Industry_Day_Questions_and_Responses.pdf

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

PEO GCS OPSEC# OPSEC-2026-232

MTC Industry Day Questions and Responses

Q1: Do you expect there to be any classified content?

A: The Government expects requiring the vendor to handle up to CLASSIFIED information for performance of the OTA, and no more than CUI for proposal submission.

Q2: If a contractor chooses to include a NTDC for compliance to the OTA, what is content will be required to be considered "significant"?

A: A threshold for "significant" participation does not exist and the determination would be based upon the Agreements Officer's (AO) judgement. If the offeror is a Traditional Defense

Contractor and relies on condition (A) of the statue, the offer shall provide sufficient detail within the Representations & Certifications Appendix of the Request for Prototype Proposal

(RPP) for the AO to make a determination if the participation is significant. "Significant

Extent" considers, by way of illustration and not limitation, whether the Non Defense

Contractor (NDC)/nonprofit research institution will supply a new key technology, product, or process; supply a novel application or approach to an existing technology, product, or process; provide a material increase in the performance, efficiency, quality, or versatility of a key technology, product, or process; accomplish a significant amount of the prototype project; cause a material reduction in the cost or schedule of the prototype project; or, provide for a material increase in performance of the prototype project.

Q3: Eligibility vs evaluation baseline: For requirements stated as “mature and available,” how will the Government distinguish between threshold eligibility and risk assessed during evaluation?

A: Maturity has not been identified as an eligibility (“go/no go”) criteria. Maturity will be an evaluation sub-factor under the “Technical Performance and Maturity” factor.

Q4: How do companies that can provide subsystems to the platform get names of primes supporting this effort. We are a NTDC that can support LiDAR navigation sensor for non-RF navigation.

A: The Government will not release a potential prime vendor list.

Q5: Will non-US persons that are part of the bidders team and supplier base be allowed to attend meetings (both virtual and in person) required within this section of the SOW?

A: Proper handling of CUI/CLASSIFIED information during Proposal and the Period of

Performance will be the responsibility of the Prime Contractor.

Q6: Tiered ammunition scoring: How will the Government evaluate partial ammunition compatibility across Tier 1–3? Is Tier 1 considered a practical minimum, with Tier 2/3 treated as discriminators?

A: Ammunition tiers have been clarified as priorities. See updated RPP language.

Q7: Propellant increment coverage: For M232A2 charge increments listed across tiers, can the

Government clarify the required increment coverage for testing and evaluation?

A: A Test attachment will be provided with the RPP. Multiple charge increments will be tested, with bias towards higher charges.

Q8: ATO/RMF boundary: Will the MTC be treated as a standalone ATO boundary or as part of a broader boundary with radios/BMS, and who owns RMF artifacts (SSP, POA&M) during the prototype phase?

A: The RPP and PPA have been updated to reflect the latest understanding of US Army cyber expectations, including achieving only an Interim Authority to Test (IATT) during this effort.

Q9: VMF / MIL-STD-6017 scope: Which implementation profile or subset of MIL-STD-6017 will be required, and will the Government provide interface control documentation or conformance criteria?

A: A memorandum of record describing the message sets to implement from MIL-STD-6017 will be provided as part of the next draft RPP.

Q10: FDC integration intent: Is the Government seeking direct integration with existing U.S.

Army fire-direction systems, or is standards-compliant message handling sufficient for this prototype effort?

A: Yes, the Government is seeking direct integration with existing U.S. Army Fires network through completion of the scope as identified in the PPA. Additionally, the Government intends to evaluate the vendors’ system’s ability to accommodate digital fires integration as a risk-based assessment (See Technical Performance and the Key Characteristics Description attachment in the next draft release).

Q11: What is the Army's short and long term position on design authority (hardware and software)? Some technical expertise resides overseas, what is the position of the PM Shop on support from non-US personnel?

A: Design authority and configuration management for this contract action are addressed in the upcoming draft RPP. A long-term position has not been established. Proper handling of

CUI/CLASSIFIED information during Proposal and the Period of Performance will be the responsibility of the Prime Contractor, including management of any agreements required to allow use of non-US Persons.

Q12: What is the Army's short term and long term cannon barrel modernization and manufacturing plan? Is there a plan to support the on-shoring of a second barrel manufacturing capability in the US? Does the Army intend to source barrels from the vendor through the duration of the MTC program?

A: A plan has not been finalized. The Arsenal Act encourages use of the organic industrial base for barrel production; this is addressed in the upcoming draft RPP. However, the Army is not requiring production of barrels using the Organic Industrial Base (OIB) for the upcoming contract.

Q13: Onshoring definition: For evaluation and scoring purposes, what constitutes “U.S.-based production” (e.g., final assembly only vs. major subassemblies, cannon manufacture, fire-control hardware/software)?

A: A definition of onshoring will be provided in the upcoming RPP release. Onshoring will also be an evaluation factor. Onshoring plans that exhibit a higher level of integration with the US industrial base will be evaluated as lower risk.

Q14: Organic Industrial Base credit: How will use of the Organic Industrial Base (e.g., Watervliet, Rock Island) be evaluated or credited within the production-onshoring factor?

A: The onshoring plan will be evaluated as a risk rating, with integration into the organic industrial base viewed as reducing risk.

Q15: What is the Army's barrel strategy for production?

A: A plan has not been finalized. The Arsenal Act encourages use of the organic industrial base for barrel production; this is addressed in the upcoming draft RPP. However, the Army is not requiring production of barrels using the OIB for the upcoming contract.

Q16: As has been noted before, delivery of all items in section 7 of the SOW will require USG signed and executed End User Certificates (EUC). Can the bidders assume that the USG will obtain the EUCs in time for deliveries, especially those starting at 60 days after contract award?

A: Offerors should identify applicable End User Certificate (EUC) requirements in their proposal documents.

Q17: In general in relation to the six (Base) and eighteen (18) Optional MTC systems to be delivered, is the USG expecting that: a.) the first 24 (6+18) systems are the bidders current "as built" configuration of systems or b.) the first 6 are the bidders current "as built" configuration of systems and the 18 optional incorporate the Cyber Security, GFM Radios, etc. as detailed in section 10.2 of the SOW or c.) all 24 (6 + 18) incorporate the Cyber Security, GFM Radios, etc. as detailed in section 10.2 of the SOW or d.) that the bidder can determine what can be incorporated into what systems from 10.2 based on the delivery dates in section 8 of the SOW

A: The Government’s intent is to safety release and issue systems to the Soldier Evaluation that include the desired integration as described in the PPA. This has been clarified in the draft RPP.

Q18: Delivered configuration for evaluation: Should the Government expect mature, production-representative systems or are instrumented prototype configurations acceptable for characterization and Soldier experimentation?

A: System Maturity will be evaluated as a risk rating.

Q19: Will the Army be acquiring the prototypes or will vendors be reimbursed through other means/terms for prototypes?

A: The government is expecting mature, production-representative systems to the maximum extent possible. The Army intends to take title/delivery of the prototypes.

Q20: How does the US Army weigh a wheeled howitzer on a foreign truck chassis into the long term production plan for MTC? Will the Army accept a foreign platform as a long term solution?

Is this a short term or long term concern?

A: The source of the chassis is not an evaluation factor. The Government priorities for near term Engineering Change Proposals (ECP) are fire control, network, safety, cyber and C5ISR to support Soldier Evaluation. Long term ECP priorities remain undefined and will evolve based on the selected system.

Q21: What are the similarities to the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) program?

A: MTC is a new requirement intended to replace M777 towed howitzers within the SBCT, MBCT and IBCT formations

Q22: Crew protection reference: For the minimum protection requirement against counter-battery and kinetic threats during mobility, what reference standards or threat categories will the Government use to assess acceptability (without requiring armor disclosure)?

A: A Key Characteristics Definition Attachment will be provided with the RPP. The definition has been left intentionally broad to maximize competition.

Q23: Organic self-defense: Are any integral self-protection provisions (e.g., crew-served weapon mounts) expected, or will this be treated as a unit-level integration?

A: A Key Characteristics Definition Attachment will be provided with the RPP which addresses this question. Anything omitted from this document will not be evaluated.

Q24: Transportability constraints: Which air (C-17/C-130 variants), sea (RO/RO), and rail constraints should be treated as threshold considerations during prototyping?

A: A Key Characteristics Definition Attachment will be provided with the RPP which addresses this question. Anything omitted from this document will not be evaluated.

Q25: Are there target dimensions (length, width, height, and weight) ranges of the howitzer system (turret and chassis) without the resupply vehicle?

A: A Key Characteristics Definition Attachment will be provided with the RPP which addresses this question. Anything omitted from this document will not be evaluated.

Q26: Is there an update on when tracked MTC prototype evaluation/RPP will occur?

A: No, there is no update on when tracked vehicles may be considered.

Q27: What are the mobility requirements for wheeled MTCs?

A: A Key Characteristics Definition Attachment will be provided with the RPP which addresses this question.

Q28: What is the minimum crew size for wheeled MTCs? What is the maximum crew size for wheeled MTCs?

A: A Key Characteristics Definition Attachment will be provided with the RPP which addresses this question. Anything omitted from this document will not be evaluated.

Q29: Is there an anticipated Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP) for the MTC for our planning purposes?

A: The MTC is intended to replace M777s within the SBCT, MBCT and IBCT formations, up to

498 systems.

Q30: Is it a requirement for the contractor to develop, deliver, maintain, and implement a

Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan (CPCP) to identify corrosion mitigation measures for operation, storage, and sustainment?

A: A CPCP is not currently part of the PPA. It is expected to be completed in a follow on activity.

Q31: For corrosion mitigation, will it be required for the contractor to provide a fitted protective cover that is waterproof yet breathable (to prevent moisture buildup) as a Basic Item of Issue

(BII) and Component of End Item (COEI) for storage and shipment?

A: The Government does not have a specific requirement for a fitted protective cover.

Q32: Which formation will have priority of M777 replacement? SBCTs first then MBCTs/IBCTs, or

MBCTs/IBCTs first?

A: The Government will not provide a fielding plan as part of the RPP.

Q33: How many days, once the final RPP is issued, does the USG anticipate allowing the bidders to submit the proposal?

A: 30 calendar days. The Government is requesting feedback on the feasibility of this timeline given the draft releases of the RPP.

Q34: How much time separation do you expect between the Army's selection decision and contract award? Upon the Army's selection, will an announcement be made such that long lead items and other requirements that need processing time be made?

A: The Government will not comment on the award process.

Q35: What is the procurement path beyond the first 6 and 18 systems? When does the US Army intent to make a procurement decision on the 18 gun unfunded contract?

A: The Government intends to award a FAR based production contract in 2QFY28. The

Government is interested in funding additional prototypes in FY27. The amount of additional prototypes will be based on funding availability.

Q36: When is MTC expected to hit FUE? What is your expected fielding plan, do you plan to field more that one Battalion per year?

A: The Government will not provide a fielding plan as part of the RPP.

Q37: When will the USG release Attachments 001, 002 and Appendices A thru E? Will they be provided for review prior to the issuance of the final RPP?

A: The USG will release a 2nd DRAFT RPP that will include DRAFT versions of these attachments and appendices in February 2026.

Q38: Does the USG intend to include FAR/DFAR requirements as part of the RPP release? If limited, minimum expectations would be to include the military duty free entry FAR/DFAR's.

A: Agreement Terms and Conditions will be released with the RPP. Some of the Terms and

Conditions are derived for FAR/DFARS. Thank you for your input on duty free entry; the USG intends to include a FAR/DFARS equivalent clause for this requirement.

Q39: Within the RPP and SOW, the terms Contractor, Vendor and Supplier are used throughout the documents. Is it correct to assume the Contractor and Vendor are the awardee and Prime

Contractor and that Suppliers are suppliers and subcontractor on the Prime Contractors team or production baseline?

A: The Government will clarify the parties within the RPP in the upcoming draft release.

Q40: Will Duty Free Entry clause be entered with the rest of the clauses? DFARS 252.225-7013

A: The USG intends to include a duty free DFARs equivalent within the RPP.

Q41: Evaluation discrimination: Beyond the stated order of importance, are any evaluation factors expected to be particularly discriminating in source selection (e.g., maturity vs.

onshoring vs. data rights)?

A: No. The stated order of importance is the only description of discriminating evaluation factors that will be provided.

Q42: Is the USG planning on using a consortium firm for the purposes of administrating the contract, if so who?

A: No, the Government does not intend to use a consortium for administration of this OTA.

Q43. Source code access: What level of software/source code access is required during prototyping (e.g., controlled environment access vs. escrow), and for which subsystems?

A: The PPA will be updated to reflect the request of a Specially Negotiated Rights License equivalent to Government Purpose Rights with stated purposes for that data/software.

Q44: Foreign propellants for test: Are foreign-optimized propellants acceptable for limited characterization testing if U.S. equivalents are not yet available?

A: The US Army intends to maximize use of US Ammunition, including during characterization testing. If the offeror has rational and evidence to confirm that this is unsafe or otherwise would be mutually detrimental, the upcoming draft PPA has an optional provision to purchase foreign-optimized ammunition (including projectiles, primers, and propellant). Additionally, note that US Ammo Compatibility will be an evaluation factor.

Q45: Government test support: Will the Army provide Government-Furnished Ammunition

(GFA) for live-fire events, or should contractors plan to supply all test ammunition?

A: The Government will provide US Ammunition for testing, training and soldier evaluation events.

Q46: Crew blast/overpressure assessment: Which Army safety standards or DCPH guidance will be used to assess blast overpressure and crew operability during testing and Soldier use?

A: A Key Characteristics Definition Attachment will be provided with the RPP which addresses this question.

Q47: Cyber test execution: Can the Government clarify the timing, duration, and locations of the two Government-led cyber penetration events and what is meant by “special connectors” for vehicle access?

A: The Government will clarify cyber testing and vendor support requirements within the

PPA.

Q48: Mobility assessment basis: Are there reference mobility benchmarks (road, cross-country, slopes, fording) the Government will use internally for comparative risk assessment?

A: A Key Characteristics Definition Attachment will be provided with the RPP which addresses this question. Technical Performance is an evaluation factor.

Q49: Is the USG aware that the hardstand and proto deliverable timeline is greater than the

WVA-made -52 and -55 Cal cannons can support?

A: Deliveries are requested to support hardstand US ammunition compatibility testing

(details in test plan). Staggered hardware deliveries may be acceptable. Contractors can also provide interface information requested to support tube and breech integration into US proofing gun stand. There is no requirement to utilize WVA to provide the prototype hardware in the PPA.

Q50: Can the bidders assume that training can be done with a combination of training on both two (2) System Trainers and some of the six (6) deliverable MTCs or does all the training have to be done on the four (4) System Trainers?

A: Procured training devices and systems delivered at the time of training can be used for training. This has been clarified in the upcoming draft PPA.