RWP_AMTC_27-01_updated.docx

AMTC Request for Enhanced Whitepapers for FY27 Aviation and Missile Technology Consortium (AMTC)

Request for Enhanced Whitepapers for Government Fiscal Year 2027

Solicitation Number: AMTC-27-01

Issued by:

Advanced Technology International (ATI) AMTC Consortium Administrative Organization 315 Sigma Drive Summerville, SC 29486

For the Aviation and Missile Technology Consortium (AMTC)

Through the Army Contracting Command – Redstone Arsenal Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898

Request Issue Date: November 10, 2026, Submission Deadline: December 2, 2026 - 1:00 PM Eastern Time

Aviation and Missile Technology Consortium (AMTC)

Request for Enhanced Whitepapers (RWP) for Government Fiscal Year 2027

Solicitation Number: AMTC-27-01

Table of Contents

General Purpose

The U.S. Army’s Combat Capabilities Development Command Aviation & Missile Center (DEVCOM AvMC) awarded an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) to the Aviation and Missile Technology Consortium (AMTC). The AMTC, comprised of the National Armaments Consortium (NAC) and the Vertical Lift Consortium (VLC), has partnered with DEVCOM AvMC and the Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal (ACC-RSA) to develop innovative aviation and missile technologies that rapidly and affordably enhance warfighter lethality, survivability, and combat effectiveness.

This solicitation, issued by the AMTC Consortium Administrative Organization (CAO), Advanced Technology International (ATI), represents a Request for Enhanced Whitepapers (RWP) to support the US Army DEVCOM AvMC in the research and development and maturation of guided weapons systems technologies and aviation and missile manufacturing technologies. The DEVCOM AvMC plans to develop prototype technology to improve the entire guided weapons kill-chain, extend range, expand the air defense coverage and enable on-the-move engagement for the maneuver force, as well as maturation, risk reduction and affordability enhancement of advanced manufacturing technologies and processes in support of aviation and missile commodities.

The purpose of this RWP is to solicit Enhanced Whitepapers (EWPs), which describe a specific technology idea in the field of guided missile technologies, manufacturing and enabling/disruptive technologies, or aviation technologies, as described in the Objective Requirements Document (ORD), AMTC-27-01. Offerors are strongly advised to read the ORD in order to gain a greater understanding of the requirements.

The requirements, as stated in the ORDs, take precedence over any information presented at Industry/Collaboration Events or in the Quad Charts. Please ensure all proposal submissions adhere to the requirements stated in the ORD.

Any project selected for award under this RWP may also potentially generate a follow-on production OTA or contract (or other stand-alone OTAs as necessary to meet mission requirements) that the Government may award to an Offeror based on successful completion of the prototype project, and without further competition.

Request for Enhanced Whitepapers

The Request is for EWPs, accompanied by a FAR 52.204-24 Representation form. EWPs must be submitted in the format described in Appendix I, Mandatory EWP Template. Based only on the information contained within the EWP, the Government will perform a Competitive Evaluation to determine if the EWP is rated Acceptable (placed in the Basket) or rated Unacceptable (rejected and not placed in the Basket). The Government anticipates completing Competitive Evaluations without further communication with the Offeror, though, in rare occasions, additional communication may occur, at the Government’s discretion through the Agreements Officer (AO). The Offeror will be provided feedback once the Competitive Evaluation has been completed for the requirement under which the EWP was submitted. Please see Section 1.7 for further details.

Should the Government decide to select an EWP for award, the Government will document this decision in the Selection Memo in accordance with Section 1.4 of Appendix III, AMTC Award Process and Requirements. The rationale for this selection decision will not be available for release. Once the Statement of Work (SOW) is finalized between the Government and the Offeror, the AMTC CAO will request a detailed cost proposal in accordance with Appendix III, AMTC Award Process and Requirements. An Offeror’s submission of an EWP under this RWP indicates concurrence with providing the information requested in Appendix III should the Offeror be selected for award.

Furthermore, the Government may elect to use a two-step award process that includes a Request for EWPs, followed by a second step that requests a full cost proposal, additional technical detail, draft statement of work, and/or signed Warranties and Representations (W&R), as described in Section 2 of Appendix III, AMTC Award Process and Requirements. The Government reserves the right to use a two-step process for any Objective Requirement if it is determined to be in its best interest. Requests for full proposals will be provided by the CAO to the Offeror and will detail any additional evaluation criteria to be used for the second step of the selection process.

All eligible Offerors may submit EWPs for evaluation according to the criteria set forth herein. Offerors are advised that the Government’s Agreements Officer (AO) will obligate the United States Government by issuing ATI, as the AMTC’s CAO, a Technical Direction Letter (TDL) to execute agreements for selected projects as result of this RWP.

Based on the Government’s needs, the Government may cancel an Objective Requirement at any time. Should an Objective Requirement be canceled after the submission of EWPs, the EWPs submitted to the canceled Objective Requirement will not be evaluated and will not be placed in the Basket. An Offeror that submits an EWP does so solely at its own risk and neither the CAO nor the Government has any responsibility for costs associated with such a submission.

Type of Funding Instrument Issued

The Government-selected projects will be funded under the current Other Transaction Agreement (or subsequent OTAs with the AMTC) with the AMTC, which is administered by the CAO, ATI. The CAO will negotiate and execute a Base Agreement with AMTC members. This agreement is governed by the same provisions as the OTA between the Government and the CAO. Subsequently, any project that is selected for award will be funded through a Project Agreement issued under the Base Agreement. A sample of the AMTC Base Agreement may be found on the Members Only portion of the respective NAC and VLC websites. At the time of the submission, Offerors must certify on the cover page of their EWP that, if selected for award, they will abide by the terms and conditions of the latest version of the AMTC Base Agreement.

Offerors are advised to contact the CAO if they have any questions regarding this requirement. Offerors are also advised to check the website periodically during the proposal preparation period for any new changes to the Base Agreement terms and conditions or to this RWP or ORD(s). As practicable, changes will be electronically forwarded to the AMTC Member Organizations prior to posting.

Non-Government Personnel

The CAO will oversee the submission of EWPs in response to this RWP and analyze cost proposals submitted if selected for award as described in Appendix III, AMTC Award Process and Requirements. The CAO has entered into a management services agreement that contains a proprietary information agreement as an attachment, which requires the CAO to protect the AMTC Member’s proprietary information. The CAO shall take the necessary steps to protect all proprietary information and shall not use such proprietary information for purposes other than the evaluation of an Offeror’s submission and the subsequent agreement administration if the effort is selected for award. An Offeror’s submission of an EWP under this RWP indicates concurrence with the aforementioned CAO responsibilities.

Additionally, the Government may use Contractor Support Personnel (CSP). The CSP will be required to submit to the Government a Non-Disclosure Agreement reflecting the effort(s) that they will be supporting. The Offeror’s submission of an EWP under this RWP indicates concurrence with the aforementioned use of CSP.

Finally, the AMTC Leadership may be provided, at their request, top-level data and metrics on EWP submissions for their use in monitoring the effectiveness of AMTC processes and the level of participation by AMTC members in the RWP. Information will only be released with Government approval. An Offeror’s submission of an EWP under this RWP indicates concurrence with the aforementioned release of information to the AMTC Leadership.

Eligibility

Only those members of the AMTC, comprised of NAC and VLC members, deemed to be “Members in Good Standing” by the AMTC Executive Committee prior to the due date for EWPs will be eligible to have their submissions evaluated. An Offeror that submits an EWP does so solely at its own risk and neither the CAO nor the Government has any responsibility for costs associated with such a submission.

Other Transaction Authority

In accordance with Section 4022 of Title 10, Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects, each Prototype Project awarded under an OTA must meet at least one of the following conditions:

· There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.

· All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors.

· At least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government.

Throughout the period of performance (PoP) of any Project Agreement, the CAO and the Government will actively monitor the award to ensure compliance with this provision in accordance with implementation guidance from Headquarters – Department of the Army (HQDA) and/or Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Offerors will be given the opportunity to become compliant with the guidance should they be found non-compliant. Failure to comply may result in termination.

For the purposes of the EWP, the Offeror must explain its approach on how the Offeror intends to comply with this requirement. Signed Warranties and Representations are NOT required with the EWP submission, but will be required if selected for award.

Nontraditional Defense Contractor Definition A nontraditional defense contractor means an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of courses by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to Section 1502 of Title 41 and the regulations implementing such section. A nontraditional defense contractor can be a prime contractor, team member, subcontractor, lower tier vendor, or "intra-company" business unit, provided the business unit makes a significant contribution to the project (i.e., is a key participant). Examples of what might be considered a significant contribution include supplying new key technology or products, accomplishing a significant amount of the effort, or in some other way causing a material reduction in the cost or schedule or increase in the performance. Please note that there is both a quantitative and qualitative aspect to nontraditional defense contractor participation, and the lack of one aspect may require a more significant contribution in the other. The significance of the nontraditional defense participation must be explained in detail in the Warranties and Representations (W&R). Inadequate detail can cause delay in award, or lead to ineligibility for award.

AMTC will follow the specific guidance from OSD concerning the use of nontraditional defense contractors. Nontraditional defense contractors will be required to provide a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Any Offeror that does not fall within the parameters of the nontraditional defense contractor definition shall be considered a traditional defense contractor.

Resource Sharing Definition and Requirements Resource sharing is defined as the resources expended by the award recipient in performance of the proposed SOW and subject to the direction of the Government Agreements Officer Representative (AOR). If a project does not contain at least one nontraditional defense contractor participating to a significant extent, then it is required that the proposal contains at least one-third of the total project cost as a resource share.

Please note that resource sharing is strongly encouraged if possible because it leads to stronger leveraging of Government-contractor collaboration. Proposals that contain resource share cannot include fee. Resource share may be proposed on cost or fixed price type agreements. However, if proposing resource share the Offeror’s accounting system will be required to be reviewed and determined adequate prior to award. See Appendix III for additional details regarding accounting system requirements.

Results of Competitive Evaluation

As the Government’s Competitive Evaluations are completed for each Objective Requirement, Offerors will be provided feedback. This feedback will be provided through ATI, as the CAO, via the AMP system to the members who submitted an EWP. The feedback provided is based on the results of the AMTC competitive evaluation process. Nothing presented within the feedback should be considered in any way as a recommendation for participation or non-participation in future solicitations. Likewise, there is no relationship intended between the information provided in the feedback and any likelihood of selection or non-selection of any specific submission in any future solicitations. No further information, to include debriefings, will be available for release, including any verbal discussions on the feedback provided.

Other Special Requirements

Offerors are advised that research findings and technology developments arising from this RWP may constitute a significant enhancement to the national defense and to the economic vitality of the United States. As such, in the conduct of all work under the Base Agreement and subsequent Project Agreement, the AMTC Member will comply strictly with the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) (22 CFR 120-130), the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) (DoD 5220.22-M), and the Department of Commerce Export Administration Regulations (EAR) (15 CFR 730-774).

Offerors are further advised Project Agreements shall comply with DFARS 252.204-7012: Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (May 2024).

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

10 U.S.C. §4021(i), as amended, provides that disclosure of the information listed below is not required, and may not be compelled, under FOIA for a period of five years if a party submits the information in a competitive or noncompetitive process having the potential for an award of an Other Transaction Agreement:

(i) a proposal, proposal abstract, and supporting documents;

(ii) a business plan submitted on a confidential basis; or

(iii) technical information submitted on a confidential basis.

To request protection from FOIA disclosure as allowed by statute, Offerors shall mark business plans and technical information with a legend identifying the documents as being submitted on a confidential basis. A sample legend is provided in Appendix I.

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

“Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)" means that because of other contractual activities or relationships with the Government or other persons, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Government, or the person's objectivity in performing the project work is or might be otherwise impaired, or a person has an unfair competitive advantage. Relevant other contractual activities or relationships may include those which exist outside of the OTA construct, such as in Program Office support contracts, or other research, development or engineering contracts involving the Government. "Person" as used herein includes Corporations, Partnerships, Joint Ventures, Teaming Arrangements, and other business enterprises.

The two underlying OCI principles are:

(a) Preventing the existence of conflicting roles that might bias a Person’s judgment; and

(b) Preventing unfair competitive advantage. An unfair competitive advantage exists where an Offeror competing for award possesses-

(1) Proprietary information that was obtained from a Government official without proper authorization; or

(2) Source selection information that is relevant to the prototype project but is not available to all competitors, and such information would assist that Project Agreement Holder (PAH) in obtaining the award.

An Offeror that provides systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) support for a system, but does not have overall contractual responsibility for its development, its integration, assembly, and checkout, or its production shall not:

(1) Be awarded a prototype project agreement to supply the system or any of its major components; or

(2) Be a subcontractor or consultant to a supplier of the system or any of its major components.

Systems engineering includes a combination of substantially all of the following activities: determining specifications, identifying and resolving interface problems, developing test requirements, evaluating test data, and supervising design. Technical assistance includes a combination of substantially all of the following activities: developing work statements, determining parameters, directing other PAHs’ operations, and resolving technical controversies.

The exercise of common sense, good judgment, and sound discretion is required in determining whether a potential conflict exists.

An Offeror’s submission of an EWP under this RWP designates no known actual, potential, or perceived organizational conflict of interest exists at the time of EWP submission. Should the Government decide to select an EWP for award, the Offeror shall submit an OCI Certification. The Appendix III, Exhibit 3 provides the mandatory certificate. OCI concerns could lead the Government to decide against award of a particular prototype project.

Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services

Section 889(a)(1)(B) of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115–232) prohibits executive agencies from entering into, extending, or renewing a contract with an entity that uses any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. As such, FAR 52.204-26 Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services-Representation (OCT 2020) is applicable to this solicitation. Offerors shall complete Appendix III, Exhibit 4 in accordance with the instructions to address FAR 52.204-24, Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services and Equipment (NOV 2021). Offerors are further advised that any Project Agreement resulting from this solicitation shall include FAR 52.204-25, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (NOV 2021).

The Government will consider the content of the Offeror’s submitted Appendix III, Exhibit 4 in the evaluation of the EWP, as it relates to technical feasibility and risk.

Submission Requirements Submission Deadline

The submission deadline is no later than December 2, 2026 at 1:00 PM Eastern Time.

All EWPs and FAR 52.204-24 Representation forms must be received by the submission deadline. Submissions received after the submission deadline shall not be considered for evaluation and funding. Offerors must submit EWPs and FAR 52.204-24 Representation forms in response to this RWP describing potential Research and Development (R&D) to be conducted in support of a specific requirement in the ORD.

Submissions via AMP

EWPs must be submitted online via AMP at https://amtc-amp.ati.org. Submissions will not be accepted by any other means. AMP is not accessible via a foreign Internet Protocol (IP) address. Offerors are strongly encouraged to register as a new user well in advance of the EWP submission deadline. After registering and logging in, Offerors should select “Respond” next to the “AMTC-RWP-27-01” Solicitation ID option under “Open Solicitations”.

The AMP Home Page will contain a link to a “Submitter Quick Reference Card” to help with the electronic submission process. The Home Page will also contain contact information for assistance with any problems associated with the electronic submission process.

Neither the Government nor ATI can make allowances/exceptions for submission problems encountered by the Offeror using system-to-system interfaces with AMP. If the Offeror receives errors and fails to upload the full submission prior to the submission deadline, the submission will not be accepted.

Files submitted in AMP must be print-capable and without a password required. Filenames must contain the appropriate filename extension (.docx, .doc, .pptx, .ppt or .pdf). Filenames should not contain special characters. Apple users must ensure the entire filename and path are free of spaces and special characters.

Offerors will also be required to provide general submission information in AMP such as point of contact information, nontraditional defense contractor status, and other relevant information.

Receipt confirmations will be e-mailed upon submission of EWPs and will include the unique reference number. Submissions can be made in advance of the deadline and updated (replace any of the files) up until the submission deadline.

Submission Instructions

Offerors are required to submit each document as separate files via AMP as indicated in the below chart. Each document is discussed further in the following subsections. All submission documents shall be UNCLASSIFIED.

EWP

(Required)

Optional Data Rights Appendix is excluded from page count MS Word or PDF that is 5MB or less in size

FAR 52.204-24 (NOV 2021) Representation (Required)

Quad Chart (Optional and will not be used for evaluation)

EWP Format The following formatting requirements apply:

· 12 point font (or larger), single-spaced, single-sided, 21.6 x 27.9 cm (8.5 by 11 inches).

· Smaller type may be used in figures and tables, but must be 8 point font (or larger).

· Margins on all sides (top, bottom, left, and right) should be at least 2.54 cm (1 inch).

· Allowable markings include Distro A, B, & D. Any other classifications are not allowable.

EWP Content See Appendix I, Mandatory EWP Template, for complete information on EWP submissions. The EWP format provided is MANDATORY. Each EWP must address only one Objective Requirement, and in sufficient detail to permit a thorough evaluation from a technical perspective.

FAR 52.204-24 Representation See Appendix III, Exhibit 4 for the FAR 52.204-24, “Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services and Equipment (NOV 2021)” form. A completed copy must be uploaded with the EWP submission. If selected for award, the Offeror will be asked to resubmit an updated form.

Compliance Screening The CAO will perform an initial screening to ensure compliance with the RWP. Submissions must adhere to Appendix I Mandatory EWP Template. The Government will make the final determination on elimination from the Competitive Evaluation. The following items are examples of commonly found issues for non-compliance during this initial screening:

· Offeror does not meet membership eligibility requirements.

· EWP does not clearly identify and address a single specific Objective Requirement.

· EWP does not include a clear affirmative response on the cover page certifying to abide by the terms and conditions of the current Base Agreement

· Section 1.4 Risk Identification and Mitigation of the EWP does not address both data rights (1.4.1) and potential conflicts of interest (1.4.2).

· EWP does not follow the Mandatory Template (Appendix I).

· FAR 52.204-24 Representation form not submitted and/or does not follow the mandatory template (Appendix III, Exhibit 4).

· EWP does not include a Total Estimate.

· EWP or FAR 52.204-24 Representation form contains Classified material or purports to contain Classified material.

Quad Chart Submission Instructions

Quad Chart Format Offerors should upload a non-proprietary and/or a proprietary quad chart in the separate fields provided. The format for the quad chart(s) is a PowerPoint (.pptx or .ppt) or PDF file that is 1MB or less in file size. Each quad chart is limited to one page. See Appendix II, Quad Chart Instructions, for additional detail.

Quad Chart Content A quad chart conveys the essence of the proposed solution as a one page, four quadrant document. It is requested that AMTC members submit quad chart(s) at the time of the EWP submission. AMTC members may choose to submit a non-proprietary quad chart and/or a proprietary quad chart for each proposal submission. Non-proprietary quad charts are preferred as they can be distributed more widely, which will increase the likelihood of the proposal being seen and funded. If the Government places the proposal in the Basket, the quad charts will be made available to AMTC customers for review and consideration for future funding. The quad chart should illustrate the value of the proposed effort to potential customers or teaming partners. The purpose of the quad charts is to (1) increase the percentage of proposals funded from the Basket, (2) increase teaming among AMTC members, and (3) increase the overall number of collaborative efforts. Non-proprietary quad charts will be posted on the Members Only website. Proprietary quad charts will be posted on a separate Government Only website. The quad charts are optional and will not be evaluated as part of the source selection process. See Appendix II, Quad Chart Instructions, for additional detail.

Submission Preparation Cost

The cost of preparing a submission in response to this RWP shall not be considered, proposed, billed, presented or otherwise treated as a direct charge to any resulting award or any other contract. An Offeror that submits an EWP does so solely at its own risk and neither the CAO nor the Government has any responsibility for costs associated with such a submission.

Competitive Evaluation EWP Competitive Evaluation

For each Objective Requirement, the Government expects competition and will conduct a Competitive Evaluation in accordance with the evaluation factors detailed below. The Competitive Evaluation will result in one of the following:

a) EWP is rated Acceptable and selected for award;

b) EWP is rated Acceptable and placed in the Basket; or

c) EWP is rated Unacceptable and rejected.

All Offerors will be provided Feedback based on completed evaluations in accordance with Section 1.7.

EWPs placed in the Basket shall remain eligible for selection indefinitely, subject to the AMTC member concurrence upon selection. The Government reserves the right to select the EWP that best matches a customer's requirements and/or provides the best value at any time. Offerors with EWPs selected by the government shall receive notification of selection via the CAO. The Government anticipates completing Competitive Evaluations without further communication with the Offeror. In rare occasions, additional communication may occur, through the Agreements Officer at the Government’s sole discretion, with single or multiple members submitting EWPs.

Evaluation Process

The Competitive Evaluation will be prepared for Objective Requirements that receive an EWP as a result of this RWP. The Competitive Evaluation will be based on an adjectival merit rating system supported by narrative justification. The overall Competitive Evaluation rating will be based on an integrated assessment of the following:

· Likelihood of the proposed solution to successfully achieve the Objective Requirement as defined in the ORD.

· Adequacy of the technical approach, including complete and clear processes to execute the effort.

· Demonstrated ability of the proposed effort to advance the technology maturity level.

· Ability to demonstrate projected performance improvements.

· Extent to which potential risks are mitigated.

· Extent to which the proposal identifies how the prototype will be evaluated for technical feasibility, manufacturing feasibility or military utility.

· Extent to which the proposed schedule is realistic and achievable.

· Extent to which the cost/price estimate provided is appropriate for the proposed scope or approach.

Competitive Evaluation Rating

The overall Competitive Evaluation rating reflects the Government’s confidence in an Offeror’s ability, as demonstrated in its EWP, to meet the stated objective and the potential technical benefit of the effort. The overall Competitive Evaluation rating will be supported by a narrative justification.

An EWP that receives an overall Competitive Evaluation merit rating of Unacceptable will be rejected and will NOT be placed in the Basket.

Estimate The EWP shall include as thorough a cost/price Estimate as is possible. Any proposed options must be separately identified. If the options are proposed in accordance with the ORD, then include them in the total cost. If the options are un-solicited, they should be separately identified and not included in the total cost. This Estimate is part of the Competitive Evaluation process and will receive a narrative rating. The primary objectives of this evaluation, at this time, is to assess (1) whether the project cost is within the available funding limits, and (2) the ability and/or likelihood of the Offeror to successfully execute the proposed project with the financial resources proposed. If a proposal is selected for award, a full cost proposal will be required as detailed in Appendix III, AMTC Award Process and Requirements. NOTE: If the full cost proposal varies significantly from the EWP Estimate, it will likely be grounds for the Government to reconsider whether the project is suitable for award.

The Government Technical Evaluators will determine if the overall estimate is deemed (I) Insufficient, (S) Sufficient, or (E) Excessive.

3.4.1 Definitions

Insufficient (I) – The Estimate is lower than what is considered appropriate to successfully complete the proposed project.

Sufficient (S) – The Estimate is considered appropriate to successfully complete the proposed project.

Excessive (E) – The Estimate is higher than what is considered appropriate to successfully complete the proposed project, or exceeds available funding limits.

Follow-On Production

Any project selected for award under this RWP may also potentially generate a follow-on production requirement that the Government may award to an Offeror based on successful completion of the prototype project, and without further competition.

Points of Contact

Questions concerning this RWP should be directed to the AMTC CAO, ATI, amtc-contracts@ati.org. Interested parties are encouraged to contact the specified points of contact at any time prior to submission in order to obtain clarification and guidance.

Offerors are encouraged to contact the POC’s identified in the ORD up until the EWP submission due date with any questions or clarifications.

Once the RWP has closed, the status of the EWP submission cannot be discussed until the Competitive Evaluation process is complete.

Appendices (Separately Attached) Appendix I – Mandatory EWP Template Appendix II – Quad Chart Instructions Appendix III – AMTC Award Process and Requirements