Mobile Tactical Cannon Resupply Capability - Call for Solution.docx

Call for Solution Mobile Tactical Cannon

Submit Solution Brief To Ashely Velazco, Contracting/Agreements Officer Ashley.l.velazco.civ@army.mil Betty Bundoc, Contract Specialist (betty.bundoc.civ@army.mil):

Major Blake Estlund, PM Howitzer Systems (blake.r.estlund.mil@army.mil)

Note 1: Please advise the cognizant Contracts/Agreements Officer and Specialist as soon as possible via the email above if your organization intends to submit a Solution Brief in response to this Call for Solution (CFS).

Note 2: Any submissions received by the Contract/Agreement Officer after the suspense date/time listed above will be deemed late and not evaluated. It is the sole responsibility of the company to ensure that its submission is received in the inbox listed above before the deadline specified.

1. BACKGROUND

The U.S. Army is modernizing its field artillery capabilities to enhance battlefield effectiveness and ensure soldier lethality. A central part of this effort is the introduction of a new Mobile Tactical Cannon (MTC), a 155mm self-propelled howitzer that will replace the currently fielded M777 towed howitzers. The success of artillery in any scenario depends on a rapid and reliable supply of ammunition, making an optimized Resupply Capability (RC) critical to maintaining continuous fire support.

The current resupply capability, which utilizes medium-duty cargo trucks (M1083 and M1084), was not designed as a specialized ammunition resupply platform. The Material Handling Crane (MHC) on these vehicles is considered unreliable and inefficient, leading to slow, physically demanding resupply operations that increase soldier burden.

The Government anticipates a range of future combat scenarios and is interested in adaptable solutions. These concepts include dedicated resupply vehicles, modular "resupply payloads" that can convert any Load-Handling System (LHS) equipped truck into a temporary resupply vehicle, and "Expedient Resupply" methods for smaller mission loads. The goal is to find the best overall solution balancing performance, cost, and long-term sustainability.

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Army requires an innovative, flexible, and efficient Resupply Capability (RC) to transport and deliver 155mm artillery ammunition to the new MTC. The legacy M1083 and M1084 resupply capabilities are inadequate for the pace and demands of modern operations and close fires capability gaps

The Army seeks innovative approaches to address the following problem areas:

· Operational Efficiency: The current resupply method is slow, unreliable, and cannot meet the required operational tempo for rearming MTC during sustained combat operations. The total cycle time for ammunition transfer must be significantly reduced.

· Human Factors: The existing process for handling 155mm ammunition—which includes projectiles, charges, fuzes, and primers—is physically demanding and creates a high risk of injury and fatigue for the MTC crew.

· Maintainability: The legacy resupply equipment, particularly the Material Handling Crane (MHC), is unreliable and difficult to maintain under battlefield conditions, jeopardizing mission readiness.

· Adaptability: The Army desires a capability that can be adapted for large-scale combat operations, as well as more agile concepts, through modular or purpose-built designs compatible with the existing vehicle fleet.

3. DESIRED SOLUTION ATTRIBUTES

The desired solution is a comprehensive resupply system (vehicle, payload, or kit) that increases the speed of ammunition transfer, reduces soldier fatigue, and maximizes reliability, maintainability, and availability.

Solutions shall be sufficiently safe to achieve a U.S. Army Safety Release (per MIL-STD-882) and must securely transport ammunition within its designated design limits.

A. Operational Efficiency and Adaptability

1. Rapid Rearm Rate: Minimize total rearm cycle time, supporting a transfer rate of more than 2 complete rounds per minute (complete rounds defined as the projectile, fuze, and necessary propelling charges).

2. Scalable Ammunition Storage:

a. Optimize onboard storage based on the operational concept (e.g., dedicated fire missions vs. Dynamic mission solutions) to carry between 0.5x and 4x the MTC's conventional munitions capacity of (Threshold) 18 x total compete rounds

b. Should be able to store more than 2 precision munitions in addition to the conventional munitions’ storage capacity identified in A.2.a.

3. Platform Integration: Utilize an existing U.S. Army Tactical Vehicle or be compatible with multiple vehicle chassis, listed below, via modular payloads or integration kits. The following list is USG preference, but the USG is open to other platforms that may be compatible with your proposed solution:

a. M1074A1 Palletized Load System (PLS) – LHS with MHC

b. M1075A1 Palletized Load System – LHS without MHC

c. M1083A2 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles Cargo

d. M1084A2 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles Cargo with MHC

e. 1120A4 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck – LHS

f. M1279A2 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, Utility

4. Inventory Management: Enable the future integration of digital inventory management technologies to reduce the Soldier tasks of manual ammunition tracking. Alternatively, the solution should maximize available working space to allow for human or machine vision assisted inventory management.

5. Workspace: Provide adequate space for crew members to efficiently unpackage and prepare ammunition, set the fuze and establish necessary propelling charges for transfer to the MTC

B. Human Factors and Survivability

1. Reduce Soldier Fatigue and Injury: Reduce crew fatigue and risk of injury. If the solution does not feature automation or assistance, the desired ergonomic condition is for the crew to handle projectiles primarily between knee and shoulder height.

2. Minimized Crew Size: Require no more than three (3) Soldiers for all operator tasks, while allowing for up to 5 Soldiers to participate in ammunition preparation and transfer operations.

3. Degraded Mode Capability: Include a robust manual backup for any automation, allowing the crew to continue the mission with minimal impact on performance or safety if the primary system fails.

4. Ammunition Protection: Keep ammunition components (propelling charges, fuzes, and primers) in their protective packaging for as long as possible before ammunition transfer to the MTC.

C. Supportability and Sustainment

1. High Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability: The system must seek to maximize system readiness while withstanding exposure to various environmental conditions, shock and vibration from unpredictable terrain navigation, impacts from mishandled projectiles, and the stress of high-repetition use. The system should have an Operational Availability (Ao) of 0.75 (T) and 0.85 (O)

2. Simplified Maintenance: Any material handling components and subsystems should require minimal operator-level maintenance.

3. Dunnage Management: Provide space and functionality to accommodate discarded packaging (dunnage) and any unused ammunition offloaded from MTC.

4. Payload Design: Any containerized or modular payload solution must be self-contained and allow for loading/unloading from the prime mover while combat loaded.

4. AWARDING INSTRUMENT

In accordance with Open Solicitation Procedures detailed within Solicitation W50RAJ-26-S-0001[footnoteRef:1], the Government intends to award one or more Other Transaction (OT) for Prototype Project pursuant to 10 USC 4022 (formerly 10 USC 2371b). The Government further reserves the right to award to all, part, or none of the companies who submit proposals. This Call for Solution will utilize CSO procedures in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3458. [1: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/f64ed1039050411cb59512ca84ca18c2/view]

5. SOLICITATION NOTES

In addition to the general guidelines Included in the Open Solicitation, the following guidelines apply to this CFS (the call).

· Offerors are responsible for monitoring SAM.gov for any amendments to this solicitation that may have updated information.

· Resellers and academic research proposals are not desired.

· All solution briefs will be valid for 180 calendar days after the submission date.

· The Solution Brief must identify any intellectual property involved in the effort and associated restrictions on the Government’s use of that intellectual property.

· The Government reserves the right to bypass Phase 2.

· The Government may down-select potential awardees under this CFS.

· The Government reserves the right to issue multiple awards from this CFS. It similarly reserves the right to refrain from making any award.

· If submitting a Call for Solution, company font shall be readable without magnification and support the Content Quality evaluation criteria. Use of diagram(s) or graphics with associated bullet points and text layout to depict the essence of the proposed solution is strongly encouraged. The Government will allow 8.5 x 11-page landscape graphics within the overall page count. Any pages exceeding the limit will be removed and not evaluated.

· Questions are to be sent only to the Contracting/Agreements Officer and Specialist (POCs) listed in this CFS by 1500 ET on 28 April 2026. The following shall be utilized in the email subject line: “Call for Solution – MTC Resupply Capability Solutions 26-01.”

6. SOLUTION SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS

Companies responding to this Call shall submit a Solution Brief for evaluation. Submissions are to be sent via email only to the Contracting/Agreements Officer and Specialist (POCs) listed in this Call for Solution. The Government is interested in innovative solutions, including techniques to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and enhance performance. Submissions will be evaluated based on the merit of the proposed solution in addressing the Call – not against other submissions in response to this Call. The Government will utilize up to three (3) phases for assessing solutions:

Phase 1 Solution Brief:

Solution Briefs submitted in response to this Call shall be submitted as specified in Section 6.1. The Government will evaluate Solution Briefs against the criteria also stated in Section 6.1. The Government will not reimburse companies for the cost(s) associated with Solution Brief submissions.

Phase 2 Pitch Session: (Unless bypassed):

Companies whose Solution Briefs are evaluated to be of merit may be invited to provide a pitch either in-person or virtual to demonstrate and provide further details on their proposed solution following the instructions provided in Section 6.3. In addition to the Presentation/Pitch, the Government may request an additional written submission to supplement or clarify the information provided in the Phase 1 solution brief. If multiple submissions are received, the Government reserves the right to limit the number of Companies invited to pitch, as a result of the Government’s evaluation. As such, a company’s solution may be evaluated to be of merit; however, not invited to pitch day.

In the event the Government requires a demonstration, additional information will be provided to the company, otherwise Phase 2 will be comprised solely of the pitch. The Government will not reimburse Companies for costs associated with pitches.

Phase 3 Request for Solution Proposal:

Companies whose Solution Brief and Pitch Session are evaluated to be of merit during Phase 1 and Phase 2 (unless bypassed), may be invited to submit a full proposal following the instructions provided in section 6.4.section 6.3. The Government will not reimburse Companies for costs associated with the Solution Proposal (e.g., proposal development, negotiations) in Phase 3, unless otherwise stipulated.

6.1 PHASE 1:

Solution Brief Content

Solution Briefs shall follow the below-referenced page limits and use 12-point “Arial” font. Any pages exceeding the limit will be removed and not evaluated. The Government will not consider inserted textboxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information as part of the Solution Brief and will not consider such information in its evaluation of submissions. Solution Briefs are intended to be clear, concise and succinct submissions.

Solution Briefs shall include the following at a minimum:

a. Title Page (one-page limit)

i. Company Name, Title, Date, Point of Contact Name, E-Mail Address, Phone, Address and Call reference number. If registered in SAM.gov, include the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code, and Unique Entity Identification (UEI) code.

ii. Specifically identify the Call number and title for which the Solution Brief is submitted.

b. Company Summary (one page limit)

i. Provide an executive summary of the Company and subsequently proposed technology.

c. High-Level Solution/Concept (five-page limit)

i. Describe the unique technical aspects of your solution/concept and how it is relevant and important to this Call.

ii. Describe how the solution/concept is innovative and/or a potential capability.

iii. Describe how the proposed solution/concept solves a capability gap/problem and/or provides potential innovative technological advancements.

iv. Describe the solution/concept capabilities and scalability.

v. Describe the benefits of your solution/concept as it applies to the Call.

vi. Describe how the proposed technical approach is feasible, achievable, and supported by a technical team that has the expertise and experience to accomplish the proposed solution/concept.

vii. Identify whether the proposed solution/concept includes a pilot or demonstration of existing commercial technology (identified as commercially available and viable technology), or the development of technology for potential defense applications. Identify the DoD Technical Readiness Level (TRL) along with the supporting evidence. If development or adaptation is proposed, discuss the suggested path to maturity. Identify aspects which may be considered proprietary.

viii. Provide a summary of product/solution and go-to- market strategy.

d. Schedule (three-page limit)

i. Submit a notional schedule of how fast you can deliver each range of systems: 1 system, 3 systems, 7 systems utilizing your proposed solution and describe how the notional schedule is achievable for the submitted solution. Annotate assumptions used for the Notional Schedule.

e. Cost (two-page limit)

i. Provide a draft ROM of initial solution delivery of each range of systems: 1 system, 3 system, 7 systems, utilizing the proposed solution and discuss initial cost drivers of the solution and annotate critical cost assumptions.

f. Affirmation of Business Status Certification (no page limit)

i. Lead companies shall include a separate Affirmation of Business Status Certification form (Appendix A– Affirmation of Business Status Certification) for each company/vendor participating in the prototype project.

g. Intellectual Property Statement/Agreement/Disclosures (no page limit)

i. The Solution Brief must identify any intellectual property involved in the effort and associated restrictions on the Government’s use of that intellectual property. As needed, include a separate disclosure for each company that is a participant of the solution/concept.

*The Government may be unable to evaluate the Solution Brief if a Company fails to comply with providing the information requested above.

Solution Brief Basis of Evaluation Solution Briefs submitted in response to the Call for Solution will be evaluated against the criteria below. The Government reserves the right to use external market research in the evaluation of a Company. In the event multiple submissions are received for this Call, the Government reserves the right to select all, some, or none of the solution submissions submitted in response to this Call resulting in one (1) or more awards, or alternatively, no awards. All evaluation criteria (A, B, C) are of equal importance.

The Government intends to evaluate the Solution Briefs to determine which proposed solutions have the potential to meet the Government’s needs utilizing the evaluation criteria below.

a. Technical Merit: The Government will evaluate the Technical Merit of a Company’s Solution Brief to determine whether the proposed solution meets the criteria outlined in the Call for Solution. Technical Merit is defined as having direct relevance to the stated problem statement, addressing identified capability gaps, and/or providing innovative technological advancements. The technical approach must demonstrate the ability to scale and must be assessed by the Government as both feasible and achievable. In addition, the Government will determine whether the technical approach and/or underlying technology constitutes a compelling solution.

Based on this evaluation, the Government will assign one of the following determinations:

· The Company’s solution has Technical Merit: The solution is relevant, addresses the capability gap, demonstrates scalability, is feasible and achievable, and is considered compelling.

· The Company’s solution does not have Technical Merit: The solution fails to meet one or more of the Technical Merit criteria. (i.e not relevant, does not address the capability gap, does not demonstrate scalability, is not feasible and achievable, is not compelling.)

If the Company is evaluated as to not having Technical Merit, the Government reserves the right to not evaluate any further (i.e. schedule), thus effectively leaving the Company as “Not Selected for Further Consideration.”

b. Schedule: The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Company’s proposed solution/concept project schedule and maturity path.

c. Funding: The Government will evaluate whether the proposed ROM is sufficiently correlated to the proposed technical approach, is affordable to meet the objectives of the prototype project within the stated schedule, and whether the ROM generally reflects an understanding of the Government’s objectives.

Solution Brief Selection Process Based on the evaluation, the Solution Brief will be categorized as either Selected for Further Consideration or Not Selected for Further Consideration. Selection into the next Phase will be based on the criteria listed above, Government need, and funding availability.

Selected for Further Consideration: The submitted Solution Brief has been determined to be of technical merit, represents a feasible schedule, and is achievable.

Not Selected for Further Consideration: The submitted Solution Brief does not represent the necessary degree of technical merit, a feasible schedule, and achievability.

Companies selected for further consideration may be invited to participate in the next Phase, subject to the availability of funds. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of companies invited to Phase 2 (if not bypassed) and/or Phase 3. As such, a Company’s solution may be evaluated as selected for further consideration; however, not invited to Phase 2 and/or Phase 3. Solution Briefs whether selected or not selected for Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 will be notified in writing as soon as practicable.

6.2 PHASE 2

Presentation/Pitch Content

During the Phase 2 Presentation/Pitch, the company shall address the following in detail:

a. A description or demonstration of how the proposed solution represents an innovative application of commercial technology to the CFS.

b. The ROM price and notional schedule.

c. Any Intellectual Property (IP) involved in the effort and associated restrictions on the Government’s use of that IP.

d. Additional information/detail from the company’s Phase 1 solution brief, as specified in the Government’s invitation to Phase 2.

Presentation/Pitch Evaluation Criteria

Individual pitches will be evaluated against the following factors:

a. Relevance of the pitch in addressing the problem statement;

b. The solution has technical merit, adequately addresses Government needs and is feasible;

c. The ROM risk is associated with the ability of the program/project to achieve its life-cycle cost objective and secure appropriate funding;

d. The notional schedule is realistic and acceptable; and

e. The potential impact of data rights assertions.

Individual pitches will be evaluated based on merit of the proposed concept in addressing the problem statement and the factors above, not against any other pitches held under this announcement. Pitch evaluation will consider the full content of the actual Oral Presentation (including answers or inability to answer any questions posed) and the content of the slides presented. Pitch evaluation will also consider the previously submitted solution brief; thus, inconsistencies between the solution brief and presentation, or between the digital copies of the slides and the oral presentation itself, may be viewed unfavorably. It is anticipated that pitches will be conducted virtually with an up to one hour presentation and up to 30-minute question/answer session

6.3 PHASE 3 REQUEST FOR SOLUTION PROPOSAL

The third and final Phase of the CFS process is the solution proposal. Through Request for Solution Proposal, offeror(s) will be invited to submit a solution proposal based on the defined CFS phased approach that will be utilized, which may revise or include information learned from phase 1 or 2 reviews. Offerors must ensure that the proposal is valid for at least 120 calendar days from the submission date. If necessary, offerors invited to submit a proposal may be advised to schedule a meeting with the Government to address any feedback contained in the request for solution proposal. The proposal must be prepared in two separate Volumes as follows: Volume I Technical and Volume II Price. Each volume will have its separate related attachments.

Solution Proposal Content:

Based upon Government market knowledge, the results of Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 evaluation(s) above, the Government may Request a Solution Proposal. If that occurs, a company or companies will be invited to develop and submit a written proposal. At this stage, the selected companies may discuss proposal development details during the proposal writing process with their assigned Government expert(s) or Government teaming partner(s).

Submissions shall identify any restrictions on the Government’s rights (e.g. data rights) in using/disclosing/reproducing/modifying technical data, computer software, and non- technical data (e.g. business/financial/administrative data) involved in the effort.

Companies should note there are certain terms and conditions the Government may be unable to accept. However, projects awarded through the CFS may provide flexibility to adopt customary industry standards where it is otherwise legal and meets the Government’s general public responsibility. Proposals containing data that are not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes shall include the following sentences on the cover page:

“This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government, except to non-government personnel for evaluation purposes, and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -- in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, an agreement is awarded to this Company as a result of -- or in connection with - - the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent agreed upon by both parties in the resulting agreement. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets]”

Each restricted data sheet should be marked as follows:

“Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal.”

Section 1 Technical Proposal Volume:

The technical volume shall include a detailed plan indicating how each aspect of the objectives is to be accomplished. The technical volume should be in as much detail as the offeror considers necessary to fully explain its proposed technical approach or method, including all assumptions utilized to develop its proposed solution and associated costs. The technical volume should reflect a clear understanding of the nature of the work being undertaken. The technical volume must include information on how the project will be organized, staffed, and managed. Information should be provided that demonstrates the offeror’s understanding and management of important events or tasks. The technical volume must include a list of suggested deliverables and deliverable dates.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to further define the required technical proposal upon entrance to phase 3.

Section 2 Price Proposal Volume:

The price volume must contain sufficient information to allow the Government to perform a basic analysis of the proposed cost or price of the work. The Government reserves the right to request any other price data or supporting cost information the Government deems necessary to determine the total overall price is fair and reasonable. This can include but is not limited to commercial price catalog(s), previous commercial sales receipts, and/or other proprietary information to help the Government determine reasonableness and future budgetary cost estimates.

NOTE: The cost of preparing proposals in response to this CFS is NOT considered a direct charge to any resulting CFS award or any other contract.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to further define the required price proposal content based upon the specific CFS requirements.

6.4. Proposal Basis of Evaluation:

Proposals will be reviewed as received by a Government subject matter expert(s). In all cases, proprietary information shall be protected from competitors. The CFS will be evaluated in the order described below. The Government subject matter expert(s) will first review the proposal for adequacy and eligibility to determine the extent to which the following requirements are met:

6.4.1 The merit and risk elements of the proposed technical approach are acceptable and address the priorities outlined in the Call.

6.4.2 The proposal performance schedule is realistic and/or adequate; and,

6.4.3 The proposed price is affordable to meet the objectives of the prototype project within the stated schedule, and whether the proposed price generally reflects an understanding of the Government’s objectives.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to further define the basis for evaluation prior to entrance to phase 3.

Proposal Evaluation Rating:

1. The Technical Proposal Volume will be evaluated and assigned one of the following ratings:

a. Acceptable: The proposal has been evaluated and deemed appropriate for additional consideration and discussion. An acceptable proposal is generally considered well-conceived, scientifically or technically sound, and important to program goals and objectives. An acceptable proposal may proceed into negotiations or directly to the award process.

NOTE: An acceptable rating does not guarantee contract award. The following will be taken into consideration: program priorities, outcome of negotiations, and availability of funds.

b. Unacceptable: The proposal has been evaluated and deemed inappropriate for additional consideration. An unacceptable proposal is generally considered not well-conceived, scientifically or technically unsound or does not meet program priorities. An unacceptable proposal will be rejected.

2. The Price Proposal Volume will be evaluated as follows:

a. Affordability: The proposed costs must also be affordable to the Government in order to be considered for award. The technical merit will dictate the level of scrutiny required for a price analysis. The following will be taken into consideration: program priorities, outcome of negotiations, and availability of funds. A fair and reasonable determination will only be made for an offeror to be selected for an award in Phase 3.

The Contracting Officer / Agreements Officer reserves the right to negotiate directly with the company on the terms and conditions prior to execution of the resulting contract or agreement, including payment terms, and will execute the contract or agreement on behalf of the Government.

7 NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

PM Howitzer systems will not utilize any non-government advisors for this Call for Solutions.

8 AWARDS

Awards will be made in accordance with the CFS procedures under Munitions Open Solicitation for Advanced and Innovative Capabilities, W50RAJ-26-S-A001.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to amend this CFS as changes in the requirement occur.

image1.png image2.png image3.png