UGV_RFW_ Weighted_Evaluation_Criteria_21AUG26.docx

Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) for GroundBreaker 1 Demonstration

RFW-DOTAC-ARMY-2026-002

Mandatory Go/No-Go Criteria (Eligibility) Before technical evaluation begins, the submission must pass these baseline compliance checks:

· Administrative Compliance: Did the white paper adhere to the 5-page limit, 12 pt Arial formatting, and include the solicitation number in the email subject?

· Mandatory Registrations: Does the offeror have an active SAM.gov UEI and are they prepared for WAWF billing? Does the offeror have a Defense Logistics Agency’s Joint Certification Program (JCP)? Does the offer have an approved Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code

· Security & Export Control: Does the offeror possess a valid DD Form 2345 (ITAR/EAR compliance) and meet NIST SP 800-171 standards for CUI?

· Statutory OTA Compliance (10 U.S.C. § 4022): Is the offeror a Non-Traditional Defense Contractor (NDC), partnering with one, or providing the required cost-share?

Base Score Justification Rubric (1-5 Scale) Evaluators must use the following strict criteria to assign the base score for each factor. To justify a score, the submission must meet the specific thresholds outlined below.

5 – Outstanding (Exceeds Expectations / Low Risk)

Threshold: Meets 100% of the core requirements for the factor AND provides significant, measurable value-adds or exceeds desired attributes (e.g., endurance is 4+ hours instead of 2; software is fully ROS-M compliant today).

Justification: The solution is highly modular, requires zero developmental effort to meet the baseline, and offers immediate, proven capability. The cost/timeline is highly advantageous, and the risk of failure is negligible.

4 – Good (Meets All, Exceeds Some / Low-to-Moderate Risk)

Threshold: Meets 100% of the core requirements for the factor AND meets at least one desired attribute.

Justification: The approach is sound, the delivery timeline is solid, and all required data (e.g., frequencies, ROM breakouts) was provided clearly. Minimal workarounds are needed to integrate the system. The risk of failure is low.

3 – Acceptable (Meets Baseline / Moderate Risk)

Threshold: Meets 80% - 99% of the core requirements, including all "must-have" critical elements (e.g., has some form of obstacle avoidance, meets the exact 2-hour endurance minimum).

Justification: The solution is viable but offers no significant value-adds. The software may require minor adapters to integrate, or the delivery timeline is standard but not expedited. Evaluators assess a moderate, but manageable, risk.

2 – Marginal (Fails to Meet Baseline / High Risk)

Threshold: Meets only 50% - 79% of the core requirements.

Justification: The solution misses key critical elements (e.g., it is a closed/proprietary system, endurance is under 2 hours, or the ROM is missing major breakouts). It would require significant government time, money, or effort to make it usable for the demonstration. High risk of failure.

1 – Unacceptable (Non-Viable / Extreme Risk)

Threshold: Meets less than 50% of the core requirements.

Justification: The solution completely lacks operational alignment (e.g., proposing an aerial drone instead of a UGV), cannot meet basic mobility/endurance minimums, or proposes highly unrealistic delivery timelines and costs. Not viable for this effort.

Weighted White Paper Scoring Matrix (100-Point Scale) Evaluators should assign a Base Score (1-5), multiply it by the Weight, and enter the Total Score for that factor.

OVERALL TOTAL

Technical & Cost Evaluation (Scored Criteria) Factor 1: Technical Merit & Architecture (Highly Important - 40% of Total Score)

· Operational Alignment: Does the proposed solution effectively address one or more of the core UGV mission profiles (e.g., RSTA, Tactical Logistics, CASEVAC, EOD)?

· Desired Attributes: Does the system meet the target endurance and demonstrate all-terrain mobility? Does it possess manual or autonomous obstacle avoidance? Did the vendor clearly identify all integrated radios, SDRs, and operating frequency ranges?

· Modularity & Interoperability: Is the system hardware-agnostic and modular (easily swapping litters, logistics racks, or sensors)? Is the software compatible with open architectures like ROS-M to easily integrate into existing DoW C2 networks?

Factor 2: Delivery & Demonstration Readiness (Highly Important - 35% of Total Score)

· Speed to Field: Does the offeror demonstrate immediate delivery readiness to participate in the GroundBreaker 1 live demonstration?

· Delivery Timelines & Scalability: Are the current lead times, delivery schedules, and organic ramp-up timelines realistic and scalable over the next 12 months without requiring additional government facility funding?

Factor 4: Cost & Affordability (Important - 15% of Total Score)

· Affordability: Does the Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) align with the requirement for affordable, tactically expendable/recoverable systems?

· Cost Realism & Clarity: Is the cost estimate realistic and clearly broken down by Hardware/Fabrication (unit cost and major subcomponents), Delivery (logistics/shipping), and Personnel Support (FSR roles)?

Factor 3: Demonstrated History & Past Performance (Minimal Importance - 10% of Total Score)

· USG Testing: Does the vendor provide credible data and reports from previous US Government-hosted demonstrations or tests?

· Maturity: Does the past performance indicate the physical platform and its autonomy software are mature and rugged enough for immediate operational assessment in field conditions? (Note: Lack of extensive USG history should not heavily penalize a vendor if Factors 1 and 2 are exceptionally strong, as this factor holds the lowest weight).

Key Takeaway: Solutions that heavily emphasize physical modularity, open-system architectures (ROS-M), immediate demonstration readiness, and explicitly defined radio/SDR frequencies should be scored highest and prioritized for GroundBreaker 1 demonstration invitations.