FA852026MPHC-Rev2 QUESTION COLLECTION MATRIX 7-16-2026.docx

Man-portable, Handheld, Counter-Unmanned System (C-UxS) Capability Sources Sought Notice (FA852026MPHC-Rev1).

Question Collection Matrix

Q1: On page 3 there is a 'cap' on the maximum height... up to < 122 meters above ground level (AGL), but this requirement does not carry over onto page 5, where there is no AGL requirement and only a 0-150m range. Can the Government clarify if the maximum height is 122m or 150m?

• USG Response: The operational requirement is for the proposed system to defeat a Group 1 or 2 UmS threat flying at an altitude at or below 122 meters Above Ground Level (AGL). The kinetic engagement itself must be successful at a slant range of up to 193.35 meters (Daylight) from the operator.

• Q2: There is a Night/Low-light lethality requirement of 0-100m. Our current system does not feature night vision optics, so 'positive target identification' is not feasible at the extended ranges. Can we submit our daylight capability with the knowledge that a future IR and/or Thermal optic could be applied?

• USG Response: No. The requirements stated in the RFI are for a complete, integrated system that is compliant at the time of submission. Respondents must propose a solution that meets the stated 0-100m night/low-light lethality requirement today. Submissions proposing future developmental capabilities to meet this mandatory threshold will be considered non-responsive.

• Q3: It would seem that the 'robustness' of the target drone... will significantly impact the cUAS system's lethality. Would the Government be able to establish a velocity for the UAS and a specific Make/Model of target drone to be used? This would guarantee consistency and comparative data between submissions.

• USG Response: For the purposes of this RFI, respondents should base their P(d/s) data on a Group 1 or 2 UAS target maneuvering at a representative velocity of up to 100 knots (approx. 115 mph). The Government will utilize a variety of

• Q4: Can the Government confirm that 'defeat' is defined by the UAS falling to the ground?

• USG Response: For the purposes of this RFI, 'defeat' is defined as a kinetic hard-kill that results in the target falling to the ground.

• Q5: It would appear that the Government is interested in test data to prove that our cUAS system is effective at 0-150 meters (daylight). If our system is effective from 0 to 120 meters, should we still submit it for consideration? i.e. is the 150 meter an Objective or Threshold requirement?

• USG Response: The 150-meter (Daylight) and 100-meter (Night/Low-light) ranges are mandatory maximum performance thresholds. Submissions that do not provide empirical, documented data proving a P(d/s) of 0.90 at these minimum ranges will be considered non-responsive.

• Q6: In light of the above... could the Government share its implied Test Plan?

• USG Response: The Government does not have a formal test plan to share at this time. All system performance claims must be substantiated by vendor-provided, empirical test data as outlined in the RFI.

• Q7: We respectfully request an extension from July 31 to August 31, 2026.

• USG Response: At this time, the Government does not anticipate granting an extension. The response deadline remains close of business on 31 July 2026. threat-representative target systems during any future formal testing and does not endorse or specify a particular make or model of drone for this submission.

Q8: Is there a lawful way to shoot down a drone to generate P(d/s) data?

USG Response: The Program management Office cannot provide legal advice on the lawful execution of live-fire testing. Respondents are solely responsible for ensuring their testing activities comply with all federal, state, and local laws and FAA regulations. Data for this RFI may be generated at certified federal, state, or private test ranges equipped to handle such activities.

Q9: Can we use a tethered drone traveling at 115 MPH to generate the data?

USG Response: No. For the purposes of this RFI, empirical P(d/s) data must be derived from engagements against untethered, free-flying Group 1 or 2 UAS targets maneuvering at a representative velocity of up to 100 knots (approx. 115 mph).

Q10: Will the Government be sharing test data from upcoming exercises at Eglin AFB?

USG Response: The Government cannot share test data from other vendors or internal government testing at this stage of market research. All system performance claims must be substantiated by vendor-provided empirical data.

Q11: Would it be possible for us to visit a DAF facility to test our capability, or use a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) pathway to fund the necessary testing?

USG Response: No. This Request for Information (RFI) does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP), and the Government does not intend to provide testing facilities or provide funding on the basis of this RFI. All costs associated with responding to this RFI, including the generation of test data, are solely the responsibility of the respondent.

Q12: Government answer to Question Q3 is truncated "... Government will utilize a variety of" To ensure no important information is missed, please complete the answer.

USG Response: For the purposes of this RFI, respondents should base their P(d/s) data on a Group 1 or 2 UAS target maneuvering at a representative velocity of up to 100 knots (approx. 115 mph). The Government will utilize a variety of threat-representative target systems during any future formal testing and does not endorse or specify a particular make or model of drone for this submission.

Q13: The DoD and NATO have different UAS definitions. To avoid any misunderstanding, can you confirm the Group 1 and 2 categories you reference are: a. Group 1: Small and micro systems. Weighs 0 to 20 lbs, operates below 1,200 feet above ground level (AGL), and flies at speeds under 100 knots. b. Group 2: Medium systems. Weighs 21 to 55 lbs, operates below 3,500 feet AGL, and flies at speeds under 250 knots.

USG Response: The Government confirms that the quantitative parameters (weight, operating altitude, and speed) listed in your question for Group 1 and Group 2 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) are correct and consistent with the requirement. However, for clarity of response and consistency, the qualitative terms 'Small and micro systems' (associated with Group 1) and 'Medium systems' (associated with Group 2) are not utilized in the RFI.

Q14: Our companies have several interesting cUAS ammunition solutions in 5.56x45 and 7.62x51, meant to give existing LEGACY systems in the Government inventory (M4, M240, M249 families) an immediate cUAS capability without having to add new weapons that increase costs, logistical burden, training, etc. Can the Government confirm that it is also interested in “stand alone” cUAS ammunition solutions (not just complete system solutions) that can be fired from its legacy systems?

USG Response: Yes, the Government is interested in 'stand-alone' ammunition solutions that can be fired from existing Government inventory weapon systems and that meet the performance requirements outlined in the RFI. Respondents are encouraged to submit capabilities for ammunition, fire control systems, or complete integrated weapon systems.

Question14 : "I was going over the RFI documentation and wanted to ask if its ok to submit information only regarding ammunition solutions. Please let me know if that is acceptable and/or if you are only looking for integral solutions."

USG Response: Yes, it is acceptable to submit a capability statement that focuses exclusively on an ammunition-based solution. We are not solely looking for completely integrated, ground-up systems.