MTC-Tracked Call for Solutions.docx

Call for Solution Mobile Tactical Cannon - Tracked

Submit Solution Brief To Daniel Daubenmeyer, Agreements/Contracting Officer daniel.p.daubenmeyer.civ@army.mil Tam Huynh, Agreement/Contract Specialist, tam.b.huynh.civ@army.mil Betty Bundoc, Agreement/Contract Specialist, betty.bundoc.civ@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 Offeror to ensure that its submission is received in the inbox listed above before the deadline specified.

Note 3: Vendors are not limited to a single Solution Brief response and may submit multiple responses if they have multiple distinct solutions to propose.

1. BACKGROUND

The U.S. Army is actively modernizing its field artillery capabilities to preserve tactical overmatch, increase operational survivability, and ensure Soldier lethality in contested, high-intensity conflict environments. A foundational pillar of this modernization effort is the evaluation and integration of a mature Mobile Tactical Cannon – Tracked (MTC-T) system to replace currently fielded legacy M109 Family of Vehicles within the force. The MTC-T set consists of a tracked MTC-T Self-Propelled Howitzer (MTC-T SPH) and an accompanying Resupply Vehicle – Tracked (RSV-T). Together, these vehicles provide integrated tracked cannon fires and ammunition resupply capability.

To achieve field artillery modernization objectives under accelerated timelines, the Army is leveraging a system-of-systems approach. Rather than initiating a traditional developmental cycle, the USG is seeking mature and available tracked MTC-T system from existing active ("hot") production lines with a credible baseline of testing, safety, and evaluation already completed.

The primary objective of this Call for Solutions is to identify, test, and analyze mature, tracked howitzers and their associated resupply systems. The U.S. Government (USG) intends to evaluate solutions that can support prototype delivery of up to eighteen (18) sets, with significant priority placed on the earliest achievable delivery of six (6) sets, to accelerate testing, Soldier touchpoints, experimentation, and prototype assessment.

This initiative aims to determine their tactical suitability through Soldier-in-the-loop experimentation and USG testing. Concurrently, this effort seeks to establish a strategic, highly resilient domestic production capability to transition weapon system manufacturing with a secure, contiguous United States (CONUS) supply chain.

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT

The M109 self-propelled artillery fleet faces range and lethality challenges that limit its effectiveness in modern, near-peer, large-scale combat operations (LSCO). The Army requires an operationally mature and logistically supportable MTC-T capability set to bridge current and future fires capability gaps. The capability set consists of two vehicles, a tracked artillery system consisting of an (MTC-T SPH) and an accompanying (RSV-T). Together, the MTC-T SPH and RSV-T provide mobile, protected cannon fires and the organic ammunition resupply needed to sustain operations.

Proposed solutions must address the following critical problem areas:

a. Operational Suitability and Fires Overmatch: Legacy artillery platforms struggle to deliver the firing ranges and rapid-fire rates required to survive in highly contested, artillery-heavy threat environments. The Army seeks a tracked 155 mm artillery platform with armament greater than 50 calibers. This platform should capitalize on stable, production-ready designs to field immediate parity and survivability while preserving the growth space needed to achieve overmatch over time.

b. Ammunition and Fire Control Interoperability: Integrating mature, foreign-designed, or newly adapted artillery platforms into the U.S. Army tactical network presents severe interoperability challenges. Platforms must achieve compatibility with standard U.S. 155mm munitions (projectiles, fuzes, and modular charges) and seamlessly integrate with U.S. fire control networks, digital systems, and inductive fuze-setting equipment.

c. Supply Chain Vulnerability and Onshoring Resiliency: Depending on offshore manufacturing or foreign-sourced subcomponents poses an unacceptable national security risk during prolonged geopolitical conflicts. The Army seeks to eliminate single points of failure by transitioning foreign or complex supply chains to a domestic "wartime footing" within a 2-year window, ensuring that final assembly and material sourcing reside within the United States. For this requirement, a wartime footing is defined as the demonstrated ability to sustain and surge production during contingency operations through U.S.-based final assembly; qualified domestic or allied sources for critical materials and components; sufficient production capacity, workforce, and tooling; validated alternate suppliers; and inventory levels or lead times that mitigate disruption from foreign supply chains. Final assembly and sourcing for designated critical materials and components shall reside within the United States, unless an approved exception applies.

d. Data Rights, Cybersecurity, and Sustainment Gaps: Proprietary or “black-box” system designs can potentially present unknown cyber risks, limit the USG’s ability to perform organic field- and sustainment-level maintenance, diagnose faults, manage parts obsolescence, compete future support activities, and integrate upgrades or third-party technologies. In addition, modern connected artillery systems present an expanded cyber-attack surface. Proposed solutions should demonstrate robust cybersecurity controls and provide the USG with technical data, computer software, and associated license rights necessary to support long-term organic sustainment, system integration, modernization, and lifecycle management and sufficient detail and risk mitigations required to obtain an Authorization to Operate.

The USG requires Unlimited Rights for Operation, Maintenance, Installation and Training (OMIT) data, excluding Detailed Manufacturing or Process Data. OMIT data must include all depot-level teardown, overhaul, alignment, and testing procedures without proprietary redactions.

The USG requires Unlimited Rights for Form, Fit, and Function (FFF) data. The FFF data must be down to lowest field-replaceable and depot-repairable assemblies, enabling multi-source component replacement.

The USG requires government purpose rights for Diagnostics Software & Firmware data to support organic sustainment of the system. Data includes diagnostic tools, calibration scripts, Test Program Sets (TPS), and error logs.

e. Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR): The USG will require Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) under any resultant award, to include flow down requirements to applicable subcontractors. Offerors shall describe their ability and approach to supporting applicable CSDR requirements, including the collection and submission of required cost data and, if applicable, software data for both the prime contractor and any key subcontractors. Offerors shall identify any assumptions, exclusions, dependencies, or limitations associated with CSDR compliance and subcontractor reporting capability and shall include any associated effort in the proposed Rough Order Magnitude (ROM), as appropriate.

3. DESIRED SOLUTION ATTRIBUTES

The USG seeks a mature, tracked 155mm self-propelled artillery solution consisting of the howitzer (MTC-T), associated resupply vehicle (RSV-T), and integrated subsystems. Of greatest interest are solutions that can deliver high rate of fire, reduce mission execution and resupply cycle times, integrate with U.S. ammunition, sustainment, and support transition to a durable U.S.-based production capability. The proposed MTC-T and RSV-T shall be presented as an integrated, operationally compatible system capable of sustaining fires through organic ammunition resupply

The USG is particularly interested in solutions with demonstrated technical and manufacturing maturity, a credible path to U.S. Army safety release, and the ability to safely transport ammunition within the system’s design limits.

Unless otherwise stated, the attributes below describe the USG’s areas of greatest interest and will inform assessment of submitted solutions.

Category A

1. Platform Maturity and Base Configuration The USG seeks a tracked self-propelled howitzer solution based on a mature design with demonstrated operational and manufacturing viability.

Offerors should describe:

a. The current configuration of the platform, including whether it is fielded, in production, or derived from an existing production system.

b. The main armament configuration, including barrel length/caliber ratio, and chamber geometry.

c. Available evidence of system maturity, including safety documentation, operational availability data, reliability history, production history, and any completed Safety Assessment Report or equivalent safety case documentation.

d. The MTC-T and RSV-T onboard ammunition capacity; resupply interface; time to conduct full resupply action; and ability to safely receive, handle, and reload ammunition from a Resupply Vehicle – Tracked (RSV-T).

e. The maximum rate of fire, burst and sustained, with the intended suite of projectiles and propellant at full charge noting, if any, limitations firing different angles of elevation. Time to emplace and displace the weapon to enable switching between firing and mobile configurations.

Solutions currently supported by an active production line and demonstrating a high degree of operational maturity may be viewed more favorably.

2. U.S. Artillery Ammunition Compatibility The USG is interested in solutions that can safely transport, handle, load, and fire U.S. Army 155mm artillery ammunition components, or that present a credible and low-risk path to such compatibility.

Offerors shall identify current compatibility, demonstrated compatibility, and any required modification or qualification effort associated with the following munitions:

a. Priority 1 Munitions: M795 projectiles, M232A2 propelling charges (increments 3 through 5), M231 propelling charges (increments 1 through 2), and the M782 Multi-Option Fuze for Artillery.

b. Priority 2 Munitions: M232A2 propelling charges (increment 6), M1128 projectiles, M739A1 fuzes, M982 Excalibur precision-guided munitions, and the M1156 Precision Guidance Kit fuze.

c. The fuze-setting approach, including current interoperability with, or a credible path to integration with, the U.S. M1155 Enhanced Portable Inductive Artillery Fuze Setter.

d. Internal ammunition handling paths, ammunition envelope tolerances, known limitations, and supporting ballistic, handling, or safety analyses relevant to prevention of in-bore, loading, or handling failures.

Solutions demonstrating compatibility with Priority 1 munitions, with minimal modification or additional qualification burden, are of highest interest. Broader compatibility across the Priority 2 set will be viewed favorably.

Category B: U.S. Production Transition and Domestic Manufacturing Approach:

The USG seeks a viable approach to establishing a U.S.-based production capability within the contiguous United States for fabrication, assembly, integration, and test of the proposed system.

Offerors shall provide a transition plan describing the approach, schedule, dependencies, resources, and risks associated with standing up domestic production capability. The transition plan shall identify a target date, not later than 24 months after contract award, for demonstrating production readiness at a U.S.-based facility. Plans that credibly demonstrate production readiness before the 24-month objective will be viewed more favorably.

1. Manufacturing Resilience, Domestic Production, and Throughput

The USG seeks a domestic manufacturing approach that can maintain continuity of production under disrupted global supply conditions and transition to U.S.-based production on an accelerated schedule.

Offerors should describe:

a. The proposed U.S. production concept, including facility approach, workforce strategy, major suppliers, and key industrial partners, and the extent of planned U.S.-based fabrication, assembly, integration, and test.

b. The approach to maximizing domestic sourcing of critical materials, components, and subsystems, including planned use of the domestic Organic Industrial Base, where applicable.

c. Supply chain risks, foreign dependencies, long-lead components, alternate sourcing strategies, and actions to improve manufacturing resilience under adverse geopolitical or transportation conditions.

d. The Offeror shall identify any required end-use/end-user certificates, permits, export/import authorizations, or similar approvals applicable to foreign-sourced technology, hardware, software, or spares, including items embedded in the proposed system and stand-alone parts or support items. The Offeror shall describe the actions required to obtain such approvals and any associated impacts to schedule, transportation, testing, sustainment, or future production.

e. The schedule to achieve U.S.-based fabrication, assembly, integration, and test readiness, including key milestones from award through production start.

f. The planned production capacity during the first two years of domestic operation, including the ability to support a rate of 18 sets per year.

g. The approach, assumptions, and investments required to ramp production to a sustained rate of 40 sets per year thereafter.

Category C: Supportability, Sustainment, and Technical Data

1. Commerciality, Obsolescence, and Parts Commonality The USG seeks solutions that reduce sustainment risk and support long-term “organic” maintainability.

Offerors should describe:

a. The percentage of parts with National Stock Number or NATO Stock Number assignments, as applicable.

b. Parts commonality with existing U.S. or allied platforms.

c. Historical performance in supplying critical parts and spares, including lead-time considerations where available.

d. The approach to obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages management.

e. Use of established commercial supply chains, where appropriate, and any associated supportability risks or benefits.

f. Historical performance in supporting customers from platform training, fielding, and post-fielding support.

2. Technical Data and Computer Software The USG seeks technical data, computer software, and associated license rights sufficient to ensure operational readiness of the delivered equipment, systems, components, and software throughout the sustainment lifecycle. At a minimum, the USG is interested in rights that support maintenance, repair, diagnostics, training, integration, modification, and long-term sustainment of the proposed solution.

Offerors should describe:

a. The technical data, computer software, and license rights available for delivery with the proposed solution.

b. Any restrictions on use, release, modification, maintenance, training, diagnostics, or sustainment associated with those data or software deliverables.

c. Any third-party intellectual property dependencies or limitations.

d. Any specially negotiated rights the offeror is willing to propose to support long-term “organic” sustainment and modernization objectives.

Subsystem priorities are as follows:

i. Priority 1 (Critical): Fire Control System, Cannon Assembly, and Human-Machine Interface elements associated with armament functions.

ii. Priority 2 (High): Electrical power generation, storage, and distribution; ammunition handling system; cannon mount, recoil, and pointing system; and track assembly.

iii. Priority 3 (Standard): Armor packages, integrated fire suppression systems, and climate control systems.

Solutions offering more complete technical data and broader license rights may be viewed more favorably.

4. AWARDING INSTRUMENT

In accordance with Open Solicitation Procedures detailed within Solicitation W50RAJ-26-S-0001[footnoteRef:1], the USG intends to award one or more fixed price Other Transaction agreement (OTA) for Prototype Project pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 4022 (formerly 10 U.S.C. 2371b). The USG further reserves the right to award to all, part, or none of the companies who submit proposals. [1: https://sam.gov/workspace/contract/opp/09563a1efa61455c9fa5c3ccc3570453/view]

Prototype OTA Eligibility Requirements In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d)(1), the USG may enter into a transaction under this authority only if one of the following statutory conditions is met:

a. There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.

b. All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are all businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors.\

c. At least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government.

Follow-On Production In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022(f), the Government may award a follow-on production contract or Other Transaction to the participant(s) in this prototype transaction without the use of competitive procedures, provided the participant successfully completes the prototype project. Any follow-on award will be based on the terms and conditions of the prototype OT agreement.

5. SOLICITATION NOTES

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

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

b. Resellers and academic research proposals are not desired.

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

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

e. The USG reserves the right to bypass Phase 2.

f. The USG may down-select potential awardees under this CFS.

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

h. If submitting a CFS, Offeror 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 USG 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.

i. Questions are to be sent only to the Agreements/ Contracting Officer and Specialists (POCs) listed in this CFS by 1500 ET on 10 November 2026. The following shall be utilized in the email subject line: “Call for Solution – MTC- Tracked Capability Solutions 27-01.”

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. Contact the Contracting/Agreements Officer and Specialist (POCs) if you require a DOD SAFE site drop for CUI submissions. The USG is interested in innovative solutions, including techniques to reduce costs, improve efficiency, accelerated deliveries, 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 USG will utilize up to three (3) phases for assessing solutions:

a. Phase 1 Solution Brief:

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

b. 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 USG 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 USG reserves the right to limit the number of Companies invited to pitch, as a result of the USG’s evaluation. As such, an Offeror’s solution may be evaluated to be of merit; however, not invited to pitch day.

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

c. 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 6.3. The USG will not reimburse Companies for costs associated with the Solution Proposal (e.g., proposal development, negotiations) in Phase 3, unless otherwise stipulated.

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 USG 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. Offeror 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 USG 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. Offeror Summary (one-page limit)

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

c. High-Level Solution (ten-page limit)

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

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

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

iv. Describe the solution’s capabilities and scalability.

v. Describe the benefits of your solution 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.

d. Schedule (five-page limit)

i. Submit a notional delivery schedule showing the earliest achievable delivery of:

(1) the first set and (2) the subsequent five (5) sets. Offerors shall also describe the assumptions, production conditions, integration activities, test events, and key risks affecting schedule achievability.

ii. Submit a high-level onshoring plan and schedule to support requirements as needed. Offerors shall describe the assumptions, plan for validation, risks, and critical path for onshoring.

e. Cost (two-page limit)

i. Provide Rough Order of Magnitudes (ROMs) for initial solution delivery for three (3) system and/or set within twelve (12) months of award, and three (3) subsequent systems and/or sets of the proposed solution within eighteen (18) months of award. USG also requires ROM in increments of three (3) to reach a total of 18 systems/sets of the proposed solution(s). ROM pricing provided in response to this CFS is non-binding and is for informational and evaluation purposes only. The ROM does not constitute a firm offer and shall not bind either the Offeror or the USG. The USG may request updated, revised, or more detailed cost/price information in any subsequent phase of this effort. The ROM shall, at a minimum, identify and, to the extent practicable, separately price the following cost elements:

ii. MTC-T SPH Vehicle Cost

iii. Proposed unit cost of the Mobile Tactical Cannon–Tracked (MTC-T SPH) vehicle, including major installed mission equipment and integrated subsystems.

iv. RSV-T Vehicle Cost

v. Proposed unit cost of the associated Resupply Vehicle–Tracked (RSV-T), including major installed mission equipment and integrated subsystems.

vi. Test Support

vii. Costs associated with USG test, demonstration, integration, checkout, fielding support, contractor test support, operator/maintainer support during test events, and any other support required to enable prototype evaluation.

viii. Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE)

ix. Estimated NRE required to support the proposed solution, including but not limited to U.S. ammunition compatibility, platform modifications, integration efforts, software development or modification, interface adaptation, qualification activities, and other one-time engineering efforts.

x. Data Deliverables

xi. Costs associated with delivery of technical data, computer software, software documentation, interface documentation, training materials, maintenance data, and any associated license rights proposed with the solution.

f. 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 USG’s use of that intellectual property. As needed, include a separate disclosure for each Offeror that is a participant of the solution.

Critical Note: The USG may be unable to evaluate the Solution Brief if an Offeror fails to comply with providing the information requested above.

Solution Brief Basis of Evaluation Solution Briefs submitted in response to the CFS will be evaluated against the criteria below. The USG reserves the right to use external market research in the evaluation of an Offeror. In the event multiple submissions are received for this Call, the USG 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 USG intends to evaluate the Solution Briefs to determine which proposed solutions have the potential to meet the USG’s needs utilizing the evaluation criteria below.

a. Technical Merit: The USG will evaluate the Technical Merit of a Offeror’s Solution Brief to determine whether the proposed solution meets the criteria outlined in the CFS. 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 USG as both feasible and achievable. In addition, the USG will determine whether the technical approach and/or underlying technology constitutes a compelling solution.

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

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

· The Offeror’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 Offeror is evaluated as to not having Technical Merit, the USG reserves the right to not evaluate any further (i.e. schedule), thus effectively leaving the Offeror as “Not Selected for Further Consideration.”

b. Schedule: The USG will evaluate the aggressiveness and feasibility of the proposed schedules. While accelerated delivery of initial prototypes to support early Soldier feedback is highly desirable, the delivery schedule will be evaluated as part of a trade-off with other key factors, including the timeline for establishing a domestic manufacturing capability and overall technical merit. The USG will assess the total schedule, including prototype delivery and the transition to U.S. based production, to determine the best overall value.

c. Cost: The USG 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 USG’s objectives.

d. Intellectual Property (IP) / Data Rights: The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed intellectual property, technical data, computer software, and associated license rights approach to determine the extent to which it supports the USG’s operational readiness, sustainment, integration, diagnostics, training, modification, and long-term modernization objectives for the proposed solution. The USG will assess any asserted restrictions, third-party dependencies, proprietary limitations, special license terms, or other conditions that could affect the USG’s ability to use, maintain, repair, test, integrate, support, or competitively evolve the proposed solution over time. The USG may view more favorably solutions that provide more complete technical data and broader license rights, particularly for higher-priority subsystems, interfaces, and other elements relevant to long-term sustainment and modernization.

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, USG 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 USG reserves the right to limit the number of companies invited to Phase 2 (if not bypassed) and/or Phase 3. As such, an Offeror’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.

Appendix C - Representations and Certifications: The Offeror shall complete, sign, and submit Appendix C (OTA Eligibility Certification) alongside their Solution Brief. This document has no page limit and serves as the Offeror's formal Affirmation of Business Status and Statutory Eligibility.

Basis of Evaluation: The USG will evaluate Appendix C on a Go/No-Go basis to verify compliance with the statutory requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d)(1) (e.g., significant participation by a Nontraditional Defense Contractor, a 1/3 cost-share, or all significant participants being NDCs/Small Businesses).

Failure to submit a completed, signed Appendix C, or failure to meet the statutory criteria, will result in the entire Solution Brief being excluded from further evaluation and deemed ineligible for award

2. PHASE 2

Presentation/Pitch Content

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

a. A description or demonstration of how the proposed solution addresses the CFS.

b. The ROM price and notional schedules.

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

d. Additional information/detail from the Offeror’s Phase 1 solution brief, as specified in the USG’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 USG 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 solution 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.

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 180 calendar days from the submission date. If necessary, Offerors invited to submit a proposal may be advised to schedule a meeting with the USG 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 USG market knowledge, the results of Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 evaluation(s) above, the USG may Request a Solution Proposal. If that occurs, a Offeror or companies will be invited to develop and submit a written proposal. To ensure fair competition and compliance, all communications, discussions, requests for clarification, and questions, including those involving USG subject-matter experts or USG teaming partners, shall be submitted to and coordinated through the designated Agreements Officer. The Agreements Officer is the sole authorized point of contact for official communications regarding this Call for Solution and any subsequent Solution Proposal request.

Submissions shall identify any restrictions on the USG’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.

Offerors shall complete Attachment 002, Cyber Control Compliance Description, and submit it as part of their proposal. Offerors should provide sufficient explanation to describe the proposed system’s cybersecurity posture, implementation of cyber controls, and any known limitations or dependencies.

Offerors should assume that any resultant award may require the awardee to obtain and maintain all required end-use/end-user certificates, permits, export/import approvals, and related authorizations applicable to foreign-sourced technology, hardware, software, and spares.

Offerors should note there are certain terms and conditions the USG 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 USG’s general public responsibility. Proposals containing data that are not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the USG except for evaluation purposes shall include the following sentences on the cover page:

“This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the U.S. Government, except to non-U.S. 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 Offeror as a result of -- or in connection with - - the submission of this data, the U.S. 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 U.S. 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. While this section will describe the approach, any detailed data, test reports, historical information, or other evidence that substantiates the claims made herein shall be included in the Substantiating Technical Volume and referenced appropriately.

The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive delivery and onshoring (if applicable) schedule. Delivery and onshoring schedule shall detail the timeline for the delivery of all prototype vehicles and onshoring of production facility to include proposed validation plan. The schedules must include supporting narrative that describes the Offeror’s production plan, manufacturing capacity, supply chain strategy, applicable EUCs, onshoring milestones, and administrative processes that enable the Offeror to meet the proposed timelines. The narrative should provide sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear and realistic path to achieving the proposed dates.

The Technical Volume shall not exceed 30 pages, limited to 6 MB, excluding requested attachment, in one file in MS Word or PDF. 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 USG 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 CFS) 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 actual or simulated operational 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.

The Offeror shall submit the Technical Volume, Technical Volume Substantiating Documentation, Technical Volume Substantiating Multimedia, and Schedule as separate document submissions.

Technical Volume Proposal Content and Preparation Requirements

Technical Volume

One (1) file in MS Word or PDF and Requested attachments in ZIP format 30 pages Limited to 6 MB, excluding requested attachment

Technical Volume – Substantiating Documentation

One (1) file in MS Word or PDF or Multiple files in ZIP format Limited to 6 MB per ZIP file, 25 MB total No page limit

Technical Volume – Substantiating Multimedia

One (1) file in MS Word or PDF and One (1) file in ZIP format 2 pages, summarizing the multimedia file(s) in the ZIP file limited to 250 MB

Schedule

5 pages

NOTE: The USG 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 USG to perform a basic analysis of the proposed cost or price of the work. The USG reserves the right to request any other price data or supporting cost information the USG 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, information on prices at which the same item or similar items have previously been sold in the commercial market or to other governments, and/or other proprietary information to help the USG determine reasonableness and future budgetary cost estimates. Such information includes, but is not limited to, quotes, purchase orders, invoices, sales receipts, etc.

Affordability / Cost shall be submitted to assess the realism and reasonableness of the prototype project cost and the long-term production unit cost estimates. The USG will review Attachment 019, As-Built Production Unit Cost Volume, to assess the consistency, and credibility of the Offeror’s estimated future production pricing for the proposed system configuration.

Attachment 019 – As-Built Production Unit Cost Volume. As part of the Phase 3 proposal submission, Offerors shall complete and submit Attachment 019, As-Built Production Unit Cost Volume. The USG will use the information provided in this attachment solely for future planning, affordability analysis, and production planning. Attachment 019 is informational only and is not an evaluated factor for purposes of proposal selection or award under this Call for Solutions.

Cost Volume

One (1) file in ZIP format:

Completed Appendix E and Cost Narrative with supporting documentation Limited to 6 MB No page limit

As-Built Production Unit Cost Volume

One (1) file in ZIP format and Cost Narrative with supporting documentation Limited to 6 MB Cost Narrative limited to 3 pages

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 USG reserves the right to further define the required price proposal content based upon the specific CFS requirements.

Proposal Basis of Evaluation:

Proposals will be reviewed as received by a USG 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 USG subject matter expert(s) will first review the proposal for adequacy and eligibility to determine the extent to which the following requirements are met:

The USG will evaluate Phase 3 proposals using a best-value evaluation. The evaluation will assess the following factors, which are listed in descending order of importance:

a. Technical Merit: The evaluation will assess the feasibility, maturity, and capability of the proposed system to meet the operational and technical parameters identified in the CFS attachments (including the Key Characteristics Definition and Ammunition Interfaces), as well as the credibility of the U.S. manufacturing onshoring plan. The U.S. Government will also review the Offeror’s response to Attachment 002, Cyber Control Compliance Description, to understand the proposed system’s cybersecurity posture and identify any apparent cyber-related risks or limitations relevant to feasibility, maturity, and integration.

b. Schedule: The evaluation will assess the feasibility, credibility, and aggressiveness of the proposed prototype delivery and production transition schedule.

The Agreements Officer reserves the right to negotiate any aspect of the proposal, Statement of Objectives, or agreement terms with selected offerors prior to award to achieve the best value for the USG.

NOTE: The USG 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 USG 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 Offeror 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 USG.

Exchange with Offerors:

The USG 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 USG reserves the right to communicate with one or more Offerors at its sole discretion if the Agreements Officer determines them to be necessary.

7. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICIES

a.Except for Appendix C (OTA Eligibility Certification), which must be completed, signed, and submitted with the Phase 1 Solution Brief, all attachments listed below are explicitly designated as DRAFTS for Phase 1 and Phase 2 and are provided for informational and planning purposes.

b.These draft documents are provided for informational and planning purposes only to outline the USG's current operational targets, technical interface standards, and programmatic goals.

c. The USG reserves the right to amend, update, delete or negotiate the final versions of any draft attachments and appendices. These attachments will be finalized and the draft version removed when Phase 3 proposals are requested.

Attachments in bold are required to be completed during the Phase 3 proposal.

The Offerors can request access to CUI documents via SAM.GOV.

Prototype Project Agreement – Mobile Tactical Cannon - Tracked (MTC-T) Attachment 001: Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) - Mobile Tactical Cannon - Tracked (MTC-T) Attachment 002: Cyber Control Compliance Description (CUI) Attachment 003: Supply Chain Market Checklist (Technical Proposal Volume) Attachment 004: Assertion of Restrictions (Technical Proposal Volume) Attachment 005: As-Built Configuration Template Attachment 006: Indentured Bill of Materials (I-BOM) Sample (Technical Proposal Volume) Attachment 007: Mobility Analysis Tool-Computer Edition (MATCE) Input Datasheet Tracked Vehicles Attachment 008: Memorandum For Record – MIL-STD-6017 Initial Integration for MTC-T (CUI) Attachment 009: Proof Gun System Overview…