PrSM Inc 4 Request for Solutions_FInal for Submission_20260424.docx

REQUEST FOR SOLUTIONS (RFS): Precision Strike Missile Increment 4 Authority: 10 U.S.C. § 4022 (Other Transaction Authority for Prototypes), including potential follow-on production without further competition per § 4022(f).

Program Phase Structure: Phase I (Prototype) through Phase III (Production) Phase 0 – Solutions Brief and Selection for Request for Prototype Proposals Phase I – Prototype Design, Development and Demonstration Phase I Option – Prototype Demonstration

Solicitation Date: 24 APRIL 2026 Point of Contact: Anthony Ambrosia, anthony.m.ambrosia.civ@army.mil, and Tiffanie Neal, tiffanie.a.neal.civ@army.mil.

1. PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The United States Government (USG) is seeking solutions for the development of Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Increment 4 (Inc 4). This effort is structured as a multi-phase lifecycle program designed to move from high-risk research into full-scale production. This program is required to follow a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) IAW 10 U.S.C. §§ 4401–4403 ensuring subcomponent interoperability, upgradeability, competition, right to repair, and the prevention of proprietary vendor lock.

The STORM Project Office is seeking an affordable, cost-effective, MOSA-compliant solution capable of engaging moving maritime and relocatable land targets at ranges equal to, or greater than, 1,000 kilometers (km). The solution must be compatible with the current configuration M142 launcher platform and be effective against moving maritime and relocatable land targets.

Security level of the prototype project: up to Secret

2. TECHNICAL PROBLEM STATEMENT

2.1 Current Capability Gap

The United States Army and Joint Forces must penetrate Global Positioning System contested environments and decisively engage moving maritime and relocatable land targets at ranges equal to, or greater than, 1,000 km.

2.2 Desired End-State

The USG requires an affordable, cost-effective, MOSA-compliant, current configuration M142 launcher platform compatible solution capable of engaging moving maritime and relocatable land targets at ranges equal to, or greater than, 1,000 km.

2.3 Operational Constraints

The prototype must be able to operate under the following conditions:

· Environment: Solution must be operable in the INDO-Pacific (PACOM) Area of Operations (AOR) consistent with the supplied operational scenario.

· Size, Weight, Power, and Cost (SWaP-C): Solution must be compatible with current configuration M142 launcher platform and organic resupply systems.

· Security: The Solution must be physically handled as unclassified.

2.4 High-Level Performance Objectives

Objectives are desired performance, which are not interchangeable with thresholds (see Section 4.2). Objectives will be used as discriminators between Performers who meet thresholds. These objectives will cover all phases, evaluations, and down-selections.

1. Objective 1: Solution maximum range greater than or equal to 1,000km

2. Objective 2: Solution minimum range of less than or equal to 300km

3. Objective 3: Solution will integrate a Range Commander’s Council (RCC)-319 qualified Telemetry / Flight Termination System (TM/FTS) and warhead for operating on flight test ranges.

4. Objective 4: Solution will be compatible with current configuration Enclosure Assembly Launch Pod (EALP) dimensions: Length: 158 inches, Width: 42 inches, and Height: 28.2 inches without skid feet. Maximum pod weight: 5,200 pounds in transportation configuration.

5. Objective 5: Solution will be capable of receiving in-flight target updates post launch.

6. Objective 6: Solution will include insensitive munition and fuse safety compliance Reference Military Standard (MIL-STD)-2105, MIL-STD-1316F, Joint Ordnance Test Procedure (JOTP)-051, MIL-STD-331, JOTP-52, JOTP-53, MIL-STD-2105, and Technical Bulletin 700-2, and Standardization Agreement 4170.

7. Objective 7: Solution will include seeker technology sufficient for engagement of moving maritime and relocatable land targets at ranges between 300km (minimum) and 1,000 km or greater.

2.5 Classified Scenario and Simulation

· Performers will be evaluated based on effects on targets from a modeled simulation of a classified scenario

· Performers will utilize the scenario and target book presented at Industry Day and mailed to Industry Day attendees

· Note: Scenario and target book will not be mailed to any performer that did not attend Industry Day

· Performers will be provided a technical data sheet with solutions briefs that will inform a USG simulation. Technical data sheets will be returned to the USG with the solution brief submission. The USG requires performers to submit simulation data throughout Phase 1 to continuously inform and improve USG simulation and assessment.

3. ACQUISITION STRATEGY & PHASED APPROACH

This RFS covers the phases as denoted in the table below. Progression to each subsequent phase is contingent upon successful completion of the phase and USG down-selection. A phase is successfully completed upon USG written determination that the Performer meets all phase exit criteria as documented in the phase-specific statement of work listed in Section 5. In addition to successful completion, best value down-selection evaluations will take place in accordance with the criteria listed in Section 7. Successful completion does not guarantee advancement to the next phase. The USG reserves the right to select the highest evaluated Performers in the next subsequent phase if no Performer successfully completes all phase exit criteria.

The USG will consider solutions that utilize an iterative prototyping methodology. Iterative prototyping is a development methodology where a prototype is created, tested, and refined through multiple cycles, incorporating user feedback and improvements in each iteration ensuring the final product meets user requirements and expectations. Award of an Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreement for a prototype against this Request for Solution shall allow for an iterative prototyping process.

An iterative prototyping process will allow the USG to modify, by mutual agreement, the scope of a prototype OTA to allow for the adaptation and modification of the technology being prototyped to meet additional unique and discrete purposes/mission sets. The sequential prototype iterations may result in separate phased prototype awards rather than a modification of the original prototype award. These additional unique and discrete purposes/mission sets can be generated by the USG.

3.1 Acquisition Milestones

The Period of Performance for the prototype OTA is 36 months.

During Phase 0, solution briefs will be used to identify and down-select performers for a Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP). The RPP will be used to negotiate and award Phase I Prototype OTA and Phase I Option agreements (and potentially subsequent phases via down-select). The initial RPP will cover Phase I through Phase I Option (Competitive Fly-off #2) activities. The price for Phase I through Competitive Fly-off #2 will be negotiated prior to the initial award. Costs for competitive Fly-off #2 will be awarded as an unexercised priced option. There is no guarantee that solutions selected for award will have any priced option exercised. Selection from solutions briefs to RPP does not guarantee a Phase I award.

The RPP for Phase II will be released during the performance of the Phase I Option. The Request for Proposal for Phase III will be released during the performance of Phase II.

The USG reserves the right to down-select, reduce quantity of performer awards, or increase quantity of performer awards at each phase. Neither this request for solutions nor selection for request for prototype proposal obligates the USG to make an award, nor does it obligate any USG funds. Awards and down-selects are subject to the availability of funds and successful negotiations.4. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)

· The solution shall employ a modular open systems approach. MOSA is mandatory to comply with 10 U.S.C. §§ 4401–4403 and enable competition, upgradeability, and sustainment.

· Severability: The solution architecture shall consist of individual modules that can be isolated, removed, replaced, or upgraded independently without adversely impacting the functionality of unrelated system elements. External interfaces and major sub-component interfaces shall use non-proprietary or USG-controlled mechanical, electrical, and software interfaces. The solution’s interface control drawing/documents (ICD) shall include mechanical, electrical, and software interfaces to allow for future performance growth. The USG shall concur with the MOSA technical approach during Phase I.

· Data Rights: The Government desires Government Purpose Rights (GPR) in all: technical data defining Major System Interfaces (MSIs); module-level integration documentation; test data generated under this effort; and technical data and computer software necessary to enable competitive procurement of any deliverable module. The Government desires Unlimited Rights in the following: interface definitions; Form, Fit, Function Data; and Operations, Maintenance, Installation, & Training Data.

· 4.2 Performance Requirements The prototype must meet the following minimum thresholds to proceed to Phase II Qualification:

· Threshold 1 (M142 Launcher Platform Compatibility): Solution shall be compatible with a M142 launcher platform and organic resupply system. The performer shall provide detailed information on how M142 launcher platform and resupply compatibility is achieved including, but not limited to, the missile pod width, length, height, and weight.

· Threshold 2 (Unload / Reload): Solution shall allow for safe loading and unloading in all conditions (full, partial, empty) from the M142 launcher platform and organic resupply system.

· Threshold 3 (M142 Launcher Platform Interfaces): Solution shall interface with the Universal Fire Control System (UFCS), Common Fire Control System (CFCS), and the M142 launcher platform mechanical and electrical interfaces.

· Threshold 4 (Safety): Solution shall be safe for flight test including, but not limited to, delivery of surface danger zone documentation and range safety check compliance.

· Threshold 5 (Launch Angle): Solution launch angle shall be greater than or equal to 302 mils and less than or equal to 1,067 mils.

· Threshold 6 (non-stationary): Solution shall be capable of launching from a non-stationary platform (anchored maritime platform).

· Threshold 7 (Effectiveness): Solution shall neutralize or destroy moving maritime and relocatable land targets.

· Threshold 8 (Block Upgrades): Solution design shall enable future block upgrades.

· Threshold 9 (TM/FTS): Solution shall be capable of integrating an RCC-319 qualified Telemetry / Flight Termination System (TM/FTS) for operating on flight test ranges.

· Threshold 10 (Environment): Solution shall be operable in the INDO-Pacific (PACOM) Area of Operations (AOR) consistent with the supplied operational scenario.

· Threshold 11 (Ejecta): Solution ejecta shall fall forward of the forward line of troops (FLOT) and the impact location shall be predictable.

4.3 Schedule

Fly-Off #1 Test Readiness Review

4QFY27

Fly-Off #2 Test Readiness Review

4QFY28

5. SCOPE OF WORK BY PHASE

5.1 Phase I: Prototype Design Development and Demonstration

· Goal: Design, develop, and demonstrate a solution to inform a potential Phase I Option I or Phase II down-select.

· Deliverables:

1) Open System Management Plan

2) Preliminary ICDs

3) Risk Assessment to include Risk Matrix

4) High Fidelity 6-Degree of Freedom Simulation of the Solution

5) Design Review Package

6) Prototype Seeker hardware for use in USG hardware in the loop testing

7) Component and Subsystem Design Validation Test Reports

8) Warhead Arena Test Report

9) Performer-led Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

10) Performer-led Technical Readiness Assessment

11) Range Safety Approval Documentation

12) Fly Off #1 Report and Results

13) Draft Program Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)in accordance with Section 6.7.1

14) Test Readiness Review documentation

15) Consumable assets

· Exit Criteria:

1) USG reviewed open systems management plan

2) USG reviewed ICD draft

3) USG reviewed Risk Matrix

4) Appropriate approvals in place to conduct test at designated flight test facility

5) Solution Demonstrated in Fly Off #1

6) System Simulation informed by fly off results support USG assessment of Solution performance against Thresholds

7) All design review critical actions closed

8) Fly off demonstration test report provided to the USG

5.2 Phase I Option: Prototype Demonstration (Fly Off #2)

· Goal: Continue to mature functionally full system prototype demonstrated during Phase I fly-off for additional system demonstration of Technology Readiness Level 6 in a controlled test environment to inform down-select for Phase II.

· Deliverables:

1) Physical full system prototype

2) Fly Off #2 Report and Results

3) Updated system simulation based on Fly Off #1 for validation in Fly Off #2

4) Level 2 Technical Data Package

5) Finalized ICD

6) Unit Cost ROM

7) Design Review Package

8) Test Readiness Review documentation

9) Consumable asset

· Exit Criteria:

1) USG verification that prototype demonstrates minimum threshold performance as defined in Section 4.2 under controlled test conditions

2) System simulation, informed by fly offs, supports USG assessment of solutions performance against thresholds

3) Updated and approved performer-led Manufacturing Readiness Assessment completed

4) All design review critical actions closed

5.3 Phase II: Qualification

· Goal: USG verification of advanced production readiness of the prototype solution and system qualification completion.

· Deliverables:

1) Qualification Test Plans and Reports

2) Updated TDP

3) USG-led Manufacturing Readiness Assessment to include high volume production repeatability analysis

4) Production Readiness Review

5) Flexfile cost reporting IAW DOD Manual 5000.04, Cost & Software Data Reporting

· Exit Criteria:

1) USG verification that prototype meets all performance thresholds in operationally relevant environments

2) USG verification that prototype meets minimum standards for fielding IAW AR 770-3 (Type Classification and Materiel Release)

3) Meets definition of successful prototype in the OTA (ref Section 8)

4) Successful USG-led Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

5) High volume production repeatability analysis

5.4 Phase III: Production (This will be a new award)

· Goal: Production of fieldable assets

· Deliverables:

1) Level 3 Technical Data Package to include final ICDs

2) Training documents

3) Physical Configuration Audit / Functional Configuration Audit

4) Safety documentation

5) Suitability documentation

6) Supportability documentation

7) Fieldable assets

· Exit Criteria: Not applicable.

6. PROPOSAL (SOLUTIONS BRIEF) INSTRUCTIONS

Interested parties should electronically submit a Solution Brief (maximum of 15 pages) in searchable.pdf format with 12 point Times New Roman font and 1” margins to Anthony Ambrosia, anthony.m.ambrosia.civ@army.mil, and Tiffanie Neal, tiffanie.a.neal.civ@army.mil, no later than 1700 CDT on 22 May 2026. Solutions brief should contain the following:

6.1 Technical Narrative: Description of the proposed solution and how it meets the capability gap within the proposed program schedule and associated risks.

6.2 MOSA Strategy: A detailed mapping of module boundaries and the specific open standards used for interfaces.

6.3 Data Rights Assertion: Explicitly identify any proprietary components and confirm data rights as defined in Section 4.1. Not included in page count.

6.4 Organization Conflict of Interest (OCI): Identify any potential or actual conflicts of interest and submit a brief OCI mitigation plan. The USG intends to utilize the results of Phase I to inform Phase II-III requirements; however, the USG’s modularity requirements are intended to mitigate potential OCIs by ensuring an open competitive environment for all modules. Not included in page count.

6.5 Performer Eligibility Statement: The Proposer certifies eligibility for award under 10 U.S.C. § 4022 via the pathways in the attachment provided. Not included in page count.

6.6 Technical Data Sheet: Complete attachment with information required to evaluate effectiveness of the proposed solution. Provide single best solution. Further technical data may be provided during performance as solution matures. Not included in page count.

6.7 ROM: A high-level cost estimate for the entire lifecycle as detailed below. Not included in page count.

6.7.1 ROM Instructions

The performer shall provide a non-binding ROM estimate for the full program lifecycle including forecasted production unit cost across the requested quantities. The performer shall submit their investment profile for the solution. Investment profiles for the solution are defined as follows: cost sharing for this effort starting with Phase I award (4QFY26), not previous investments, nor “in-kind” swaps. This data will be used for program planning and to evaluate the "price-to-capability" ratio of the proposed solution.

While the ROM for Phase I should be high-fidelity, the ROM for Phases II–III may be based on reasonable engineering estimates and assumptions. All assumptions influencing the estimate must be clearly documented as described in Section 6.7.2.

Phase I: Prototype Design, Development, and Demonstration

Phase I Option: Prototype Demonstration

Phase II: Qualification

Phase III: Production

Estimated Unit Price @ 100 units

Estimated Unit Price @ 500 units

Estimated Unit Price @ 1000 units

Operations & Sustainment

6.7.2 Critical Assumptions and Dependencies

The performer shall explicitly list all assumptions made when developing the ROM. Failure to address assumptions may result in the proposal being considered incomplete.

At a minimum, this section must detail:

1. USG Dependencies: A comprehensive list of all assumed Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), Government Furnished Information (GFI), and Government Furnished Property (GFP) required for each phase.

2. Data Rights: A clear description of the intellectual property and data rights strategy the ROM is based on (e.g., GPR, Unlimited Rights, or other).

3. Production Scope: Clarification of what is included in the "Phase III: Production" cost beyond the per-unit price, such as non-recurring engineering (NRE), tooling, or other setup costs.

4. Other Major Assumptions: Any other significant factors that could impact the ROM, such as technology maturity, reliance on third-party vendors, or expected inflation rates.

7. EVALUATION & DOWN-SELECTION CRITERIA

7.1 Evaluation Ratings

The USG will utilize the following "Confidence Levels" during the evaluation in Section 7.2 :

7.2 Solutions Brief Evaluation Criteria for Selection (Initial Award for entry to Flyoff #1) The USG will evaluate initial Solution Briefs based on four weighted factors:

· Factor 1 - Technical Merit & Innovation: Feasibility of the proposed approach to solve the problem statement.

· Likelihood of the proposed solution to provide the required capability as determined through qualitative and modeling/analysis including information provided in the datasheet submitted with the Solution Brief

· Creativity in achieving lethal effects on, and the target acquisition of, moving maritime and relocatable land targets at a range greater than or equal to 1,000km and launched from a M142 launcher platform.

· Factor 2 - Schedule: Consistency between the technical approach and timeline to achieve program goals.

· The technical approach described achieves the flight demonstration and production date targets of the program.

· Schedule risks are identified and appropriate mitigations are described.

· Factor 3 Price Reasonableness (ROM): Consistency between the technical approach and the ROM.

· Analysis of the costs associated with each phase

· Analysis of the performer’s investment profile

· Analysis of the projected Phase III unit production cost.

· Factor 4 - MOSA Compliance & Openness: The degree to which the architecture utilizes non-proprietary standards.

· The clarity of the "Severability Plan" (how easily can the USG replace a module?).

· Willingness to grant GPR for interfaces.

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4. When combined the non-price factors are significantly more important than the price reasonableness factor.

The USG reserves the right to down-select, reduce quantity of performer awards, or increase quantity of performer awards at each phase. Neither this request for solutions nor selection for request for prototype proposal obligates the USG to make an award, nor does it obligate any USG funds. Awards and down-selects are subject to the availability of funds and successful negotiations.

Section 7.2 Solutions Brief Evaluation Criteria is for the Solutions Brief only.

Annex 5 – Fly-Off evaluation Criteria is strictly for the Fly-offs. These evaluation criteria will not be used for evaluation of Solutions Briefs. This annex is notional criteria subject to change, but represent the USG’s current intent.

7.3 Note to Performers

The USG reserves the right to down-select, reduce quantity of performer awards, or increase quantity of performer awards at each phase. The USG may conduct oral presentations or technical exchanges prior to down-selection at all phases. The USG reserves the right to terminate any effort in any phase, in whole or in part, at any time.

8 ADMINISTRATIVE

8.1 Non-Government Advisors.

Non-Government advisors may be used in support of the evaluation of Solution Briefs and during the RPP procedures. Non-Government advisors will have signed non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with the USG. The performer understands that the USG may share proprietary performer information with non-Government personnel for evaluation and administrative purposes only. The performer therefore waives any and all claims against the USG for any disclosures of proprietary information by the non-Government personnel. The USG understands that information provided in response to this solicitation is presented in confidence and may contain trade secret or commercial or financial information, and it agrees to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure to the maximum extent permitted or required by Law, to include: a. 18 U.S.C. 1905 (Trade Secrets Act); b. 18 U.S.C. 1831 et seq. (Economic Espionage Act); c. 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (Freedom of Information Act); d. Executive Order 12600 (Pre-disclosure Notification Procedures for Confidential Commercial Information); and, e. Any other statute, regulation, or requirement applicable to USG employees. Performers shall label any information they want protected as confidential. Submissions will not be returned. The original copy of each submission received will be retained by the Army and all other non-required copies destroyed.

Performers are advised that employees of the firms identified below may serve as non-Government advisors in reviewing and evaluating solutions briefs. These individuals will be authorized access only to those portions of the solutions briefs and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on this acquisition.

· INTUITIVE Research and Technology Corporation

· Systems, Studies, and Simulations (S3), Incorporated

· NTA, Inc.

· Monte Sano Research Corporation

8.2 Successful Completion of Prototype

A prototype is complete upon the written determination of the appropriate approving official (program manager and AO) for the matter in question that the efforts conducted under a prototype OTA: (1) met the key thresholds listed above (ref para 4.2); (2) demonstrated a favorable flight test during Fly Off #1 or #2 as graded by the USG against the stated objectives above (ref 2.4); or (3) accomplished a particularly favorable or unexpected result that justifies the transition to a production contract or OTA. Furthermore, prior to successful completion of a prototype under this solicitation, the USG can transition any complete and substantive aspect of the prototype determined to provide utility into production, while remaining aspects of the prototype have yet to be completed. A prototype may be deemed successful after Fly Off #1 and moved straight into qualification and/or production if the results of the Fly Off #2are deemed satisfactory to the USG’s stated objectives.

8.3 Follow-on Production

After award of a prototype OTA, the USG and performer may negotiate a follow-on contract or OTA for production or solution integration with or without further competition. Any solution/concept successfully proven through a prototype OTA can be transitioned into a production award. A prototype may be deemed successful during any phase and move into follow-on production if the solution advances faster than the planning phases set out and has been deemed successfully completed as defined in 8.2. The USG reserves the right to award a follow-on award before the prototype is complete, under competitive procedures as provided in 10 U.S.C. 4022. The USG reserves the right to extend performance of all, some, or none of the selected solutions/concepts and will be made based on the availability of USG funds.

8.4 Awards

The Contracting/Agreements Officer reserves the right to negotiate directly with the performer on the terms and conditions prior to execution of the resulting award instrument, including payment terms, and will execute the instrument on behalf of the USG. All payment obligations of the USG shall be subject to receiving appropriations from Congress for the purpose, time, and amount of the obligation. Only a Contracting or Agreements Officer has the authority to enter into, or modify, a binding instrument on behalf of the USG. To be considered for an award, the following criteria must be met:

a. Performers shall have a Unique Entity ID (UEI) number and must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to receiving an instrument. If a performer does not possess a valid and active SAM registration, performers are advised to commence SAM registration upon receipt of an RPP. Performers are required to maintain registration in SAM throughout the period of performance of the instrument and during any subsequent follow-on award.

b. Performers shall also register in the prescribed USG invoicing system Wide Area Work Flow: https://wawf.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/registration/notice.xhtml.

c. Performers shall represent their business size and status as required in this solicitation.

d. Performers shall be determined to be responsible by the Contracting/Agreements Officer and must not be suspended or debarred from award by the Federal Government nor be prohibited by Presidential Executive Order and/or law from receiving an award.

e. Any actual or potential OCIs shall be identified to AO prior to award.

8.5 Annexes to RFS

1. Complete list of Q&A

2. Performer Eligibility Statement

3. Technical Data Request

4. Pod Weight/Size Assessment

5. Fly-Off Evaluation Criteria