Responses - Questions received after SPHS PD ID_v2.docx

DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

OPSEC #: 8128

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS:

Project Manager Self Propelled Howitzer Systems

PROGRAM: PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICE GROUND COMBAT SYSTEMS (PEO GCS); PROJECT MANAGER SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZER SYSTEMS (PM SPHS); PRODUCT MANAGER EXTENDED RANGE CANNON ARTILLERY (PDM ERCA)

SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED AFTER THE SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZER SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATION INDUSTRY DAY PRESENTATION

QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES:

This is the formal response to the questions received from potential industry partners on 15 April 2024 following the Self-Propelled Howitzer System (SPHS) Performance Demonstration Industry Day event. All vendor identifiers have been removed and the questions outlined below are in their as-received state.

1. Is there interest in integration of the SPHS with edge computer capabilities, include autonomous systems increasing target identification and solutions?

Response: The Industry Day and subsequent events supporting exploration of self-propelled howitzer systems are focused on acquiring complete systems – platforms and ammunition. At this point in time, PdM ERCA is not exploring integration of subsystem/component-level hardware. Integration opportunities on the current M109 fleet should be discussed with COL Freeman Bonnette (PM SPHS) and Mr. Branden Drake (PdD Paladin) for consideration.

2. RFI states, "Describe the minimum and maximum range..." Minimum and maximum per round type (standard vs guided) or just overall?

Response: The contractor may respond as they see fit. This is intended to be an initial data collection of the available system(s) capabilities. The United States Government (USG) suggests submitting minimum and maximum range data per round type if available.

3. What it [is] the input that the Government intends to assess in the 3QFY25 Competitive Evaluation? Will there be an RFP or RPP after the performance demonstration? If so, is there a target date associated with this solicitation release? What is the length of the competitive phase?

Response: The acquisition strategy is currently under development. As information becomes available, it will be released via SAM.gov.

4. Plan to onshore (US domestic) production within 2 years; Plan to field FY30. Is that First Unit Equipped (FUE) in FY30?

Response: Yes, the USG planning assumption is First Unit Equipped (FUE) in FY30 of the selected system out of the Competitive Evaluation.

5. Slide states, "Task Request Issuance ~24 May 2024." PDM ERCA stated, "RPP Release." Is the "Task Request Issuance" the same as the "RPP Release" mentioned by PDM ERCA during Industry Day?

Response: The USG plans to release a Task Request to execute the SPHS Performance Demonstration. The use of “Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP)” can be considered synonymous with “Task Request” in the context of the SPHS Performance Demonstration Industry Day event.

6. It is understood the US do not currently possess L52 155mm artillery technology, if so, why has the program RFI response been limited to US NAMC members? Wouldn’t this limit responses and reduce the capabilities available from the global market?

Response: Request for Information (RFI) responses are open to all industry partners. RFI responses are planned to be collected by the USG contracting team, not National Advanced Mobility Consortium (NAMC). The USG intends to utilize an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) through NAMC to execute the SPHS Performance Demonstration. To formally bid or propose on the OTA, NAMC membership is required. If NAMC membership is not possible, please provide an explanation in the RFI response to question 4.1.1 for USG consideration.

7. What level of automation are you looking for, and to what end?

Response: Automation-specific desired capabilities are currently under development and are not available for release at this time. In general, automation to increase rate of fire, reduce resupply timeline, and reduce Soldier burden are areas of interest.

8. Enlisting and retention of soldiers is a western problem and reduction in crew is becoming to be a global trend, what measures are you taking to ensure the increase in highly trained engineers are met to service complex systems?

Response: The USG continues to conduct analysis to better understand and posture the maintenance force to successfully execute necessary maintenance tasks. Depending on the support/serviceability requirements of the system, the USG will explore other support and maintenance options if the subject matter expertise is not expected to be available organically.

9. Based on the numerous feedbacks from the war in Ukraine on deployed Self Propelled Mobile Howitzers, would you consider the opportunity to take into account through a joint discussion the technical and tactical feedbacks we have received an plan to integrate in the upcoming versions of the Proposed System?

Response: The SPHS Performance Demonstration will observe the capabilities of mature and available, non-developmental, 155mm artillery systems.

10. It is understood fully automated systems require very long reloading times (10mins), they also often require bespoke resupply vehicles (ARV), what concessions are you willing to make to reduce this time & threat?

Response: The SPHS Performance Demonstration will observe the capabilities of mature and available complete material solution(s) offered by the contractor for 155mm self-propelled artillery, including, but not limited to, the Self-Propelled Howitzer firing platform, the resupply vehicle, propellant, projectiles, fuzes, and support equipment.

11. Remaining inconspicuous during ammunition transport & reloading has been paramount when taking into account the lessons learned during the Ukraine/Russia conflict (UAS threats). Would it be possible to hear your thoughts on the use of high value targets like resupply vehicles? Can we promote a simpler approach using a standard logistic vehicle?

Response: This topic is outside of the scope of the SPHS Performance Demonstration.

12. Could you outline what a contractual agreement could look like if foreign technologies were to be transferred to the US for manufacturing? What would be the associated licence model? Would the proposition of a technology brick be interesting for the program, notably a cannon ready for integration on a US vehicle?

Response: The acquisition strategy is currently under development. The USG intends to enable flexibility of the acquisition strategy to the greatest extent possible and will address this information in future discussions as the effort evolves.

13. It is unlikely the US will be conducting operations on US soil, what are the transportability requirements of the system? Is there a size/weight restriction allowing for quick deployment?

Response: System desired capabilities are currently under development and are not available for release at this time.

14. Attending the SPHS Performance Demonstration Event as soon as Summer 2024 in USA considering the short notice, the current events and engagements and due to international context is unreachable for an European based Provider; nevertheless, our systems & ammunition are in operation and combat proven. Would you consider travelling to Europe to partake in a demonstration during the considered period?

Response: The intent of the SPHS Performance Demonstration is to collect observations of mature and available system performance in specific operational scenarios at a USG demonstration site to standardize the environments across the vendors to the greatest extent possible. If the timeline to execute the Performance Demonstration at a USG demonstration site as proposed is deemed unfeasible, the USG is open to alternative options including overseas demonstrations. Expectation details of a demonstration performed at the vendor location would be discussed and finalized at the point in time when the current USG plan is deemed unfeasible. In general, the desire for a demonstration at a vendor location would be as similar to the USG scope as possible.

15. Referencing the plan to onshore US production within 2 years of award, and knowing that companies will need to work with US Army arsenals for the production of some items, such as cannon barrels, how will companies be assured that Intellectual Property (IP) will not be weakened through engineering changes over time, thereby pushing companies out of any licensing agreements?

Response: The acquisition strategy is currently under development. The USG will address this topic in future discussions as the effort evolves.

16. Knowing that there has been a significant increase in competition of legacy defense system production in the US Army, and recognizing the significant investment required of industry to establish in-country production, how many years, and at what production volumes, can industry assume secure production once awarded?

Response: The acquisition strategy is currently under development. The USG will address this information in future discussions as the effort evolves.

17. How will the US Army prevent or limit the implications of US ITAR regulations from complicating a company's ability to sell and market systems globally once fielded by the US Army?

Response: The acquisition strategy is currently under development. The USG will address this information in future discussions as the effort evolves.

18. Will the USG consider issuing a EUC before task request award for export and transit licensing?

Response: The USG will consider all viable options to support the execution of the SPHS Performance Demonstration including End User Certificates (EUC). Please include relevant content in the vendor’s response to questions 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

19. Will the USG allow the use of a NATO Form 302 for OCONUS system transit in order to prevent transit permit delays?

Responses: The USG will consider all viable options to support the execution of the SPHS Performance Demonstration including the use of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Form 302. Please include relevant content in the vendor’s response to questions 4.2.1 and 4.2.2.

20. Does the USG have concerns with procuring a foreign produced SPHS?

Response: In general, no. The acquisition strategy is currently under development. The USG will address this information in future discussions as the effort evolves.

21. Can USG use the System Safety Assessment from the FY-21 demonstration for the FY-24 demonstration?

Response: The System Safety Assessment content must match the system configuration presented during the SPHS Performance Demonstration.

22. Is the USG interested in witnessing a system’s ongoing overseas vendor testing prior to the Demonstration window?

Response: An overseas vendor demonstration is not required prior to conducting the Performance Demonstration state-side. If the timeline to execute the Performance Demonstration at a USG demonstration site as proposed is deemed unfeasible, the USG is open to alternative options including overseas demonstrations. Expectation details of a demonstration performed at the vendor location would be discussed and finalized at the point in time when the current USG plan is deemed unfeasible. In general, the desire for a demonstration at a vendor location would be as similar to the USG scope as possible.