in the PPA are favorable to the Government. The

Proposal clearly outlines the terms and conditions, all associated costs, and no conditions precedent for the Government to exercise the Option and obtain the additional data and rights.

Acceptable The Offeror’s proposed terms and conditions for delivering the requested Data and granting the data rights sought in the PPA are acceptable to the Government. The

Proposal outlines terms and conditions, associated costs, and may have other conditions precedent for the Government to exercise the Option and obtain the additional data and rights.

Marginal The Offeror’s proposed terms and conditions for delivering the requested Data and granting the data rights sought in the PPA are unfavorable to the Government. The

Proposal does not adequately outline the terms and conditions, associated costs, and/or may have conditions precedent for exercising the Option that are incompatible with the Government’s needs or timeline.

4.2.5.3 The Government will assign one of the following ratings to Delivery Schedule.

Good The proposed schedule is very clear, and lays out the tasks, subtasks, and durations in a very logical sequence. The schedule and risk mitigation are very achievable and will meet or exceed the project schedule, including critical project milestones.

Acceptable The proposed schedule is generally clear and lays out the tasks, subtasks, and durations in a logical sequence. The schedule and risk mitigation are likely achievable and will meet the project schedule, including critical project milestones.

Unacceptable The proposed schedule and risk mitigation lacks clarity and fails to lay out tasks and durations in a logical sequence, and/or may not be achievable and will most likely not meet the project schedule, including critical project milestones.

4.2.5.4 The Government will assign one of the following ratings to the As-built Production Unit Cost.

Good The proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the proposed production unit cost through completeness, credibility, and realism. The unit price aligns with the

Government’s affordability goals.

Acceptable The proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the proposed unit cost, although the proposal may lack completeness, credibility, and/or realism. The proposed unit cost is within the Government’s affordability goals.

Marginal The proposal demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the proposed unit cost, but the proposal does not reflect completeness, credibility, and realism. The proposed unit price exceeds the Government’s affordability goals.

4.3 Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

4.3.1 Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government will employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of Offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, opportunity, weakness, or risk.

4.3.2 Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool.

4.3.3 Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

4.3.4 Proposal Formatting for Automated Analysis: Offerors shall submit proposals that are clear, concise, and readily readable. To ensure accurate analysis by automated evaluation tools and maintain the integrity of the source selection process, the following restrictions apply:

4.3.4.1 Visible Text Only: All proposal content must be presented as visible text. The inclusion of any concealed text is strictly prohibited. Concealed text includes but is not limited to:

Micro-text (text with a font size below 8pt); White text on a white background;

Text utilizing colors that render it indistinguishable from the background;

Text hidden within images or graphics.

4.3.4.2 Font and Size: Proposals must adhere to the following font and size requirements:

Font Family: Times New Roman Font Size: 11 point

4.3.4.3 Formatting Consistency: All text must apply uniform formatting throughout the proposal.

Variations in font size, color, or style that the Government deems to manipulate or obscure the readability of content are prohibited.

4.3.5 Compliance Verification: The Government may conduct technical verification to ensure compliance with these requirements. Proposals found to contain concealed or manipulated text will be considered non-compliant and may be rejected.

4.4 Support Contractor Usage in Proposal Evaluation:

The Government intends to use non-Government advisor(s) as an addition to the evaluation team. The non-Government advisor(s) will serve as a subject matter expert to review each proposal and assist with proposal evaluation. Though the non-Government advisor(s) will have access to proposal information, they will not have the ability to rate the proposals or select a proposal for award. The Government will require the non-Government advisor(s) to sign a Source Selection Participation Agreement, which includes non-disclosure provisions, before reviewing proposal information.

Submission of an offer under this RPP will constitute a grant of authority by the submitting company to the Government to allow the use of non-Government advisor(s) to participate in evaluations of its proposal.

PART V: BASIS OF AWARD AND PRICE ASSESSMENT

5.1 Basis of Award

The selection decision for award of this prototype project will be determined using the evaluation criteria and relative order of importance as stated in this RPP. The Government will award the most highly rated

Offeror(s) based on the Technical Factors and the Non-Technical Factors. When the most highly rated

Offerors are rated equally, the Offeror(s) with the lowest price will be selected for award.

5.2 Discussions and Clarifications

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make an award without discussions with Offerors.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. However, the Government does reserve the right to open and conduct discussions with one or more Offerors at its sole discretion if the Agreements Officer determines them to be necessary. The Government may also contact Offerors for clarifications of their submittals or to explain perceived typographical errors or inaccuracies.

5.3 Price Assessment

At the conclusion of Government evaluation, the Government will assess the proposal(s) selected for award as follows:

5.3.1 The Price assessment will consider whether the Total Proposed Price is fair and reasonable.

5.4 Cost Sharing

If the Offeror is proposing a cost share to meet 10 U.S.C. §4022(d)(1), the Government will assess the

Offeror’s proposed cost share to ensure that it is 1/3 of the total evaluated price and to ensure the cost share is allowable, allocable and reasonable.