RFP-ACT-SACT-26-16-Part-C.pdf

NATO UNCLASSIFIED

RFP-ACT-SACT-26-16 Part C

Request for Proposal

RFP-ACT-SACT-26-16

Part C

Force Lethality Enhancement eXtended (FLEX) Modelling and Simulation Study http://www.act.nato.int/

Contents

BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS

1. General

2. Classification

3. Definitions

4. Eligibility

5. Duration of Contract

6. Exemption of Taxes

7. Amendment or Cancellation

8. Bidder Clarifications

9. Bid Closing Date

10. Bid Validity

11. Content of Proposal

12. Proposal Submission

13. Late Proposals

14. Bid Withdrawal

15. Bid Evaluation

16. Proposal Clarifications

17. Award

18. Surge Capability:

19. Disputes

20. Proposed Candidates

21. Communications

22. Points of Contact

Enclosure 1: Proposal Content / Checklist

Enclosure 2: Compliance Statement

Enclosure 3: Past Performance Information Form

Enclosure 4 – Mandatory Price Proposal Excel Spreadsheet

ANNEX A: STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

Technology-enabled Combat Support/Combat Service Support - Mobility and Gap

Crossing in Contested Environment

Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA): Concepts of Employment, Priority Use-Cases, and Open NATO Autonomy Reference Architecture for Smaller NATO Nations

ANNEX B RFP-ACT-SACT-26-16 Part C

Compliance Matrix

BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS

1. General

a. This is a Firm Fixed Price Deliverables contract in accordance with HQ SACT General Terms and Conditions.

b. HQ SACT General Terms and Conditions Dated 15 January 2026 are applicable to this procurement and can be located on the ACT Website at;

WWW.ACT.NATO.INT/CONTRACTING under Contractor Information.

c. Contract Award is contingent upon funding availability. Partial bidding is allowed. Partial bidding is defined as a full and complete bid on one or both of the two research topics contained in Annex A. Each research topic may be evaluated and awarded separately in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in this RFP.

2. Classification

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is a NATO UNCLASSIFIED document.

3. Definitions

a. The “Prospective Bidder” shall refer to the entity that has indicated thereon its intention without commitment, to participate in this RFP.

b. The term “Bidder” shall refer to the bidding entity that has completed a bid in response to this RFP.

c. The term “Contractor” shall refer to the bidding entity to whom the contract(s) is awarded.

d. The term “Contracting Officer” designates the official who executes this RFP on behalf of HQ SACT.

e. “Contracting Officer's Technical Representative” or “COTR” is the official who is appointed for the purpose of determining compliance of the successful bid, per the technical specifications.

f. The term “HQ SACT” shall refer to Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander

Transformation.

g. The term “ACT” shall refer to Allied Command Transformation.

h. The term “NATO” shall refer to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

i. The term “days” as used in this RFP shall, unless otherwise stated, be http://www.act.nato.int/CONTRACTING interpreted as meaning calendar days.

4. Eligibility

a. This RFP is open to governmental or commercial entities:

1) Established in a North Atlantic Treaty Organization Alliance member nation.

2) Working in the required field of study and legally authorized to operate in the country and countries in which this contract is to be performed, at the time of bidding. Has performed the desired past performance including size, cost and scope, as described in this RFP.

3) All proposed key personnel identified to work on this requirement must be citizens of a NATO member nation.

5. Duration of Contract

a. The contract awarded shall be effective upon date of award.

b. Period of Performance: Contract award, on or about 18 September 2026, through

15 February 2027. Periods of performance for individual research topics are separately identified in Annex A.

6. Exemption of Taxes

In accordance with the agreements (Article VIII of the Paris Protocol dated, 28 August

1952) goods and services under this contract are exempt from taxes, duties and similar charges.

7. Amendment or Cancellation

a. HQ SACT reserves the right to amend or delete any one or more of the terms, conditions or provisions of the RFP prior to the date set for bid closing. A solicitation amendment or amendments shall announce such action.

b. HQ SACT reserves the right to cancel, at any time, this RFP either partially or in its entirety. No legal liability on the part of HQ SACT shall be considered for recovery of costs in connection with bid preparation. All efforts undertaken by any bidder shall be made considering and accepting that no costs shall be recovered from HQ SACT. If this RFP is cancelled, any/all received bids shall be returned unopened, per the bidder’s request.

8. Bidder Clarifications

a. Prospective Bidders should seek clarification at their earliest convenience. Any explanation regarding the meaning or interpretation of this RFP, terms, clause, provision or specifications, shall be requested in writing, from the Contracting

Officer. All Contracting Officers listed on this RFP must receive such requests via email for clarification no later than 21 August 2026.

b. In lieu of a bidder’s conference, HQ SACT invites bidders to submit technical and contractual questions not later than 21 August 2026.

c. Information in response to all inquiries / requests for clarification to a prospective bidder shall be furnished to all prospective bidders at the following link:

http://www.act.nato.int/contracting as a Question-and-Answer addendum. All such addendums and any necessary solicitation amendments shall be incorporated into this RFP. Verbal Interpretations shall not be binding.

9. Bid Closing Date

Bids shall be received at HQ SACT, Purchasing and Contracting Office, no later than 10 September 2026, 0900 hours, Norfolk, Virginia local time (Eastern Time).

No bids shall be accepted after this date and time. No hard copy proposals will be accepted. Please see Proposal Submission (paragraph 12) for more details.

10. Bid Validity

a. Bids shall remain valid for a period of one hundred and twenty days (120) from the applicable closing date set forth within this RFP. HQ SACT reserves the right to request an extension of validity. Bidder shall be entitled to either grant or deny this extension of validity. HQ SACT shall automatically consider a denial to extend the validity as a withdrawal of the bid.

b. Bidders shall certify that the technical substance, analysis, methodology, assumptions, and proposed approach submitted in response to this RFP were developed by the bidder and its proposed team and were not generated or materially prepared by generative artificial-intelligence tools. Administrative use of standard software tools for formatting, spell-checking, grammar correction, document conversion, or similar non-substantive support does not relieve the bidder of full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of its proposal. HQ SACT reserves the right to seek clarification or additional substantiation where proposal content raises concerns regarding authenticity, authorship, or compliance with this requirement.

11. Content of Proposal

The proposal shall consist of two (2) separate documents (Technical / Price), submitted via e-mail as instructed below. No hard copy proposals will be accepted.

The e-mailed documents shall be received no later than 10 September 2026, 0900 hours, Norfolk, Virginia local time (Eastern Time).

The company description portion of its technical proposal shall be limited to

10 pages.

a. Technical Proposal shall be a Signed PDF document and contain:

http://www.act.nato.int/contracting

1) A table of contents for the entire proposal (See Enclosure #1):

2) The bidder’s full name, address, Points of Contact, Telephone, E-mail; Internet site.

3) Compliance statement (See Enclosure#2).

4) Past performance (See Enclosure #3).

5) List of key personnel to produce deliverables.

6) Company description and supplementary relevant information; and

7) Compliance matrix (See Annex B to Statement of Work).

b. Price Proposal shall be

1) Submitted in U.S. Dollar Currency. Contractor may request payment post award in alternate currency based on agreed conversion rate.

2) Prices shall be on a Firm Fixed Price basis, include any relevant discount schedule, and identify separately the cost associated with any required travel. Do not include estimated travel costs as part of the overall bid proposal. Travel will be assessed separately after award for fair and reasonable pricing and will not form part of the award decision to ensure fairness to industry from all NATO member nations.

12. Proposal Submission

a. Proposals shall be separate e-mail submissions to:

Technical proposal: hqsact.techproposal@nato.int

Price proposal: hqsact.priceproposal@nato.int

b. E-mail subjects shall include the solicitation information and company name, for example: RFP-ACT-SACT-26-16C_Tech_ABC

Inc. / RFP-ACT-SACT-26-16C_Price_ABC Inc. Bidders should allow sufficient time to transmit their submissions in the event of e-mail size limitations or other transmission challenges.

c. No verbal bids or verbal modifications or telephonic bids shall be considered.

d. It is the ultimate responsibility of a prospective bidder prior to submission that all proposal submissions are reviewed to ensure they mailto:hqsact.techproposal@nato.int mailto:hqsact.priceproposal@nato.int meet the technical, contractual and administrative specifications and that offers meet the limitations and expressed conditions.

13. Late Proposals

a. It is solely the bidder`s responsibility that every effort is made to ensure that the proposal reaches HQ SACT prior to the established closing date and time. No late bids shall be considered.

b. A delay in an e-mail exchange due to server or size restrictions does not constitute a delay by NATO.

14. Bid Withdrawal

A bidder may withdraw their bid up to the date and time specified for bid closing. Such a withdrawal must be completed in writing with attention to the HQ SACT Contracting Officer.

A bid withdrawal will be announced in the Contract Award Report.

15. Bid Evaluation

a. The evaluation of bids and determination as to the responsiveness and technical adequacy or technical compliance, of the products or services requested, shall be the responsibility of HQ SACT. Such determinations shall be consistent with the evaluation criteria specified in the RFP. HQ SACT is not responsible for any content that is not clearly identified in any proposal package.

b. HQ SACT reserves the right to conduct pre-award discussions with proposed key personnel to accurately assess identified technical competencies. Discussions will be limited to the scope of this RFP and the evaluation criteria identified.

c. Proposals shall be evaluated and awarded taking into consideration the following factors:

1) Successful administrative submission of bid packages as requested in paragraph 11 and as listed in this RFP.

2) Successful determination of compliance on mandatory criteria. (Compliant/non-compliant).

3) For each SOW bid, whether the bid addresses all the research questions specified in the SOW;

includes all required outputs and deliverables; and is delivered on or before the conclusion of the period of performance.

4) Technical factors / pricing factors rated as follows: Technical / Price = 70/30

(Best Value).

5) Technical clarifications as determined may be conducted.

6) Acceptance of HQ SACT General Terms and Conditions.

16. Proposal Clarifications

During the entire evaluation process HQ SACT reserves the right to discuss any bid, clarify what is offered and interpret language within the bid to resolve any potential areas of concern.

17. Award

a. HQ SACT intends to award a firm fixed price deliverables contract to the

Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represent the Best Value offer to NATO.

Bidders may submit a proposal for one or both research topics. Each research topic will be evaluated independently against the stated administrative, technical, and price evaluation criteria. HQ SACT reserves the right to make one or more awards by research topic and may award a single research topic to more than one supplier where such award represents the best value to NATO and is consistent with the requirements of this RFP.

b. HQ SACT will collect information from references provided by the Offeror on its past performance. Contractors must provide authorization to contact references.

c. HQ SACT reserves the right to negotiate minor deviations to the listed

General Terms and Conditions to this RFP.

18. Surge Capability:

A surge capability requirement is included to maintain a contract vehicle should emerging circumstances require a quick and temporary increase in contractor support within the scope of the existing Statement of Work. The contractor shall be prepared to evaluate in-scope surge requirements and submit a written price proposal for consideration by HQ SACT. Surge proposals will be evaluated by the Contracting

Officer for fair and reasonable pricing and must be consistent with the pricing structure and assumptions of the original contract proposal. Surge requirements will be incorporated only by formal written contract modification. Requests for surge pricing are made on a non-committal basis and do not constitute a formal commitment by HQ

SACT to contract for additional work. The supplier will not be reimbursed costs for preparing price proposals or other related expenses in response to a surge request.

HQ SACT surge efforts will not exceed 50% of the awarded contract value without further procurement review and approval in accordance with applicable NATO procurement requirements.

should emerging circumstances require a quick and temporary increase in contractor support (LOE or Deliverable) to meet new requirements within the scope of the existing Statement of Work. The Supplier shall be prepared to provide support services per labour category described above. The contractor shall be prepared to evaluate requirements and submit a price proposal for any new in scope requirement for consideration by HQ SACT. Surge proposals will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer for fair and reasonable pricing and should be developed based upon the same pricing structure as the original contract proposal. The rate for surge effort shall not exceed the base/option year rate. Surge requirements will be incorporated by formal contract modification.

Requests for pricing are made on a non-committal basis and do not constitute a formal commitment by HQ SACT to contract for additional work; supplier will not be reimbursed costs for preparing price proposals or other related expenses in response to a surge request. HQ SACT surge efforts will not exceed 50% of the annual contract value or 50% of the cumulative contract value. Requests to surge from other organizations outside of HQ SACT are not counted against HQ

SACT when calculating the surge tolerances

19. Disputes

Disputes will be settled between the bidder and the Contracting Officer by mutual agreement through negotiation, while respecting and observing NATO regulations and policies.

20. Proposed Candidates

If successful, contractor company must notify HQ SACT of any special accommodation or requirements of its personnel for on-site support.

21. Communications

All communication related to this RFP between a prospective bidder and

HQ SACT shall only be through the nominated HQ SACT Contracting

Officer. Designated contracting staff shall assist the HQ SACT Contracting

Officer in the administrative process. There shall be no contact with other

HQ SACT personnel regarding this RFP. Such adherence shall ensure

Fair and Open Competition with equal consideration and competitive footing leverage to all interested parties.

22. Points of Contact

(PLEASE INCLUDE ALL BELOW ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE)

Tonya Bonilla, ACT Contracting Officer, 757-747-3575;

Margaret Anderson, ACT Contracting Officer, 757-747-3699;

Inga Love, ACT Contracting Officer

E-mail: hqsact.contracting@nato.int

Enclosure 1: Proposal Content / Checklist

PROPOSAL CONTENT / CHECKLIST

Table of Contents

□ Bidder’s name, address, POC, Contact numbers, email address.

□ Compliance Statement.

□ Past Performance (including References).

□ List of Key Personnel.

□ Technical Proposal.

□ Price Proposal (Excel worksheet – Enclosure 4 – provides mandatory price proposal format)

Enclosure 2: Compliance Statement

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT TO SEALED BID RFP-ACT-SACT-26-16 Part C

It is hereby stated that our company has read and understands all documentation issued as part of this RFP. Our company proposal submitted in response to the referenced solicitation is fully compliant with the provisions of this RFP and the intended contract with the following exceptions(s); such exemptions are considered non-substantial to the HQ SACT solicitation provisions issued.

Note: Any requested deviations/adjustments or considerations regarding HQ

SACT General Terms and Conditions must be identified here - at the time of bidding - for consideration by the contract awards committee.

Clause Description of Minor Deviation

(If applicable, add another page)

Company:

Signature:

Name &Title: Date:

Company Bid Reference:

Bidder’s proposal must be based on full compliance with the terms, conditions and requirements of the RFP and all future clarifications and/or amendments. The bidder may offer variations in specific implementation and operational details provided that the functional and performance requirements are fully satisfied. In case of conflict between the compliance statement and the detailed evidence or explanation furnished, the detailed evidence/comments shall take precedence/priority for the actual determination of compliance. Minor or non-substantial deviations may be accepted. Substantial changes shall be considered non-responsive.

Enclosure 3: Past Performance Information Form

The company is required to submit a minimum of one. The company should be clear about how the company met the requirements of past performance.

Reference to a contract must include a detailed description of the work performed relevant to the requirements outlined in the SOW. Generic or Vague references to the contract awarded without clear connection to work performed will be disqualified

(a) Contracting Entity:

(b) Contract No:

(c) Type of Contract (Firm Fixed Price, IDIQ, Requirements):

(d) Title of Contract:

(e) Description of Work Performance and Relevance to Current

Acquisition. The company shall provide a narrative of past performance that demonstrates direct experience addressing research questions like those in the current SOW(s). This description must include:

1) Methodological Alignment. What previous research objectives and outputs map to the current requirements;

2) Modeling & Simulation. Examples of M&S tools or frameworks used to validate or refine research outputs; and 3) Technical

Outcomes. A summary of how previous findings or simulated models were applied to achieve the project’s final goals.

(f) Contract Dollar Amount:

(g) Period of Performance:

(h) Name, Address, Fax and Telephone No. of Reference:

(i) Indicate Whether Reference Acted as Prime or Sub-contractor:

(j) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions:

(k) Complete Contact Information for client:

(l) Permission to contact client for reference: Yes / No

Name/Signature of Authorized Company Official:

This Enclosure is designed to assist the respective company to provide HQ SACT with all necessary documents/information required. For clarification, please refer to bidding instructions in part 1 of subject solicitation.

Enclosure 4 – Mandatory Price Proposal Excel Spreadsheet

Pricing shall be submitted using the excel workbook provided. Bidders may elect to submit a PDF proposal for pricing in addition to the required excel workbook.

Proposals not submitted in the proper format will not be considered.

Formulas have been added for convenience; however, it is the company’s responsibility to ensure that the formulas are correctly reflecting your expected bid proposal value.

ANNEX A: STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

Contract Support to Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT) for the Force Lethality Enhancement eXtended (FLEX)

Modelling and Simulation Study

Introduction

1. Headquarters Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (HQ SACT) was activated on 19 June 2003 to be NATO’s agent for change, leading the continuous improvement of Alliance capabilities to uphold NATO’s global security interests.

Background and Scope of Work.

2. Allied Command Transformation (ACT) is initiating Force Lethality

Enhancement eXtended (FLE(X)), building upon the outcomes of the initial FLE study conducted in 2025. FLE focused on identifying novel options to deliver

NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) Capability Targets (CT) in whole or in part. FLE(X) broadens the scope to include exploratory questions that look at the evolving operational problem sets that drive requirements and then CT. FLE(X) aims to identify new ways and means of achieving operational effects and to accelerate the translation of innovation into operational capabilities.

3. FLE(X) will explore how the rapid adoption of new and emerging technologies, including robotics, autonomy, artificial intelligence, advanced networking, and precision-strike systems, can enhance the lethality of the NATO force and improve survivability, agility, sustainability and affordability. The studies will seek to deliver evidence-based insights that can support national decision-making on capability options and inform future NATO capability development including force-design activities.

4. The contractor will provide analytical support through mission analysis, modelling and simulation, and structured evaluation of operationally relevant use-cases to identify credible opportunities for enhancement. This work will form part of a broader evidence base developed by ACT and participating Allies to inform the transformation of the Alliance’s military instrument.

5. FLE(X) 2026 Tranche 3 (On or about 18 September – 10 February

2027) will include two research studies identified by SACT as key areas for near-term force enhancement:

a. Technology-enabled Combat Support/Combat Service Support – Mobility and

Gap Crossing in Contested Environment: Period of Performance (on or about 18

September 2026 – 10 February 2027).

b. Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA): Concepts of Employment, Priority Use-

Cases, and Open NATO Autonomy Reference Architecture for Smaller NATO Nations:

Period of Performance (on or about 18 September 2026 – 16 December 2026)

Type of Contract and Period of Performance

6. Type of Contract. This is a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) deliverables contract.

7. Period of Performance. Contract award (on or about 18 September 2026 –

15 February 2027

Tasking and Deliverables Tasking

8. The contractor shall perform tasks/functions, complete and submit deliverables to be approved by the COTR and submit periodic reports.

Approach

9. Building on the background and scope of work described in paragraph 2 of this Annex, the contractor will conduct analytical work to support the initial phase of

FLE(X). This includes the derivation of operational use-cases, associated mission analysis, modelling and simulation, and structured evaluation guided by the research questions identified by SACT.

10. The contractor shall:

a. develop and use unclassified scenarios representing NATO and Allied operations to assess and measure the outcomes.

b. document all assumptions, data sources, and methodologies to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

c. identify alternative means and approaches (solutions) that prioritize interoperability to deliver required effects, potentially using Emerging and

Disruptive Technologies (EDT) that enhance the lethality of the NATO force and improve survivability, agility, sustainability and affordability;

d. apply appropriate analytical tools and validated data to quantify the operational benefits, risks, and trade-offs of using the potential solutions;

e. present findings as a set of evidence-based options, including cost, manpower, industrial, and timeline implications.

11. The contractor shall maintain close coordination with ACT staff and designated subject-matter experts throughout the project, participating in periodic review meetings and workshops to validate findings and refine analytical priorities.

12. The Contractor can propose adjustments to improve the research questions in terms of focus, and scope. Such proposals and any resulting change to deliverables will need to be agreed by the COTR and Contracting Officer.

Research Topics

13. The following research questions define the specific areas to be assessed and analysed under this Statement of Work:

Technology-enabled Combat Support/Combat Service Support - Mobility and Gap Crossing in Contested Environment

Why and What

1. The overarching purpose of this research project is to contribute to the enhancement and augmentation of standing Combat Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) capabilities at the Division (DIV) level echelon.1 The purpose is to ensure that these support functions can contribute to advancements in lethality, effectiveness and survivability of the supported DIV formations in a multi-domain operations (MDO) environment under contested (peer-threat) conditions2. It will also look to increase the effectiveness, survivability and mobility of the support functions themselves. The objective is to eliminate the persistent shortage, bottlenecks and legacy limitations of these functions, directly enhancing the speed, freedom of manoeuvre (FoM) / freedom of action (FoA), reach, and combat effectiveness of DIVs. Underpinning options to enhance and augment these support functions is the requirement to aggressively optimize affordability and speed of delivery, specifically reducing personnel numbers as well as acquisition timelines and life cycle/systems costs. Data associated with current army modernization efforts should be leveraged, including alternative options under consideration by Allies. A critical objective of this design is to reduce risk to personnel and equipment while maximizing operational effectiveness in complex and contested future operational environments.

2. This research will concentrate on optimising the CS/CSS elements that contribute to operational mobility and “over the gap” sustainment on eastern European terrain against a peer adversary in high-intensity combat. The desired effect is to gain, maintain, protect and sustain unrestricted mobility over contested key terrain, with a specific focus on gap crossings (including but not limited to wide wet and wet gap crossing). The optimised elements must be able to achieve all effects as described in relevant NATO capability statements

1 The main elements of CS include Fires / Artillery; Combat Engineering; Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance;

Signals & Communications; Cyber & Electromagnetic Operations; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN)

Defence; and Military Police (MP). The main elements of CSS include Logistics (Supply, Maintenance and Recovery, Transportation, Engineering); Medical (Casualty Care, Medical Evacuation (MEDEVAC); Medical Logistics); Personnel Services

(Human Resources, Financial Management, Legal Support, Religious / Chaplain Support); Operational Contract Support

(Contracting).

2 As defined in the Alliance Concept for Multi-domain Operations (ACT/TT-5856/SER:NR:288, 10 March 2023).

and comply with the appropriate STANAG requirements. They must be fully interoperable and capable of operating as an integrated component of NATO DIV formations in MDO operations, while retaining the resilience to operate in isolation (with organic material). The project shall identify realistic pathways, blending legacy (traditional) capabilities and processes as well as novel solutions into hi-low force mixes, through which Allies could augment and enhance DIV over the gap mobility and sustainment functions.

Capability Options for Allies

3. The research shall employ unclassified, realistic contractor supplied scenario-based mission analysis founded on modelling and simulation evidence, and other supporting analytical approaches to compare capability options, their operational effectiveness, associated trade-offs, risks and cost-sustainability implications. Alternative capability options identified shall be structured in high (legacy/exquisite) -low (novel/inexpensive mass) mixes and shall be realistic, interoperable and implementable by Allied forces within the next five years. The output aims to provide tangible findings to inform NATO’s Defence Planning efforts and will support the identification of options for Allies to deliver Capability Targets differently, in alignment with a realistic assessment of industrial capacity, national decision-making and capability development.

The study will not define detailed acquisition programmes or system-level designs.

4. The project builds upon previous work conducted as part of the FLE/FLEX program to address the CS/CSS considerations and could draw primarily on the 2025 FLE scoping project on Combat Engineering Mobility/Counter Mobility.

5. The options for technology-enabled CS/CSS will be focussed on the following areas, in order of priority:

a. Gap crossing. This effort addresses the key requirement to enhance contested3 Wide Wet Gap Crossing (WWGC) and Wet Gap Crossing (WGC) capabilities for DIV formations. The identified alternative capability options are to augment the execution of the recce, capture, secure, build, protect, sustain, recover + phases4 of the DIV-level crossing operations. To this end, the project shall focus on:

i. Delivery of alternative, rapidly deployable crossing options that disperse force concentration and/or ensure substantial hardening. The desired effect is to provide and sustain the desired flow rate of DIV manoeuvre elements composed of heavy/medium BDEs and CS/CSS enablers. The crossing units include heavy (tracked – including MBTs) BNs, medium (wheeled/tracked) BNs, (wheeled/tracked) CS/CSS components and associated logistic assets needed to maintain DIV FoA/FoM on the other side (bridgehead)5.

3 In a need of active protective measures against adversary attacks/strikes.

4 Phases described are indicative/non-exhaustive and may be changed. However full gap-crossing capability must be analysed.

5 The study is not mandating strict Military Load Class (MLC) levels for each of the alternative crossing options. However, the

M&S must provide evidence that the desired effect (flow rate) is achieved if multiple different MLC level crossing options are utilised in conjunction.

ii. Protection of the vulnerable engineering and CS assets. In line with that, the focus shall be on delivery of the security and protection required to defend the crossing-points (e.g. bridges) against indirect/direct threats6.

Complementary, rapid repair options and approaches ensuring reopening of damaged/ unusable crossings shall be explored. The desired effect is to enhance survivability/accessibility of the gap crossings options and their repeatable usage.

iii. Research will focus heavily on distributed, networked systems combining novel solutions, legacy capabilities, and optimised processes capable of maintaining operational tempo and ensuring crossings survivability despite ubiquitous adversary sensing and high-intensity precision fires.

b. Robotics and autonomous distribution. This effort focuses on maximizing the survivability of high-risk CS and CSS functions by fielding semi-autonomous and fully autonomous systems integrated into a resilient, distributed mesh network architecture.

The project targets DIV gap crossing enablement and interlinked tactical sustainment tasks to reduce human exposure in highly contested areas. Specifically, the project will explore capability options across three primary lines of effort:

i. Uncrewed over-the-gap tactical resupply utilizing Uncrewed Ground

Vehicles (UGVs), Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) and Uncrewed Surface Vesels (USV) to execute rapid, distributed, point-to-point deliveries of critical supplies (Class I-V, such as ammunition and medical payloads) directly to crossing and probing tactical units in the critical phases of establishing sustainable bridgeheads.

ii. (Semi) autonomous/remote augmentation of the DIV combat engineering gap-crossing functions, inter alia. Employing UAS/UGV/USV systems for high-threat tasks such as engineering reconnaissance, route/crossing points scouting and engineering tasks (e.g. preparation of the crossing points (banks) and bridges building/sustainment) and crossing points security/defence. The goal is to limit exposure of the crewed systems in contested environment, while retaining and enhancing associated combat engineering capabilities.

iii. Semi-autonomous and autonomous sustainment convoys gap-crossing enablement. Automated and distributed enablement of the DIV CSS convoys capabilities engineered to penetrate contested threat zones surrounding the wet gap crossings where persistent aerial and kinetic threats deny traditional logistics movement. The goal is to identify options enabling successful and persistence crossings of the wet gaps without a sole reliance on vulnerable pontoon/standing bridges, while enhancing DIV CSS (equipment/manpower) survivability and ability to sustain desired flow of material.

6 Including but not limited to use of loitering ammunition, uncrewed systems (ISR/kinetic), artillery fire, sabotage, infiltration and Electronic Warfare (EW).

Additional considerations. To further enhance DIV gap-crossing execution, the following supporting capabilities should be considered:

iv. Deception and crossing-points signature management. Explore alternative options for decreasing signature of the crossing points, including in the electromagnetic spectrum (EM). Complementary options, generating instant, on demand tactical area concealment (IR/VIZ/EM spectrum) for the crossing formations should be explored. To divert opposing forces, multi-domain deception and decoy options should be considered.

v. AI-enabled C2, crossing-points identification and route planning.

Options how to enhance combat engineering parts of the C2 should be explored. This includes adaptive route planning, utilising dispersed crossing options to minimise exposure to adversary attacks, and supplementary C2 architecture connecting legacy capabilities with novel interconnected systems. Furthermore, AI-enabled predictive data-fusion architecture generating possible crossing-points datasets (feeding into automated C2) should be considered.

Systems to be Augmented or Replaced

6. To eliminate persistent shortages, bottlenecks, and legacy limitations within Combat Support (CS) and Combat Service Support (CSS) functions, the proposed designs must identify legacy platforms and practices to be augmented, phased out, or replaced. The contractor shall evaluate and propose transition paths leveraging high-low capability mixes across the following areas (additional systems could be identified based on the provider’s expertise):

a. Concentrated tactical bridging systems. Augment or replace traditional, slow-to-deploy DIV-level bridging assets that force dangerous concentrations of personnel and equipment. These could be replaced by alternative, rapidly deployable, and distributed networked crossing systems to maintain operational tempo during WWGC/WGC crossings. These systems may be bridges, ferries, UxVs and other systems in line with sub-para 5(a).

b. Crewed combat engineering. Augment or replace legacy crewed engineering assets to reduce the battlefield exposure of combat engineers. Where appropriate, legacy systems should be phased out, in favour of robotic and autonomous systems dedicated to high-threat tasks like reconnaissance, route proofing, and crossing point/crossings preparation and sustainment.

c. Crossings Point assets. Augment or replace dedicated security and protection assets and personnel tasked with sustainment/repair of the crossing points. The goal is to enhance survivability of the crossing assets and prolonging of the crossing-points usability. These systems shall protect the crossing from variety of indirect/direct attacks conducted by peer adversary.

d. Crewed “over-the-gap” resupply vehicles. Transition away from traditional, crewed utility vehicles for high-risk, forward-edge “over-the-gap” logistics. These should be augmented or enabled by UxVs capable of executing rapid, tactical-level, point-to-point deliveries of Class I-V payloads over the gaps.

e. Conventional crewed logistics convoys. Augment traditional, crewed sustainment convoys that are highly vulnerable in “around-the-gap” kill zones and crossing points bottlenecks. Instead, transition to semi-autonomous and fully autonomous convoy enablement systems designed to safely cross the gaps while maintaining steady flow of material.

Research Questions

7. To guide the modelling and simulation, and scenario-based mission analysis on Eastern European terrain, the contractor shall address the following primary research questions:

a. How can distributed, networked crossing systems and adjusted processes be utilized to optimise the relevant phases of DIV-level WWGC/WGC operations and to achieve the desired effects under ubiquitous adversary sensing and high-intensity precision fires?

b. Hazard mitigation. What is the optimal integration of robotics in combat engineering to achieve rapid route proofing, crossings building (including banks preparation) and crossing-points sustainment, while minimizing human casualty risks?

c. Crossing-points assets and survivability. What protection and security systems and approaches may be used to negate adversary ability to neutralise, disrupt, deny, supress or destroy crossing-points (including destruction/degradation of the crossing equipment and factual crossing-points usage denial)?

d. Autonomous tactical “over-the-gap” logistics enablement. What are the most effective payload capacities and operational profiles for UxVs executing uncrewed over-the-gap tactical resupply (Class I-V material) and logistic chains enablement under contested conditions?

e. Penetrating contested zones. How must semi-autonomous and fully autonomous logistics convoys augmentation and gap-crossing enablement be designed to aid the convoys to successfully navigate and survive the gap-crossing and around-the-gap kill zone?

f. Deception and concealment. What enablement systems and adjusted processes, if any could be introduced to enhance survivability of the crossing-points and crossing formations in the transparent battlefield?

g. Order of Battle (ORBAT) architecture. Should the proposed technology-enabled CS and CSS capabilities be integrated organically to augment the standing DIV ORBAT as a high-low capability mix, or should they remain modular, cross-domain assets task-organized from higher echelons?

h. Interoperability and isolation. How can modern CS and CSS systems be designed to operate within an integrated NATO multi-domain C2 framework, while retaining the resilience to operate in isolation?

i. How can interoperability be enhanced among the different WWGC/WGC capability assets currently employed by NATO Nations, and what common technical, procedural, and capability development approach should be adopted to maximise interoperability and operational effectiveness across current and future bridging systems?

j. DOTMLPFI and affordability pathways. What are the high-level acquisition and lifecycle cost trade-offs associated with these alternative options, and what realistic five-year transition pathways exist for Allies to deliver these capability targets?

k. How can the Engineer Resource Parks (ERPs) supporting WWGC/WGC capability be further automated to mitigate operational risks, increase responsiveness, reduce deployment and transit timelines, minimise the personnel required for management and operation, and enhance overall operational readiness?

Analytical Focus and Required Outputs

8. The final written report will provide the following, inter alia:

a. Crossing-points Design Options and CONOPS Document. A threat-oriented document outlining proposed alternative options for gap-crossings and ways to integrate them across relevant steps of the gap-crossing operations to generate the desired effect in contested environment.

b. Crossing-point CS/CSS Assets Design List. A document outlining DIV-level CS/CSS assets used in alternative options and their integration into the high-low (legacy/novel) formation blend. If possible, showcase their integration into the DIV-level CS/CSS ORBAT, and present the technology integration plan/ operational concepts/risk assessment.

c. Visual Representations. Organizational charts, equipment layouts, and conceptual diagrams illustrating the division structures and crossing operations layout (in relevant phases), relative to the benchmark structure, key technological integrations and

CONOPS.

d. Defence Planning Recommendations. Evidence-based DOTMLPFI assessment of the proposed design options. Tangible findings that suggest the alternative options can deliver the related NATO Capability Targets (CC/CS), are operationally suitable and industrially achievable.

e. Quantitative and qualitative assessments which should include:

i. The degree to which the proposed designs incorporate modern and emerging technologies and innovative operational concepts.

ii. The degree to which the proposed designs incorporate different combinations of exquisite and lower-cost platforms and effectors, leveraging the power of our legacy capabilities, balanced with novel solutions, where deemed suitable and beneficial (Hi-Low Mix).

iii. A description of the notable improvements in lethality, survivability, mobility, and situational awareness in a multi-domain operations environment.

iv. Affordability cost metrics for each of the alternative options that optimize affordability, specifically reducing CS/CSS footprint as well as acquisition and life cycle costs.

v. The effectiveness of the design in reducing risk to CS/CSS personnel and increasing freedom of manoeuvre/freedom of action of the supported DIV formation.

vi. The realism and practicality of the proposed designs, considering technological maturity, integration challenges, industry capacity and potential cost implications.

Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA): Concepts of Employment, Priority Use- Cases, and Open NATO Autonomy Reference Architecture for Smaller NATO Nations

Why and What

1. The primary objective of this research is to define the operational concepts of employment and tactical use-cases for which Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) provide the greatest military advantage. The project will centre on determining the optimal operational mix between crewed fighters, spanning both Fourth and Fifth Generation fleets and uncrewed CCAs to maximize lethality, enhance formation survivability and mitigate aircrew risk within approximately five years. Underpinning these employment concepts is the imperative to aggressively optimize affordability, specifically targeting reductions in personnel requirements, initial acquisition and life cycle costs leveraging ongoing Allied CCA developments.

2. Using these employment concepts as a foundation, the project will evaluate realistic pathways for Allies to field, enable and operate an integrated mix of crewed platforms and interoperable CCA capabilities. Rather than focusing on procuring a nationally unique air vehicle, the research will emphasize how different crewed-uncrewed force mixes contribute to broad Alliance-relevant effects. Through scenario-based mission analysis, modelling and simulation, and structured architectural comparison, the study will deliver realistic, interoperable force options implementable within approximately five years, informing NATO capability development and national decision-making without defining detailed acquisition programs or bespoke aircraft designs.

3. Capability Options for Allies. The project shall assess and propose CCA options and architectures using a phased analytical methodology where scenario-based Modelling and Simulation (M&S) is employed to rigorously test and evaluate selected force-mix options once operational baselines, use cases, and assumptions are established. The project should systematically progress through methodological phases including: 1) Baseline characterization mapping current open-source and Allied CCA maturity, integration timelines, C2, and autonomy baselines7; 2) Concept of employment and use-case definition defining specific operational use cases and crewed-uncrewed employment concepts; 3) Force-mix identification formulating candidate crewed-to-CCA force ratios to inform NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) quantification; and 4) M&S validation stress-testing defined force-mix options against agreed scenarios, evaluating specific operational advantages and trade-offs. The project should include but not be limited to:

Detailed use cases for 4th and 5th generation aircraft formations where CCA generate the highest relative operational value, such as mass, persistence, survivability, sensing extension, communications relay, electromagnetic surveillance, protection, attack, decoy employment, strike support, escort, target development, battle damage assessment and cross-domain kill-chain extension.

Determination of the optimal high-low ratio of crewed platforms to CCA for each concept of employment. Specifically evaluating functional roles including defensive counter-air, 7 Using NATO Autonomy Characteristics and Evaluation (ACE) Scorecard – provided.

extended ISR; external magazine (weapons delivery); and weapons range extension of crewed assets. This analysis must assess how varying levels of autonomy influence the optimal crewed-uncrewed ratio and overall cost-effectiveness.

National contribution models such as mission autonomy software modules, mission data services, payloads, support infrastructure, synthetic training, test and evaluation, basing, logistics, maintenance, operators, or multinational pooled capability elements.

Industrial, manpower, sustainment and software support models that reduce barriers to entry for smaller Allies while preserving operational relevance, rapid software deployment and upgrade flexibility.

Interoperability requirements across different CCA aircraft, mission systems, command-and-control arrangements, datalinks, mission data environments, weapons interfaces, and software update pipelines.

Priority layers, interfaces, services, governance functions and overarching requirements for a proposed open NATO Autonomy Reference Architecture to enable the portability of autonomy software and functionality across multiple aircraft types.

Data access, sharing, security, sovereignty and stewardship arrangements necessary to enable the collaborative development, testing and validation, fielding and sustainment of interoperable CCA-related capabilities;

Systems to be Augmented or Replaced

4. The research shall assess how CCA concepts of employment and interoperable architecture approaches can complement, augment or partially replace current approaches, assumptions and practices including:

Platform-centric, vertically integrated solutions that tightly couple autonomy software to one aircraft family;

National approaches that make coalition integration, software portability and data-sharing more difficult;

Crewed-only concepts of employment for missions where CCA could lower risk, add affordable mass or increase persistence;

Personnel-intensive command, control and mission support approaches that limit scaling or multinational participation.

Research Questions

5. To assess benefits and identify priorities, the following questions should guide the research:

a. Operational Value and Optimal Force Mix. For which concepts of employment and operational use-cases do CCA deliver the greatest operational advantage, survivability, persistence and decision-speed What is the optimal crewed-uncrewed force mix (ratio of 4th and 5th Generation crewed fighters and CCAs) required to achieve these effects compared to current and planned alternatives?

b. Cost-Effective Implementation. Which of the use-cases and crewed-CCA force mixes can be fielded and employed most cost-effectively when the full cost of implementation, including manpower, training, support infrastructure, software sustainment, mission data management and upgrade burden is considered?

c. National Collaboration. For each use-case, which are the most credible and affordable pathways for smaller NATO Allies to contribute to, collaborate on, or acquire CCA capability elements (e.g. modular payloads, software modules, synthetic training, or pooled capabilities)?

d. Interoperability Priorities. Which interfaces, standards, services, data constructs and operating procedures are most critical to enable smaller Nations to develop or procure CCA capability elements that can operate seamlessly across multiple national aircraft and mission systems?

e. Open NATO Autonomy Reference Architecture Prioritization. What are the priority building blocks for an open NATO Autonomy Reference Architecture, and in what sequence should they be developed, specified, tested and governed, to deliver the greatest near-term interoperability value?

f. Software Portability and Update Agility. To what extent can decoupling autonomy functionality from specific airframes improve software competition, shorten update cycles, reduce vendor lock-in, and lower entry barriers for Allies?

g. Data Access. What categories of data are required to design, train, test, validate, certify, deploy and sustain interoperable CCA-related capability, and what data-sharing, releasability or synthetic-data approaches are most practical across the Alliance?

h. Governance and Assurance. What governance, safety, cyber, accreditation, assurance and sovereignty mechanisms are needed for Nations to trust, integrate and operate portable autonomy-related functionality across different national airframes?

i. Roadmap. What are the necessary and most realistic actions and milestones over…