CPE Mission Autonomy RFI (Unclassified) 12FEB2026.pdf

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

05 February 2026

I. SYNOPSIS:

The US Army, Capability Program Executive (CPE) Mission Autonomy, is seeking industry’s expertise with current robotic systems to understand the experience and capability of potential vendors.

No contract shall be awarded from this announcement. This is not a Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP), or announcement of a forthcoming solicitation, nor does it imply or guarantee one will be issued in the future. Also, it is not a request seeking contractors interested in being placed on a mailing solicitation list. Response to this Request for Information (RFI) is voluntary and no reimbursement will be made for any costs associated with providing information in response to this or any follow-on information requests.

Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP or RPP, if any are issued. If a solicitation is released, it will be synopsized on the System for Award Management (SAM) website: https://sam.gov. It is the responsibility of the potential offerors to monitor these sites for additional information pertaining to this requirement.

The information provided in this RFI is subject to change and is not binding to the United States Government (USG).

The USG intends to obtain prototypes and ancillary equipment sufficient to conduct a limited operational assessment with units as part of their operations.

The intent of this RFI is to inform CPE Mission Autonomy and Army Senior Leaders on the landscape of current industry robotics and autonomy solutions, opportunities for teaming, and develop an acquisition strategy to provide the capability to the Force rapidly. The goal is NOT to develop a bespoke robotic platform but to leverage teams of industry partners to deliver capabilities against problem sets.

II. PROBLEM STATEMENTS:

Problem 1. Engineer Capability Package (Breaching Operations): Breaching is a dangerous task that is still generally manual.

The Army lacks the ability, without human or manually controlled systems, to rapidly breach complex obstacles and minefields under direct observation and fires while minimizing exposure and ensuring passage of the follow-on force. Successful breaching operations will require systems that can self- or waypoint- navigate over varying terrain and under contested conditions.

Breaching requires autonomy for: mission planning, mission autonomy, terrain and obstacle classification/identification, ground surveying, advanced sensor collection and reporting for mine/obstacle detection and classification (radar, acoustic, magnetic), open interfaces for Command and Control (C2), the ability to add new sensors as inputs to a general inference or mission planning framework, networking interfaces, one-to-many and many-to-many collaboration, multi-domain air-ground cooperation, role-based task execution, target detection and early warning, and employment of enabling technologies, for example: countermine systems; remote line-charge initiation; equipment for lane proofing; and smoke/obscuration techniques. Additionally, breach lane location(s) recommendations (with user ability to refine or discard) based upon the echelon of breach lane needed (e.g., Company, Battalion, Brigade, etc) and machine-to-machine mission autonomy.

Engineer Capability Package Scenario:

A Maneuver Task Force must breach a complex obstacle belt containing a mix of surface laid and buried mines (Anti-tank (AT), Anti-Personnel (AP), and Smart mines), concertina wire, various concrete barriers, and anti-vehicular ditches. The obstacle belt is in-depth (up to 1km), requiring multiple iterations of breaching to create a lane. The obstacle belt has manned overwatch positions as well as various unmanned sensors and overwatch mechanisms providing fires and effects up to 20km leading to the start of the obstacle belt to prevent massing of friendly assets ahead of the breach location. The enemy has a robust Electronic Warfare (EW) capability throughout the area which will severely degrade communications and GPS navigation.

The Maneuver Task Force needs an autonomous and/or semi-autonomous breaching capability to create multiple 4-meter-wide lanes through the obstacle belt. The breaching capability needs the ability to traverse difficult/negative terrain, traverse through a breach lane and return through the same lane when breaching in depth, and execute its mission in a communication denied environment.

Only one (or a couple) operator(s) programs and executes the synchronized autonomous breach operation. The operator will primarily focus on coordinating the battle while obstacle and breach lane systems provide data flow from the edge to the rear for C2 at echelon.

The overall breaching system should conduct reconnaissance and collect obstacle intelligence, obscure/deceive/overwhelm/mask (multi-spectrum), secure (eliminate direct fire and system interference), and reduce (neutralize obstacles, proof, digitally mark the lane) to allow for the Maneuver Task Force to maneuver robotic and manned systems through the complex obstacle and assault their objectives.

Problem 2. Sustainment Capability Package (Autonomous Distribution) Logistics is still manually planned and executed, generally with large platforms on the air, land, and sea which are easy to target creating a disparity between the effort to plan and execute and the ability to stay ahead of need. Commanders require options and flexibility to autonomously deliver key classes of supply (I, II, III, IV, V, VIII, IX) across contested terrain under enemy observation and fires, minimizing exposure while ensuring uninterrupted support to maneuver forces. These systems execute distribution (maritime, air, and ground) operations with varying autonomy, including self-navigation, dynamic route optimization, and rapid supply transfer using automated material handling equipment (MHE). They integrate into shared C2 networks to synchronize operations across echelons and domains. Autonomy adds value in terrain classification/identification to optimize logistics routes, sensor collection to inform C2 networks, energy storage and distribution to extend the operational reach of maneuver forces, and air-ground cooperation for resupply. Prioritized tasks include configurable load capabilities designed to support resupply operations that can also adapt to meet the needs of the other Center of Excellence (COE) mission profiles, supply transfer, exportable power, casualty evacuation, and equipment recovery, leveraging technologies like high-speed autonomous vehicles, automated load-handling systems, and deception techniques to conceal operations during Large-Scale Combat Operations.

Sustainment Capability Package Scenario:

During a BCT-level offensive operation in support of division shaping efforts, the Maneuver Task Force operates under degraded communications and a contested environment with persistent threats from enemy drones, indirect fires, and EW. Traditional Combat Logistics Patrols (CLPs) face high risk and inefficiency due to enemy reach, complex terrain, and Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD).

To maintain tempo and freedom of action, autonomous distribution systems execute synchronized dispersed missions across the battlefield delivering tailored supplies of Classes I, III, V, VIII, and IX, along with energy sustainment packages to power forward nodes and recharge critical equipment. Autonomous platforms also conduct casualty evacuation (CASEVAC) and deception activities, employing persistent circulation/loitering and low profiles to overwhelm and mislead enemy ISR assets and disrupt their C2 nodes.

With minimal operator input, autonomous systems integrate into shared C2 networks, enabling decentralized sustainment that reduces risk, enhances survivability, and supports freedom of action in alignment with future sustainment needs inside Large-Scale Combat Operations.

Problem 3. Army Multi-Mission Platforms (Non-Engineer and Non-Sustainment Formations) The Army seeks information on robotic systems that are production ready, reusable, and cost-effective. The robotic systems will be used across the Army ground formations to enhance survivability, lethality, and sustainment while reducing the cognitive load on Soldiers. Robotic systems are categorized as small, medium, large, and extra-large (Table 1) to be employed at the unit level. Vendors are requested to provide information of total solutions to include teaming agreements between platform, sensors, and autonomy providers.

III. CLASSIFICATION

Table 1 shows the weights associated with the robotic platform and ancillary equipment.

Classification Weight Small 1-50 lbs Medium 51-500 lbs Large 501-16,000 lbs Extra-Large > 16,000 lbs

Table 1

IV. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE:

Please complete all information and respond to all questions in Sections V and VI.

This RFI is for planning purposes only; it is not to be construed as a commitment by the USG, nor will the USG pay for the information solicited. Send responses to this RFI directly to NAMC, submissions@namconsortium.org, with the subject “Robotic Ground Combat Systems RFI”.

Provide responses and attachments in MS Word or PDF format. Address any requests for questions/clarifications directly to NAMC at questions@namconsortium.org. Your company does not need to be a member of NAMC to provide a response to this RFI.

Responses to this RFI are due by 3:00pm Eastern Standard Time (EST), 27 February 2026.

Responses are limited to 20 total pages per solution submission (not including attachments for certifications and title page), using Times New Roman, font size 12, with one-inch margins.

If you have multiple solutions per problem statement or believe a single solution can meet multiple problem statements, please submit a response per individual solution per problem statement.

Please respond to every question using the following guidance:

• Number each response with the appropriate question number.

• You do not have to repeat the question in your response.

• Respond with “Not Applicable” to any questions that do not apply.

• If you cannot answer the question, please indicate “No Response.”

• If a response will satisfy another question, state: “See response to question XX.”

Please note: Responses to this RFI will not be returned, nor will detailed feedback be made available.

Proprietary Information. The USG acknowledges its obligations under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (18 U.S.C. §1905) to protect confidential information provided to the USG. Pursuant to this statute, the USG is willing to accept any trade secrets or proprietary restrictions placed upon data presented in response to this RFI and to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure, subject to the following:

• Data must be clearly marked PROPRIETARY and be accompanied by an explanatory text so that the USG is clearly notified on what data is proprietary.

• Mark only data that is truly confidential (over breadth in marking inappropriate data as

PROPRIETARY may diminish or eliminate the usefulness of your response). Use circling, underscoring, highlighting or any other appropriate means to indicate those portions of a single page which are to be protected.

• Do not mark data that is already in the public domain or is already in possession of the USG or third parties on an unrestricted basis. Do not submit any classified data in response to this Questionnaire.

• Proprietary data transmitted electronically must have the PROPRIETARY legend on both the cover of the transmittal e-mail as well as at the beginning of the file. Proprietary information contained within the correspondence shall use the legends: “PROPRIETARY PORTION BEGINS” and “PROPRIETARY PORTION ENDS”.

Disclaimer: The USG is not responsible for the public disclosure of unmarked data received in response to this Questionnaire. Accordingly, the potential offeror shall ensure that technical data provided in response to this Questionnaire shall be appropriately marked (i.e., PROPRIETARY) to ensure proper USG handling of the data. Additionally, marked data that is already in the public domain or in the possession of the U.S. Government or third parties, or is afterward placed into the public domain by the owner or another party through no fault of the U.S.

Government will not be protected once in the public domain. Data already in the possession of the USG will be protected in accordance with the USG’s rights in the data. Should the USG need to reproduce the protected data for distribution purposes between USG offices, all such data shall be reproduced with restrictive legends in place. The Government may employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of RFI submissions. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing content, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool. The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No RFI data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place. USG support contractors may assist in reviewing RFI submissions.

V. INFORMATION REQUESTED FROM INDUSTRY:

1. Manufacturer

a. Name: ________________________________________________________

b. Mailing Address: ________________________________________________

c. Website: ______________________________________________________

d. Location of Production: ___________________________________________

e. Subcontractor/Inter Org (if known): __________________________________

2. Personnel Responding to RFI

a. Name: ________________________________________________________

b. Title: _________________________________________________________

c. Company Responsibility/Position: ___________________________________

d. Telephone/Fax Numbers: _________________________________________

e. E-Mail Address: _________________________________________________

f. Cage Code (if any): ______________________________________________

VI. QUESTIONS:

****Each solution to a problem statement needs to be provided as a separate RFI response****

1) What capability does your company or team of companies’ solution provide?

2) How many months post contract award would your company/team need to deliver prototype systems, and how many solution sets could be delivered at that time?

3) Please provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate and schedule to support your company/team’s solution including:

a) Total development cost, broken out by approximate labor hours, material costs, other direct costs, and indirect costs, to design, build, and deliver prototypes.

b) Are there any additional costs excluded from the cost estimate (such as production planning and development efforts)?

c) An average production cost per system (or capability package) for the following ranges:

(1) 1 to 50 units

(2) 51 to 100 units

(3) 101 to 500 units

(4) 500+ units

d) How many months will it take your company/team to deliver the first production unit?

i) Does your company/team have any long lead materials? If yes, what is the longest lead time?

e) What is your company/team’s current monthly production capacity/delivery capacity?

f) What is your company/team's minimal sustainment rate?

g) What technology would your company/team use that is non-Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) across the entire system?

h) Will your company/team’s efforts include the technical data (e.g. drawings, model, software) required for fabrication? What rights will the USG have to the data?

4) Describe the solution’s physical and performance characteristics, to include but not limited to: solution weight; maximum operational weight; dimensions (stowed and operational);

maximum speed; operational range; minimum and maximum operating temperatures; and payload carrying capacity (if applicable).

5) Identify the solution’s fuel source(s) and power plant type(s).

6) Using the Autonomy Component definitions (refer to Section VII), what type(s) of autonomy does your system utilize? What features and capabilities does your company/team’s solution provide? Please provide substantiating information to verify the selected type (safety testing, etc.).

7) Describe the level of Safety Verification / Validation that your company/team's solution has undergone.

8) Does your company adhere to Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)? Elaborate on MOSA and your solution’s ability to help the USG maintain interoperability and rapid upgradability over time.

9) Describe your company/team’s solution control software's ability to be operated from third-party computing hardware, display, and physical control interfaces.

10) What control network is utilized from the controller (mounted or dismounted) to the robotic platform? Please elaborate on your company/team’s design.

11) Describe your organization's familiarity with the Uncrewed Vehicle Control (UVC) technical approach and how you would migrate existing engineering and business processes, tool chains, and technical solutions to align with it. Responses should emphasize assumptions, steps, and tradeoffs. Additionally, please identify areas where clarification on the UVC technical approach would be required.

12) Does your solution’s system have a basic “user manual”? If yes, does it cover the entire system, or only specific components?

13) What is your solution’s system TRL (refer to “TRA Guidebook” in Section VII)? Please provide references.

14) What is your company/team’s experience in designing and building autonomous systems of any type?

15) Does your company/team have any other comments or questions at this time?

16) For proposed capability packages, who will your company team with to provide a fully integrated solution (Problems 1 and 2)?

17) Is your company/team currently a member of a Department of War aligned consortium? If so, which consortium?

II. REFRENCES:

1. Autonomy Component Definitions:

a. Mission autonomy: This aspect of autonomy primarily focuses on planning and collaboration and is an integration layer between payload autonomy and platform autonomy. It involves the systems and algorithms responsible for high-level decision-making, such as route planning, task prioritization, and mission execution. Mission autonomy enables an autonomous system to operate cohesively with other units, whether human or machine, by interpreting mission objectives, generating plans, and adjusting those plans dynamically based on changes in the environment or mission priorities. Collaboration is a key feature of mission autonomy, as it requires robust communication protocols and the ability to synchronize actions across a network of systems. This ensures that the autonomous system contributes effectively to a larger operational framework, whether in isolation or as part of a team. Control and the associated user interface are critical components of mission autonomy.

b. Payload autonomy: Payload autonomy is centered on the effects and functionality of the specific payloads carried by the autonomous system. This includes the integration and operation of mission-specific equipment, such as sensors, weapons, communication devices, or other specialized tools. Payload autonomy ensures that the system can independently utilize its payloads to achieve desired effects without requiring constant human oversight.

c. Platform autonomy: Platform autonomy is focused on mobility and maneuver in the air, on and below the ground, and on the water. This encompasses the autonomous capabilities required for navigating air and ground platforms and interacting with the physical environment, such as spatial understanding, obstacle avoidance, and path optimization. Platform autonomy also enables the system to maneuver tactically through the environment to a position of relative advantage, considering signature management, sight lines, and known or suspected enemy positions.

d. Uncrewed Vehicle Control: A technical approach designed to address critical capability gaps in maneuver forces by enabling individual Soldiers to maintain situational awareness and execute control of robotic and autonomous systems.

2. Link to TRA Guidebook: https://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/TRA-Guide-

Feb2025.v2-Cleared.pdf https://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/TRA-Guide-Feb2025.v2-Cleared.pdf https://www.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/TRA-Guide-Feb2025.v2-Cleared.pdf