W15QKN-26-R-1BH5 PPON PGS QandAs - 2026MAY29.docx

W15QKN-26-R-1BH5 PGS PPON Questions and Answers Released 13 April 2026

Q1.We have a significant concern about the PGS PPON language regarding obligations, and we were hoping you could clear something up for us. Paragraph 3.4.6. states, "The total OTA(s) amount will not be obligated at time of award. Funding for the OTA(s) will be obligated as funding is appropriated and per contractual milestone payment schedules. Based on the availability of funds, the Government and OTA Awardees may need to renegotiate the schedule, milestones events, and/or the Statement of Work."

Figure 1 shows Total Planned Obligations Schedule, with $40M through 1QFY28 and the remaining $32M through 4QFY28. Based on Attachment 3 - Delivery Schedule, the hardware is due 30 days prior to Prototype Test (PT) and the PT is scheduled to start 15 months after award. According to the estimated timeline on page 4 of the PPON, the OTA award is anticipated sometime in July 2026, which puts the tentative PT start date sometime in October 2027, with a hardware delivery date sometime in September 2027.

Our concern is that at the time of hardware delivery, which represents the bulk of the research, development, testing, and manufacturing, only $40M of the planned funds will have been obligated.

Is it possible that after hardware delivery for PT, the Government could obligate no further funds, and Offerors and their subcontractors would be left without payment for any other milestones after hardware delivery?

The obvious problem is that with a limit of $40M of obligated funds for up to two company teams, representing approximately $20M each as the upper limit of obligated funds for the entire project, with potentially no further funding after hardware delivery, the amount of commitment that each Offeror and their subcontractors may be limited to is the obligated funds up to the point of hardware delivery.

A1. Yes, due to budget process, funding is approved and appropriated yearly and the Government is unable to obligate funding for the following FY. The Government will negotiate with the selected contractors to structure their proposed efforts into tasks such that the Government will authorize each task when funding is available.

It is the Government’s intent to authorize the negotiated tasks and obligate funding as follows:

· Task 0: Total of $17M at award

· Task 1: Total of $13M in 1QFY27

· Task 2: Total of $10M in 3QFY27

· Task 3: Total of $17M in 1QFY28

· Task 4: Total of $15M in 3QFY28 Note: Tasks 2 and 4 may be authorized/obligated earlier, pending budget approvals.

A notional example is provided below.

The contractor’s decision to proceed ahead of the Government’s gate approval / authorization will be at their sole risk.

Q2. Is the Unite States Government (USG) willing to make an obligation for the remainder of the OTA funding before requiring hardware delivery in support of the PT?

A2. The Government plans to obligate funding as soon as it is available. It is the Government’s intent to authorize as many tasks as possible as early as possible, pending availability of funds.

Q3. On Attachment 4 - PGS Pricing, do cells E11-E16 and G11-G16 need to be filled out prior to submission?

A3. Yes. All green cells are required to be filled in prior to submission. For clarification, the funding identified in Figure 1, totaling $72M, represents the total available funding for the development (LIN 0001 - LIN 0005) and hardware (LIN 0006 - LIN 0011). The additional items (LIN 0012 – LIN0036) are for future consideration and would be resourced with additional funding.

Q4. Is a response required for each line of Section 2 - PPON Statement of Work (SOW) (21 pages of the PPON), and is that response included in the 30-page count limit?

A4. No, responses to each line of Section 2 are not required. Reference Section 3 in PPON for proposal submission instructions.

Released 17 April 2026

Q5. Are the Power requirements for the fire control batteries listed in Attachment 1 – PGS Threshold Requirements "and" or "or"? Does the system need to be able to perform all four bullets of requirements on a single set of batteries, or does it need to be able to perform each of those requirements on a single set of batteries, without having to also perform the others?

A5. The list represents an “and” condition.

Q6. What standard is used to determine whether a Soldier can accurately determine threat characteristics at range? Is there any Government research or standard that clarifies this requirement, or is it subjective? Are Contractors expected to guess what magnification and resolution Soldiers require to accurately determine threat characteristics at the desired ranges?

A6. Magnification is an inherent necessity to provide adequate resolution at the eye, of a target at range. To provide trade space for Offerors a minimum magnification was not specified, rather a task (qualitative assessment conducted by Soldiers) to accurately determine threat characteristics of a squad sized element to be verified by demonstration. Squad size targets imply light armored vehicles or armed squad size elements in the open.

Q7. Is the Government willing to quantify minimal accuracy degradation in loss of MOA or FPS? If not, is the Government willing to accept the Contractor's definition of minimal accuracy degradation?

A7. The contractor will determine the minimal degradation that preserves the proposed system performance identified in Attachment 1 – PGS Threshold Requirements.

Q8. Can the Government specify what "survive" means in relation to the FC drop test? Is operation in degraded mode acceptable after the drop test, or is digital functionality still expected? Can the Government confirm whether one of the drop tests will have the FC underneath the weapon system upon impact, i.e. the weapon system is upside down when dropped?

A8. “Survive” means that the Fire Control attached to a weapon dropped at a one-meter height onto concrete shall not incur functional damage or non-operator correctable performance degradation. The drop testing includes a configuration whereby the fire control is positioned below the weapon at time of release.

Q9. On the weapon, is the enabler attachment at the twelve o'clock position required to run the full length of the receiver? Is there a minimum or desired length for the enabler attachment at the twelve o'clock position?

A9. No, it is not a requirement to run the full length or to provide a minimum length.

Q10. There is no boresight insert/mandrel adapter specified. Is that a requirement? If so, which ICD or specifications govern the adapter requirement?

A10. The contractor’s design will dictate what tools and/or gauges are required/provided to properly operate and maintain the system.

Q11. The terms, "F-Type Target", "Government Ballistic Solver – Small Arms", “Intra Soldier Wireless”, and "Passive Targeting" show up in the Definitions section but nowhere else in the PPON or its attachments. Are these artifacts from previous PPON drafts or are they meaningful terms somewhere in the PPON packet?

A11. These definitions will be removed from the Amended PPON.

Q12. In Attachment 15 - PGS Model OTA Draft, the following words appear: "The potential Follow-on Production has an estimated unit quantity of 11,000 weapons and fire controls; 15,000,000 rounds of ammunition, spare parts, tools/gauges/accessories, and engineering support. The maximum ceiling amount is estimated at $255,531,000." Is this an actual number, or is it random? At that price, for weapons alone, the price of each weapon would be limited to $23,230.09. For ammunition alone, the average price of a round would need to be $17.04 a round. Combined, each would be even less. Do these numbers reflect the Government's expectation for pricing?

A12. The language in Section D-Potential for Follow-on Production of Attachment 15-PGS Model OTA Draft has been revised to match the language in Section 5-Follow-On Production Award of the PPON. Please note that these are estimates are based on current information and intended to give industry notice of the potential magnitude, which may change in the future.

Q13. In the PGS PPON Final document, on page 4, there is an untitled table that seems to lay out the timeline for the PPON. The table seems to indicate OTA award in July of 2026, with a Contractor performance period from August 2026 through October 2027 (15 full months), a prototype delivery in November 2027 (one additional month), and the Government Prototype Test starting in December 2027. In contrast, Attachment 3 - Delivery Schedule, indicates that the Prototype Test will start 15 months after award and that prototype hardware delivery is required 30 days prior to Prototype Test start. Which is correct? Will the Contractor have 15 full months of development before shipping for an additional month, 14 months of development minus shipping time, or something else?

A13. The PPON provides an estimated timeline in Section 1.3 but Attachment 3 - Delivery Schedule is the primary document for planned deliveries. As such, Government Prototype Testing is planned to start 15 months after award and items that are to be provided “30 days prior to PT” are expected to be delivered by the end of 14 months after award. These delivery dates will be negotiated with selected contractors to convert to calendar dates so that dates do not land on weekends, holidays, or conflicts at receiving/acceptance locations.

Q14. There is mention of not inverting the weapon. It is acceptable to turn the weapon to its side to accomplish the referenced task, or does that count as inverting the weapon?

A14. It is acceptable to turn the system on its side to accomplish a battery change.

Q15. There is mention of an anti-reflective device. Is there an ICD and/or part number for this device, and if so, what is the reference? Is the anti-reflective device itself a deliverable under this OTA?

A15. Relative to ICD and/or part number, Drawing 13027735 “Anti-Reflection Device” describes the element and provides potential Government approved sources. If your organization is interested, please request Drawing 13027735 through Laura Burgos-Magidson, laura.e.burgos-magidson.civ@army.mil. Reference page 5 of the PPON, the Fire Control is defined as: “Fire Control” refers to a PGS weapon-mounted fire control system including a soft case, remote(s), lens covers, laser filter unit, mounting and alignment tools, anti-reflective device, lens cleaning kit, Quick Reference Guide (QRG) for basic setup and operation, zeroing chart(s), and two sets of batteries.” The anti-reflective device is a deliverable included with Fire Control in this OTA.

Q16. There is mention of a laser filter unit. Is there an ICD and/or part number for this unit, and if so, what is the reference? Is the laser filter unit itself a deliverable under this OTA?

A16. There are two Government approved sources listed below for Laser Filter Units (LFU). There are LFUs with various objective diameters, listed in the below.

1. Applied Optics Center A Division of Optex Systems, Inc 9872 Chartwell Dr Dallas, TX 75243

2. Optical Coating Laboratory, LLC A Division of Viavi Solutions 2789 Northpoint Parkway Santa Rosa, CA 95407

Currently supported LFU objective sizes and thread specifications:

Part No. Objective Diameter Thread Specification 13104365 24mm M25.5 x 0.5 - 6g 13120868 24mm M28.5 x 0.75 - 6g 13120865 24mm M28 x 0.6 - 6g 13101345 30mm M34 x 0.75 - 6g 13102969 32mm 1.500-24 Unified Form SPL - INT 13051596 40mm 1.755-32 Unified Form SPL - EXT 13100578 44mm 1.967-48 Unified Form SPL - EXT 13058652 50mm 2.187-32 Unified Form SPL - EXT 13100581 56mm 2.425-48 Unified Form SPL - EXT 13111589 60mm 2.5625-48 Unified Form SPL – EXT

Reference is made to page 5 of the PPON, Fire Control is defined as:

“Fire Control” refers to a PGS weapon-mounted fire control system including a soft case, remote(s), lens covers, laser filter unit, mounting and alignment tools, anti-reflective device, lens cleaning kit, Quick Reference Guide (QRG) for basic setup and operation, zeroing chart(s), and two sets of batteries.”

The laser filter unit is a deliverable included with Fire Control in this OTA.

Q17. Is every part of the weapon, or perhaps the vast majority of the system, required to be the specified color? Is there a percentage threshold of visible area that must be the required color?

A17. A majority of the system is required to be the specified color. Surface color and finish should minimize system signature and detection, when possible.

Q18. Attachment 3 – Delivery Schedule, Section 2.3.2.2.4, page 1: Should line "2.3.2.2.4 TiC Ammo LOT Data" in Attachment 3 read "2.3.2.2.5 TiC Ammo LOT Data"?

A18. The TiC Ammo LOT Data is covered under SoW Section 2.3.2.2.5 and the Government will update Attachment 3 - Delivery Schedule to reflect the correction.

Q19. Attachment 4 – Pricing, Section 2.2.1.3.2.a All, page 9 All: PGS PPON SOW Section 2.2.1.3.2.a references High Pressure Test (HPT) rounds. Attachment 4 - Pricing workbook does not have an entry for the HPT rounds. Where should this pricing be included?

A19. All items, not specifically called out and listed in Attachment 4 – Pricing, are not separately priced and should be included in LIN 0001 – LIN 0004, wherever is most appropriate.

Q20. Attachment 4 – Pricing, Section 1.2, page 3, Section 1.2 states, "The PGS is planned for two per rifle squad in the Close Combat Force." We have calculated this out to be 22,000 weapons. Section 5 of the PGS PPON states, "The production award(s) may include approximately 11,000 total weapons and fire controls…” Is the total amount of weapons for the production award ~11,000 or 22,000?

A20. See A12. The scope of the follow-on production contract is estimated at 11,000 systems.

Q21. Attachment 4 – Pricing, Section 5, page 39: Section 5 of the PGS PPON states, "The production award(s) may include approximately 11,000 total weapons and fire controls…" Is the total amount of weapons for the production award ~11,000 or 22,000?

A21. See A12. The scope of the follow-on production contract is estimated at 11,000 systems.

Q22. Attachment 3 – Delivery Schedule, section Multiple, page 1: There appear to be multiple discrepancies between the deliverables description and the SOW reference.

A22. The SOW and Attachment 3 – Delivery Schedule and will be updated to resolve the discrepancies.

Q23. PGS PPON Final 01APR2026.pdf - Section 3.3: The following was answered in the Draft RFP Q&A, however, was not incorporated into the Final RFP. Will the government allow 10-point font for graphics and tables? Will the Government also allow Arial face font for graphics and tables?

A23. Graphics and tables can utilize alternate fonts and font sizes but must be in the English language.

Q24. PGS PPON Final 01APR2026.pdf - Section 3.4.2: Factor 1 - Concept Feasibility, are substantiating data, analysis, and test plans excluded from the 30-page count?

A24. No, substantiating data, analysis, and test plans are inclusive of the 30-page count.

Q25. PGS PPON Final 01APR2026.pdf - Section 3.4.3: Factor 2 – Proposed Threshold Requirements, are substantiating data and/or plans excluded from the 30-page count?

A25. No, substantiating data, analysis, and/or plans are inclusive of the 30-page count.

Q26. PGS PPON Final 01APR2026.pdf - Cover page & 1.3 Acquisition Approach, 3.1 Introduction notional timeline table: Previous Government schedules showed eight weeks for proposal preparation. Resource planning and pre-RFP activities were done with the advertised eight weeks in mind. The eight weeks is critical in order to provide all the required information. It is requested the Government defer to the original proposal duration of eight weeks, as shown in the “notional timeline to OTA award” table on page 29 of the final RFP.

A26. The Government grants a PPON proposal extension FROM 11 May 2026 TO 01 June 2026.

Q27. Paragraph 3.4.8, Proposal Section 8, Significant Nontraditional Participation, Nonprofit Research Institution, or Cost Share: Is it required for subcontractors to complete and submit Attachment 19 – Business Status Certification?

A27. As stated in Section 3.4.8 of the PPON, to be considered for award, the Offeror shall complete Attachment 19 – Business Status Certification. Attachment 19-Business Status Certification contains the conditions which the Offeror must meet to be considered for award.

Q28. Attachment 2 (Weapon c): Does window in magazine need to show 0-5 rounds in magazine? Can it be an indicator that is a number?

A28. Reference is made to Attachment 2 – PGS Characteristics, the weapon shall have a 5 round detachable magazine with a window showing the number of rounds loaded in the magazine that can be viewed when the magazine is inserted in the weapon.

Q29. Your reply to a previous RFI was: "The contractor’s decision to proceed ahead of the Government’s authorization will be at their sole risk." Since the burden of R&D and all manufacturing must be completed before hardware delivery, and the deliverables after hardware delivery have little to no monetary value, it appears as though the USG is asking contractors to take on an incredible risk, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

If the Government identifies that one company is less viable than the other at the start of the Prototype Test, is it possible that it would discontinue funding the less viable company, even though the hardware had already been delivered?

A29. Contractors will be paid the agreed firm-fixed price for every accepted delivery / milestone. If a contractor chooses to begin work on tasks that have not yet been authorized (due to a Government gate or waiting on funding), that will be at its sole risk.

If it is in the Government’s best interest to down-select to a single contractor during performance, that competitive decision will be thoroughly documented and the contractor who was not chosen to continue would be terminated. However, all accepted fixed price deliveries / milestones will have been paid. .

Q30. What recourse does a contractor have if the negotiated amount is $36 million, for example, but only $20 million per contractor has been obligated up to the point of hardware delivery and no more Government funds are obligated, once the USG has the research, hardware, and SLAs it wants?

A30. See A1. Due to the budgetary process, funding is approved and appropriated yearly and the Government is unable to obligate funding for the following Fiscal Years. The Government will negotiate with the selected contractors to structure their proposed efforts into tasks such that the Government will authorize each task when funding is available. The contractor should propose capabilities that can be met within the schedule and funding constraints identified in the PPON.

Q31. A two-week extension is requested for W15QKN-26-R-1BH5 - Precision Grenadier System Prototype Project Opportunity.

A31. The Government grants a PPON proposal extension FROM 11 May 2026 TO 01 June 2026.

Q32. Pages 31-32, paragraph 3.4.4, Factor 3 - Special License Agreements: We are required to provide 3 fully executable, signed Special License Agreements but the provided attachments 16, 17, & 18 are in PDF form with "SAMPLE" watermarks on all pages. Will the govt provide editable attachments?

A32. Word versions of the sample SLAs, Attachment 16, 17, and 18, will be provided in the PGS solicitation.

Q33. Page 4, paragraph 1.3, Major Milestones Table: What is the amended timeline for the Major milestones table? The version in this PPON is aligned with the previous 60 day industry response time.

A33. The figure represents an anticipated schedule subject to change. The proposal due date has been extended from 11 May to 1 June.

Q34. Page 29, paragraph 3.1, Notional Timeline to OTA award: What is the amended timeline for the Notional Timeline Table? This version in the PPON is aligned with the previous 60 day industry response time and some dates do not align with the written document

A34. The figure represents a notional schedule that includes 8 weeks for proposal development. The proposal due date has been extended from 11 May to 1 June.

Q35. Page 6, Passive Targeting: Does this permit active lasers to be employed as part of this passive targeting solution?

A35. This definition has been deleted from the PPON. Additionally, the following definitions have also been removed: "F-Type Target", "Government Ballistic Solver – Small Arms", and “Intra Soldier Wireless”. Reference updated PPON.

Q36. Page 18, paragraph 2.3.2.6, Export Control Requirement: What is a perfected compliance instrument.

A36. Offeror shall follow any appropriate document markings.

Q37. Page 6 "Weapon" definition: Does the stowage requirement for magazines within the weapon definition include magazine pouches?

A37. No. The contractor is not responsible for providing pouches.

Q38. Page 36, Section 3.4.9 Proposal Section 9, Oral Presentations: For bid planning purposes, please advise the timeframe that the Government intends to take for oral presentations? Will all oral presentations for all Offerors be conducted within 7 days or longer?

A38. The Oral presentation window may be 1-2 weeks long, depending on the number of oral presentations scheduled. The Government intends to provide notification as soon as possible. There will be a minimum of one week notification prior to the assigned oral presentation date.

Q39. Oral Presentations. Page 36, Section 3.4.9 Proposal Section 9, Oral Presentations: Please advise how Offerors can bring a deactivated, functional model of their proposed PGS solution (including weapon, family of ammunition, and fire control) to the oral presentation, assuming oral presentations will be held on base at Picatinny.

A39. There is no requirement to bring hardware to the oral presentation. However, if desired, prior coordination with the Agreements Officer is required. Specific details of what you intend to bring for oral presentations must be provided.

A functioning weapon would need to be shipped to Picatinny ahead of the presentation date. Hardware would be shipped back in the same fashion. Contractor would be responsible for all shipping labels/costs/insurance.

No live ammunition will be allowed. Any hand carried dummy/inert ammunition would need to be clearly identifiable (hollow cartridge, no primer, etc.).

Fire Control can be hand carried.

Q40. What is the definition of a class 1 hovering group of sUAS’s?

A40. Group 1 UAS is described below.

Q41. What is the exact size, make and model of the sUAS to be used in the testing?

A41. A specific drone make and model is not yet defined as the threat target for testing. Draft test plan, to include target threat identification, will be provided after award.

Released 30 April 2026

Q42. The PPON requires the submission of substantiating data but when limited to only 30 pages, the substantiating data cannot fit within the document. Can a vendor we provide substantiating data volume (referenced in the proposal) to the U.S. Army in a separate file due to the size of the requested U.S. Government test results, third party test results, Offeror test results, manufacturers specification sheets, validated modeling and simulation results, analytical support, design documentation and/or other rationale?

A42. No, a separate file is not allowed. All data must be provided within the appropriate section and stay within the allowable page count. Any pages over the established page count limit will not be considered a part of the proposal. The Government does not expect raw test data or complete test reports. A summary of results (i.e. tables, graphs) that substantiates the performance claims and corresponding confidence levels of those claims is acceptable. The summary description, at a minimum, should also include the source of the results and what configuration it represents. To assist Offerors, Section 2 (Factor 1 – Concept Feasibility), Section 3 (Factor 2 – Proposed Threshold Requirements), and Section 5 narrative only (Factor 4 – Integrated Master Schedule) will now have a combined page limit of 40 pages.

Released 11 May 2026

Q43. Concerning the subject drawing for anti-reflection devices, as an approved source per the drawing (Boston Ballistic Technologies LLC CAGE 89NW6) can you tell me which revision and date of the drawing is described in the Q&A for the PGS?

A43. The revision number and date for the anti-reflection devices drawing (Boston Ballistic Technologies LLC CAGE 89NW(6)) are: Rev J and date is 26 Jan 2024.

Q44. In Attachment 15 Article XVIII Section B-1(i)(a) of the PGS PPON, the hyperlink or address does not appear to work. Would you be able to provide another link or a supplemental PDF of the intended contents?

A44. Please note the link has been updated in Attachment 15 as follows: https://public.cyber.mil/dccs/dccs-documents/.

Q45. The contractor has reviewed the updated language to the PPON for section 4.8 Factor 5 - Price. For LIN’s 0019 – 0036: What are the government requirements regarding the weightings applied? What is the weighting for each specific year and why? Can the USG provide a little more detail?

A45. The weightings were based on the Governments requirement, which we stated in the revised instructions/evaluation.

Released 27 May 2026

Q46. For the W15QKN-26-R-1BH5 solicitation we have noticed the distro F statement was used for the documentation provided. On our submittal documents, should we look to copy the same distro statement with our company’s POCs or should it remain the USG POCs?

A46. No need to copy the distro statement or include USG POC’s.

Q47. Question concerning Q3 & A3: Does this mean LIN 0012-LIN0036 pricing is not expected to be actionable, meaning it would be for budgetary purposes only. Is the Government’s intent that LIN 0012-0018 would be executable multiple times on this OTA or is it for budgetary purposes now and the values would be negotiated once the Government has locked in quantities they wish to procure in the future?

A47. The intent is that LIN 0012 – 0018 would be executable multiple times on this OTA and the pricing data provided for LIN 0012 – 0018 would represent a negotiated cost and that would be the cost used if a contract modification was contemplated to be exercised for any of those LIN’s (LIN 0012 – LIN 0018).

Q48. Clarification regarding the Total Evaluated Price methodology described in Section 4.8 #2, second bullet, Weighted Application of the solicitation.

Specifically, could the Government please confirm:

• Will the government provide the funding profile for each fiscal year? This is required to determine the fiscal year weighting methodology.

• Will the option LINs be grouped by year and compared against the funding available for each respective year?

• Are there any pre-determined weighted criteria that the Government intends to use during the proposal evaluation process for price?

A48. The weightings are based on the Government requirement for each of these FY options/additional assets. The weights will not be provided to industry.

Please refer to section 4.8 Factor 5 Price of the PPON which states: The Total Evaluated Price will be computed by summing the evaluated price for LINs 0001-0018 and the weighted evaluated price for LINs 0019-0036. Pricing significantly outside the designated fiscal year planned fund amounts, see Figure 1, may limit the number of awards made or make an Offeror’s proposal unaffordable. All pricing shall be fixed amounts.

Released 29 May 2026

Q49. Are LI 0019 – 0036 also needed to be actionable or are they for budgetary purposes?

A49. LINs 0019 – 0036 will be actionable as those LINs will be put on contract.

Q50. In the light of the Government requesting firm pricing for LIN 0012-0036, we respectfully request for an extension from 1 June 2026 to 16 June 2026 for the submittal of the FFP proposal in response to the W15QKN-26-R-1BH5 solicitation.

A50. An extension will not be granted; you may update the pricing spreadsheet in your final submission.

The Government will decline any further questions regarding the PPON.

image1.emf image2.png