Industry_Review_Caisson_RPP_v23APR2026.docx

***DRAFT *** Caisson Wagon Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) DRAFT Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) SOLICITATION NUMBER–

W51EW7-26-R-A010

Other Transaction Authority (OTA) under 10 U.S.C. 4022 The Old Guard (TOG), Joint Base Fort Myer-Henderson Hall (JBMHH), Virginia

Issued by:

The United States of America Mission & Installation Contracting Command (MICC) 2219 Infantry Post Road Office Symbol CCMI-TSC JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-1361

Concerning Caisson Wagon Supported by The Old Guard

Request Issue Date May 11, 2026 Prototype Proposal Due Date: July 13, 2026, at 3:00 PM ET

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary This Request for Proposal (RPP) is focused on designing a caisson wagon which decreases adverse physical impacts on horses, simplifies the logistics of routine care and maintenance, and retains, to the greatest extent possible historic aesthetic of the original 1917 Caisson wagon that is iconic to The Old Guard’s Caisson Unit.

The Old Guard (TOG) is seeking prototype proposals to address ongoing design concerns with the current fleet of caisson wagons and offer engineering, production, and logistics solutions which address these concerns.

Caisson wagons, central to our duties in Arlington National Cemetery, are facing critical operational and sustainability challenges. Chiefly, the current caisson wagons lack modern engineering and design elements that prioritize the health and wellness of the horses. Continuous use of the existing wagons contributes to undue physical stress and long-term wear and tear on Military Working Equids. Modern advancements in suspension, braking, materials, and other similar innovations used in the carriage/wagon industry could significantly mitigate these adverse effects, ensuring the welfare of the horses. TOG is looking to industry to inform and produce these solutions.

TOG’s objective is to develop a prototype for a new caisson wagon integrating modern, sustainable, and humane solutions that honors the historical and aesthetic integrity of the original design. The ideal prototype will be constructed with readily available, non-obsolete components to ensure straightforward and cost-effective repair and maintenance. The prototype proposal must incorporate contemporary wagon technology to enhance the comfort and safety of the horses and reduce the physical strain associated with pulling the caisson wagons. Ultimately, TOG aims to preserve this cherished ceremonial tradition while ensuring its viability and ethical soundness for the future.

Key components of the modernization effort include:

· Functionality: Incorporate design choices to decrease the strain on horses, support durability and longevity of the vehicle, and support ceremonial functions.

· Logistics Sustainability – Maintenance concepts should prioritize open-market solutions and internal Army support capabilities.

· Aesthetic: Caisson wagons will look similar to the historic caisson wagons.

The Government recommends marking all proposal documents with the “Source Selection Information - Company Propriety Data – Not For Public Release.”

2. Administrative

2.1 Request for Prototype Proposals (RPP) Award

The U.S. Government (USG) intends to award a prototype agreement to purchase and then test a caisson wagon prototype.

Government funds will be utilized in the creation of the prototype. Therefore, the Government will have “limited use rights” of the prototype design, which is defined in Attachment 002, Terms and Conditions. The Government will not share the designs from one offeror to another offeror nor request an offeror manufacture the design of another offeror.

2.2 Funding Availability

The USG intends to purchase a caisson wagon prototype with allocated funds.

2.3 Timeline

The Offeror shall provide a timeline to deliver a prototype as well as the timeline to deliver 6-8 additional caisson wagons if a non-competitive, follow-on production agreement is awarded.

2.4 Acquisition Approach

The law, under 10 U.S.C. §4022, allows the government to issue a non-competitive production contract or transaction after the prototype phase is successfully finished.

This means that if all the work is completed as expected, the USG can choose to continue to the production phase without opening the opportunity to other bidders. The non-competitive follow-on production agreement is to streamline the process for projects that are continuations of successfully prototyped technologies. An agreement under 10 U.S.C. §4022 is a flexible tool intended to help the Army receive access to innovative solutions more quickly.

2.5 Additional Government Participation

The USG may add additional Federal, State, or Local Government partners to the RPP or the resulting OTA.

3. Technical Requirements Specifications: See Attachment 001 for Caisson Wagon Salient Characteristics.

4. Prototype Proposal Submission

4.1 Prototype proposals are due by the due date on the cover page of this RPP.

4.1.1 Late submissions will not be accepted.

4.2 Submit all files to the email address at usarmy.jbsa.acc-micc.mbx.tsc-div1@army.mil you may need to separate the files amongst a few emails. Emails should be limited to 25 MB size. Please indicate the number of each email with the total number of emails (e.g. Email 1 of x) and follow the following naming convention [Contractor Name]_Caisson Wagon Prototype Proposal_EMAIL 1 of X. DoD safe is an alternative to submitting large files. Contact the AO 72 hours before submitting large files to usarmy.jbsa.acc-micc.mbx.tsc-div1@army.mil.

4.3 Offerors should submit files in Microsoft Office formats or Adobe Acrobat (PDF – portable document format) as indicated below. ZIP files and other application formats are not acceptable. All files must be print-capable, searchable, and without a password required. Filenames must contain the appropriate filename extension (.docx, .doc, .pptx, .ppt .xlsx, .xls or .pdf). Filenames should not contain special characters. Apple users must ensure the entire filename and path are free of spaces and special characters.

4.4 All pricing information shall be contained in the price volume only. The pricing information should NOT be included in any other proposal volume.

5. Prototype Proposal Submission Process

5.1 Following a preliminary screening, the Agreements Officer will forward all compliant prototype proposals to the USG Team Members for a comprehensive evaluation. Each proposal will be independently assessed against the evaluation factors detailed in this RPP, section 5.2. The USG’s evaluation will result in an adjectival rating (as defined in Table 1) for all non-cost/price factors. Offerors must articulate how they intend to meet and, if possible, exceed the RPP's requirements; a mere restatement of a requirement is insufficient. The final award decision will be based on a best-value trade-off determination, considering the merits of each proposal in addition to its price.

The evaluation factors and evaluation criteria are described below in descending order of importance.

The best value trade-off is between the non-cost factors and the price. When combined, the non-cost factors are significantly more important than the price.

5.2 Evaluation Factors

5.2.1 Factor 1 -- Technical Approach. Evaluates how the offeror proposes to design and build a prototype caisson wagon to decrease adverse physical impacts on horses and simplicity of logistics while retaining the historic aesthetic.

Technical requirements are outlined in Attachment 001, Salient Characteristics. If an Offeror proposes dimensions or characteristics that do not comply with Attachment 001, the Offeror must provide an explanation of why the proposed technical approach is appropriate compared to the Salient Characteristics.

The Technical Approach shall include the following:

a. Design & Engineering with an adherence to Historical Aesthetic -- Detailed renderings, drawings, and descriptions that show how the prototype will maintain the visual and ceremonial character of the historic caisson wagon. A clear, innovative design with dimensions that integrates modern components where appropriate or necessary (e.g., modern suspension or breaking systems, lightweight frame materials, etc.) while respecting the required aesthetic.

b. Material Selection -- Justification for all materials chosen, focusing on durability, corrosion resistance, and ease of sourcing/repair. The proposal should demonstrate how the choices are superior to the original materials or other industry alternatives.

c. Problem Solving Explanations -- The proposal should explain why the specific engineering choices directly respond to our problem statements in Attachment 001 and reduce strain on the horses.

5.2.2 Factor 2 -- Integrated Logistics and Sustainability Plan.

The Integrated Logistics and Sustainability Plan shall include the following:

a. Supply Chain and Parts Sourcing -- Demonstrate a strategy that emphasizes the ability for TOG personnel to maintain and repair the caisson wagon with commercially available parts.

b. Maintainability Concept -- Provide a plan that outlines operator-level and field-level maintenance, clearly stating the routine maintenance requirements of the wagon (annual, semi-annual, quarterly, daily), and whether this maintenance can be performed by Army personnel using standard tools and equipment. Describe any specialty equipment that may be required by the military. The more self-sufficient the maintenance plan, the better. The plan should include the “mean time” for items or systems that are high priced to replace or have a long lead time to procure.

c. Comprehensive Service Manual -- Offeror should demonstrate a commitment and plan to deliver a complete Comprehensive Service Manual. The proposal should acknowledge that the Government requires the Comprehensive Service Manual for future organic support that will be delivered with the prototype, if purchased. The Comprehensive Service Manual will allow TOG to perform maintenance, such as parts that need servicing and frequency of services.

d. Warranty – Explain the warranty, if any, being proposed by the Offeror. The explanation should include length of time and services or parts included.

5.2.3 Factor 3: Management, Programmatic, and Lifecycle Management Approach. This factor assesses the offeror's ability to deliver the proposed approach and evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the Government’s multi-phase acquisition strategy. The proposal shall include the proposed methodology for managing the project from initial design through prototype testing, feedback integration, and final production readiness. The government seeks a partner capable of an agile and transparent process.

a. Project Management Plan- A credible project schedule for the prototype. A credible project schedule for a potential follow-on fulfillment order for 6-8 additional Caisson Wagons, a clear description of their development process, and a risk management plan that identifies potential challenges (e.g., supply chain delays for a specific part) and how the offeror will mitigate the risk.

b. Describe offeror’s management approach for the entire anticipated project lifecycle. The offeror should describe their project management, communication, and scheduling strategies. The Offeror shall describe its process for accepting, evaluating, and incorporating Government feedback following prototype testing, if Offeror is selected for a follow-on Production OTA. The proposal shall include its proposed Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process with detail of how the Offeror will work collaboratively with TOG personnel to refine the design to meet final requirements.

5.2.4 Factor 4. Past Performance. Evidence that the offeror has successfully completed projects of similar scope and complexity. This could include building custom vehicles, historical reproductions, or other engineered prototypes. The Offeror should include:

· Number of functional wagons produced in the past 5 years.

· How many miles or hours do the functional wagons move per day or week?

· Type of terrain on which the functional wagons perform.

· Up to three (3) client references that the USG may contact to determine work product. References should include:

· Point of Contact Name

· Point of Contact Phone Number

· Point of Contact Email Address

· Entity or Company Name

· Brief discussion of the contract or work performed for this entity.

Functional wagons are defined as wagons that can move and perform not be a static display.

5.2.5 Factor 5: Cost/Price.

a. Offeror shall provide a firm fixed-price bid for the prototype deliverable delivered to TOG at JBMHH; a price breakdown of labor and materials shall be included.

If the Offeror is proposing a payment schedule different than full payment upon delivery of the prototype, provide the proposed payment schedule and verifiable milestones to accompany the payment schedule.

b. Offeror shall provide an estimated firm fixed-price bid for each subsequent caisson wagon as a per unit price delivered to TOG at JBMHH.

c. If the Offeror is proposing a payment schedule different than full payment upon delivery of the prototype, provide the proposed payment schedule and verifiable milestones to accompany the payment schedule.

d. Offeror shall provide a price for Unlimited Use Rights, which is defined in RPP Attachment 002, Terms and Conditions.

e. Pricing and Modification Strategy. The offeror shall propose a clear and transparent pricing strategy that addresses the prototype, potential follow-on production, and future modifications. While the prototype itself shall be a firm-fixed-price, the proposal must also include an estimated firm-fixed-price for the subsequent purchase of 6-8 production wagons. To account for potential design changes after prototype delivery, the offeror must also provide a list of labor categories and fully burdened hourly rates for the labor categories (e.g., Project Manager, Senior Engineer, Welder, Machinist) that would be used in the ECP detailed in Factor 3 if the Offeror is selected for a Production OTA. The Government will evaluate the prototype price, the follow-on production pricing, and the modification strategy together. This is not a commitment to pay these rates but will be used to evaluate the offeror's overall financial approach to the entire project lifecycle.

5.2.6 Factor 6: Administrative Factor

The Offeror must include a cover letter with the following information.

· Company name and mailing address

· Company point of contact’s name, email address, and phone number

· Is the Offeror a small business for North American Industrial Classification System Code 336999 – All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing with a Business Size Standard of 1,000 employees?

· Clearly states the Offeror agrees to the Terms and Conditions in Attachment 002.

· If the Offeror has exceptions to the Terms and Conditions in Attachment 002, what are the exceptions?

· Clearly states the prototype design, if selected, includes “Limited Use Rights” as defined in Attachment 002, Terms and Conditions.

· Clearly states the proposals are valid for 60 days.

5.3 Evaluation and Rating Methodology. The Government will conduct a comprehensive evaluation of each offeror's proposal on a factor-by-factor basis. Factors 1, 2, and 3 identified in paragraph 5.2 of this RPP will be individually rated using the adjectival rating scale defined below (5.4 Adjectival Merit Ratings). A rating will be assigned to each factor, which reflects the USG’s assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks associated with each offeror's proposed approach.

5.4 Adjectival Merit Ratings.

Table 1 below notes the adjectival ratings that will be assigned to the evaluation factors.

Table 1: Adjectival Merit Ratings

5.5 General terms used in Evaluations, Defined

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency. Deficiency is any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of an RPP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RPP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

5.6 Factor Evaluation

a. Factor 1 - Technical Approach

· How well does the Design and Engineering proposal adhere to the historic aesthetic?

· Does the Offeror provide detailed renderings, drawings, and descriptions that should function in the manner described?

· Does the Offeror provide a clear, innovative design with dimensions that integrates modern components while respecting the required aesthetic.

· Does the Offeror provide justification for all materials chosen, focusing on durability, corrosion resistance, and ease of sourcing/repair?

· Does the proposal demonstrate why the design choices and material selected are superior to the original materials or other industry alternatives?

· Does the proposal explain why the specific engineering choices directly responded to the problem statements in Attachment 001 and reduces strain on the horses?

b. Factor 2 - Integrated Logistics and Sustainability Plan.

· Does the Offeror demonstrate a strategy that emphasizes the ability for TOG personnel to maintain and repair the caisson wagon with commercially available parts?

· Does the Offeror provide a plan that outlines operator-level and field-level maintenance, clearly stating the routine maintenance requirements of the wagon (annual, semi-annual, quarterly, daily), and whether this maintenance can be performed by Army personnel using standard tools and equipment?

· Does the Offeror describe any specialty equipment that may be required for maintenance? The more self-sufficient the maintenance is, the better.

· Does the Offeror include the “mean time” for items or systems that are high priced to replace or have a long lead time to procure?

· Did the Offeror demonstrate a commitment and plan to deliver a complete Comprehensive Service Manual with the prototype delivery?

· Did the Offeror explain the warranty, if any, being proposed by the Offeror with appropriate details?

c. Factor 3 - Management, Programmatic, and Lifecycle Management Approach.

· Does the Offeror clearly document the Offeror's ability to deliver the proposed approach and understanding of the USG’s multi-phase acquisition strategy?

· Does the proposal include the proposed methodology for managing the project from initial design through prototype testing, feedback integration, and final production readiness?

· Does the Offeror provide a credible project schedule for the initial prototype?

· Does the Offeror provide a credible project schedule for a potential follow-on fulfillment order for 6-8 additional Caisson Wagons?

· Did the Offeror provide a clear description of its development process and a risk management plan that identifies potential challenges (e.g., supply chain delays for a specific part) and how the offeror will mitigate the risk?

· Does the Offeror provide a management approach for the entire anticipated project lifecycle including its project management, communication, and scheduling strategies?

· Does the Offeror describe its process for accepting, evaluating, and incorporating Government feedback following prototype testing, if Offeror is selected for a follow-on Production OTA.

· Does the Offeror’s proposal include its proposed ECP process?

d. Factor 4 - Past Performance.

The Government will conduct a Performance Confidence Assessment to establish a Confidence Assessment Rating for each Offeror.

The Confidence Assessment Rating will be based on projects of similar scope and complexity in the past five (5) years and reference feedback. Similar scope and complexity are defined as multiple functional wagons or other engineered prototypes that performed as designed.

Table 2.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Factor 5: Cost/Price.

· Price analysis will be used to determine price reasonableness for the prototype as well as the ratio between labor and materials. The proposed payment schedule will be reviewed for appropriateness.

· Price analysis will be used to determine price reasonableness for the 6-8 additional caisson wagons, if a follow-on Production OTA is issued. The proposed payment schedule will be reviewed for appropriateness.

· Price analysis will be used to determine price reasonableness for the unlimited use rights.

· Price analysis will be used to determine the labor categories and fully burdened hourly rates for the labor that will participate in the ECP detailed in Factor 3, if Offeror is selected for a Production OTA.

Factor 6 - Administrative Factor The cover letter will be reviewed to ensure it contained the following information and is not rated or evaluated except for completeness.

· Company name and mailing address

· Company point of contact’s name, email address, and phone number

· Is the Offeror a small business for North American Industrial Classification System Code 336999 – All Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing with a Business Size Standard of 1,000 employees?

· Clearly states the Offeror agrees to the Terms and Conditions in Attachment 002.

· If the Offeror has exceptions to the Terms and Conditions in Attachment 002, what are the exceptions?

· Clearly states the prototype design, if selected, includes “Limited Use Rights” as defined in Attachment 002, Terms and Conditions.

· Clearly states the proposals are valid for 60 days.

6. Agreements Officer (AO) and Agreements Specialist (AS) and Contacts

6.1 Points of Contact

The Agreements Officer is Jennifer L. Hastedt The Agreements Specialist is Jessica Ecker

HQ Mission & Installation Contracting Command (MICC) Theater Support Center (TSC) 2219 Infantry Post Road JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-1361 Office Symbol CCMI-TSC

Teams Phone Number (520) 944-7122 and (520) 944-7421, respectively Please send all email to usarmy.jbsa.acc-micc.mbx.tsc-div1@army.mil and CC the AO and AS’s NIPR emails at jennifer. l.hastedt2.civ@army.mil and jessica.r.ecker.civ@army.mil.

7. Acronyms

8. Attachments

23 April 2026 Page 1 of 2 image1.png image2.png