RFI White Papers Terrain Shaping_ 20250813.docx

Request for Information - Terrain Shaping Capability

THIS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS IS NOT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO BE SUBMITTED. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SOLICITATION AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A COMMITMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT. RESPONSES IN ANY FORM ARE NOT OFFERS AND THE GOVERNMENT IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT AS A RESULT OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 52.215-3 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION OR SOLICITATION FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PAY FOR ANY COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF THIS SPECIAL NOTICE. ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THIS SPECIAL NOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT NO COST OR OBLIGATION BY THE GOVERNMENT. ANY INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS TO THIS NOTICE IS STRICTLY VOLUNTARY AND ANY DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE RETURNED.

INTRODUCTION

The United States (U.S.) Army Contracting Command-New Jersey, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000, is issuing this RFI to support a bilateral Project Arrangement between the U.S. and the United Kingdom (UK) to develop a terrain shaping (TS) capability and is intended to conduct external market research to identify potential sources interested in providing information on current and emerging technologies.

The Army is seeking an innovative solution to provide readiness and lethality to the warfighter in an agile, incremental capability-based approach by accelerating innovation that aligns with the Army’s Deliberate Transformation and Concept-Driven Transformation time horizons.

An Integrated Systems Engineering Decision Management process will be used to review white paper responses to this RFI. This approach enables the Army to systematically identify, analyze, and evaluate innovative and emerging TS technologies for rapid fielding opportunities and future investment.

PURPOSE

The Army is seeking an innovative, modular TS capability to autonomously deliver, emplace, and recover network-enabled obstacles across the area of operations.

Ground forces at the Brigade Combat Team level and below, use tactical obstacles during combat operations. For defense, tactical obstacles in depth disrupt enemy attack formations, canalize the enemy into engagement areas and slow enemy forces enabling lethal overmatch by friendly forces. During offense, tactical obstacles isolate objectives and prevent the enemy from repositioning, reinforcing, or counterattacking and provide an integrated economy-of-force by providing flank security. A TS system provides this critical directed obstacle capability to friendly forces allowing development of engagement areas, especially for deliberate defenses.

The purpose of this RFI is to solicit insights into current and emerging technologies that support the delivery of this capability and contribute to the development of Army TS requirements. To accelerate fielding and minimize risks and costs, the system will leverage existing Army infrastructure and capabilities, including Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) platforms, Robotic Ground Vehicles, and Unmanned Aerial Systems.

The Government will use the results of this RFI to inform Army TS requirements to support production by 2030. This RFI is intended to encourage innovation by the industry partner while promoting competition and collaboration opportunities to provide an end-to-end solution that is interoperable with existing and emerging Army systems. This includes but is not limited to the ability to remotely manage friendly maneuverability (safe passage) through deployed obstacles and ensure friendly maneuverability and logistical support while preserving the obstacle field’s effectiveness. To reduce life-cycle costs, the system must be recoverable, except for attritable or expended/deployed munitions.

INFORMATION REQUESTED

Industry partners are requested to submit white papers that describe a System of Systems (SoS) TS capability, or one or more subsystem capabilities as listed below:

1. Autonomous Emplacement and Recovery

2. Obstacle Effectiveness

3. Beyond Line of Site (BLOS) and LOS Obstacle Command and Control (C2)

4. Obstacle Planning

Capability 1. Autonomous Emplacement and Recovery

The Government is seeking the capability to autonomously deliver, emplace, and recover TS obstacle components within LOS, or BLOS. The Government will prioritize fully autonomous capabilities but will consider semi-autonomous capabilities if accompanied by a technology development plan to achieve full autonomy. The overall TS system weight is a consideration since hand-emplacement/recovery might be necessary in a contested environment. Autonomous delivery with navigation and collision avoidance is expected to be inherent in the delivery platform for an all-in-one solution. The autonomous features of interest for a TS capability are the emplacement and recovery of the obstacle components per the obstacle plan and/or recovery report. Items for consideration may include but are not limited to the following: assessing terrain suitability at planned location, selecting and maneuvering to a new location if planned location is unsuitable, report adjusted location, refocus on obstacle location, emplacing components from delivery platform, and recovering obstacle components.

Capability 2. Obstacle Effectiveness

The Government is seeking the capability to create rapidly deployable, networked obstacle fields capable of providing the obstacle effects to autonomously engage and disable enemy vehicles such as Main Battle Tank, Light/Heavy Tracked and Light/Heavy Wheeled within the obstacle area for close and deep terrain. Obstacle field elements will include kinetic effects such as deployable modular payloads and/or non-kinetic capabilities such as electronic warfare to further disrupt and canalize enemy movement.

The concept of operations of effectors should include the target acquisition sequence, encompassing detection and identification, acquisition/tracking, fire solution calculation, and the lethal mechanism. The system shall engage enemy vehicles with a standoff (does not exclude bottom attack solutions) that inflicts either a loss of mobility, or loss of firepower functionality when employed with one or more field elements.

The obstacle elements must be remotely controllable via a C2 capability that enhances battlefield agility, resilience, and intuitive operation, and must enable functions such as autonomous remote detonation, self-destruct sequences, location and status reporting, engagement notifications, and the functionality to allow freedom of maneuver for friendly forces. The components must have a battery life sufficient to support at least 30 days standby and 15 days active for a total of 45 days combined active and standby operation in the field.

Capability 3. Obstacle C2 The Government is seeking a C2 capability to control multiple TS obstacles both BLOS and LOS from a single Sensitive But Unclassified-Encrypted C2 controller, operable from mounted and/or dismounted positions. This C2 capability should leverage existing Army hardware and infrastructure (C2 Cross Functional Team for Next Generation C2) and facilitate seamless handover between controllers during operations. Key capabilities enable maintaining friendly freedom of maneuver, ensuring safe obstacle field for maintenance/sustainment tasks (e.g., battery replacement) and recovery, and establishing reliable communications (e.g., messages include target alerts, status updates, engagement notifications, confirmation of obstacle control to another control station, and transmit information between the Common Operating Picture).

Capability 4. Obstacle Planning

The Government is seeking the capability to plan obstacle operations from dismounted, vehicle mounted, and command post positions. The information from the obstacle planner may be transferred (transmitted) to support delivery, emplacement, recovery, and C2 operations.

RESPONSE INSTRUCTIONS

Please provide a determination as to whether the information contained in this white paper is subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), or other export control regulations. If ITAR-controlled, please identify the relevant United States Munitions List category(ies). If EAR-controlled, please provide the Export Control Classification Number. This RFI is in collaboration with the UK and requires this information to assess releasability. The UK will participate in the review of all RFI responses in an advisory capacity only.

If the system cannot provide all the capabilities listed in this RFI, the white paper must clearly indicate which capabilities are being addressed, including identifying key interfaces and intended integration into a SoS solution. The white paper must include background on vendor capabilities and experience, a description of their technical approach to provide the identified capabilities, technical risks with mitigation plans, past performance on related capabilities, approach to develop a SoS with industry partners (if applicable), and market insights and participation in relevant events. The white paper shall not be longer than 10 pages plus a cover page. Finally, the white paper must provide Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) and Integration Readiness Levels (IRL) for the proposed capabilities. Please see the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Technology Readiness Assessment Guidebook, June 2023, and IRL reference “Beyond Integration Readiness Level: A Multidimensional Framework to Facilitate the Integration of System of Systems”, Table 1, Defense ARJ, July 2017, Vol 24 No. 3: 488-533.

The content and format for submissions is outlined below. All submissions shall be in either Microsoft Word or searchable Portable Document Format. In addition to the title page, which must contain company name and submittal title at a minimum, submittal length must be no more than the following: Sections 1 and 2 up to seven pages, Sections 3 through 5 up to three pages.

1. Background (Company and technical background):

a. Company overview

b. Company size

c. Relevant experience

d. Key differentiators: What makes you different from other vendors?

2. Technical Approach (Supporting material shall include, but not be limited to):

a. Performance date (i.e. lethality performance)

b. Summarize system effectiveness

c. Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning integration

d. Supporting data for the technical approach (i.e. lethality performance)

(1) Operational C2 Range in meters

(2) Terrain limitations

(3) Anticipated obstacle effectiveness (100% mobility loss within x meters, % of engagements resulting in fire power loss)

(4) Duration of active and stand-by states in days without battery change; provide best combination of active and stand-by that results in the longest employment duration.

(5) Time to deliver to the obstacle location (for all-in-one ground solutions) and time to emplace the obstacle elements (for ground solutions); time to deliver effects to target (for aerial solutions)

(6) Time to recover recoverable items

e. Current TRL assessment and basis (per component/technology and SoS if applicable)

f. Future TRL assessment with technology development plan

g. Current IRL and basis (per component/technology and SoS if appliable)

h. Future IRL assessment with technology development plan

i. Key interfaces

j. Enabling technology

3. Risks and Mitigation Plan

a. Risks (i.e. cybersecurity, technical, environmental, supply chain, obsolescence, human factors):

(1) Potential failure modes for key technologies/components (i.e. overheating, signal interference)

(2) Estimated Probability of Occurrence

(3) Severity of Impact of each failure mode

(a) Assess impact on system performance, mission effectiveness, safety

b. Mitigation Plan for each risk

(1) Proposed Mitigation Strategy (i.e. redundancy, fault tolerance, improved testing, alternative materials, design changes)

(2) Proposed Mitigation Implementation Plan – timeline and resource allocation plan for implementing the mitigation strategy

(3) Cost and Schedule impact of implementing the mitigation plan (assesses trade-offs)

4. Path to SoS

a. Schedule (current status through TRL 8): Clearly identify each capability and note dependencies that might negatively impact your capability’s schedule

b. Technical Approach and work required to get to TRL 8

(1) Identify who will be an integrator and sub-vendor

(2) Identify concept’s key interfaces and standards

(3) Identify enabling technologies

c. Projected Lifecycle Cost (development, manufacturing, operations, and sustainment)

5. Past Investment /Defense Contracts

a. Brief description of similar projects/clients; including strategic partnerships

b. Past performance for relevant capabilities (i.e. DoD/ International Defense Contracts/other demonstrations or test events, prior work experience, joint ventures, etc.)

c. Contract Number (if applicable) and Service Component

(a) Brief description of project; include the project name if applicable and strategic partnerships

Respondents shall not be obligated to provide the services described herein and it is understood by the U.S. Government that the cost estimates provided because of this request are “best” estimates only.

Interested parties must submit a response no later than 45 days from the posting of this announcement to be considered in the development of acquisition strategy for these items. All responses to this RFI shall be submitted via email to solongo.oyunjamts.civ@army.mil and yolie.m.davila.civ@army.mil.