Attachment 26 - Updated MACE Offeror Questions Addressed (Dated10-15).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W15QKN26R1C5R
About this file
This is a Question and Answer document addressing offeror inquiries related to the 155mm Modular Artillery for Combat Effectiveness (MACE) prototype development solicitation. The document consolidates 16 questions submitted by potential contractors between September 3 and October 14, 2026, with corresponding government responses provided through October 15, 2026.
Key technical and contractual clarifications include: the Government will not provide interface drawings for cargo systems, requiring contractors to design survivable and aerodynamically stable projectiles that maximize range and cargo capacity; USG Configuration Control begins after Critical Design Review completion; M762 fuzes will be provided at USG test sites; contractors must submit detailed unit cost estimates supported by executable material quotes rather than rough orders of magnitude; full-up rounds with installed cargo payloads are the contractor's responsibility for Phase I, with payloads either Government Furnished Property or mass simulants; and Ammunition Data Cards must accompany prototype deliverables but need not be submitted through WARP. Regarding eligibility under 10 U.S.C. 4022(d), teams may include large traditional businesses if at least one non-traditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participates significantly, or alternatively, all significant participants may be small businesses or non-traditional contractors. The Government confirmed that revised Statement of Work and CLIN Matrix documents (dated October 5-6, 2026) provide the definitive baseline for all milestone schedules and delivery dates, superseding previously conflicting timelines, and that contractors may conduct expulsion charge testing independently or arrange separate USG facility support. Additional TDP documents including Contract Quality Requirements for MACE, 3D Model Guidance, base bleed packages, and mortar assembly specifications were uploaded to SAM.gov for approved vendors.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| PPON MACE Extended Updated Attachments- W15QKN26R1C5R (Dated 10-15).docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Consolidated List
| Number | Date Submitted | Document | Section | Question | Date Responded To | Government Response | Follow up Question? | Notes |
| 1 | 9/3/26 | Can the USG provide interface drawings for known or planned cargo? | 9/3/26 | No, the USG will not provide interface drawings for known or planned cargo. The Purchase Description outlines the internal dimensions for the cargo and projectile system level requirements. The contractor will design a structurally survivable and aeroballistically stable projectile that also maximizes range and the cargo-carrying capacity. As such, the contractor may develop the cargo envelope and mechanical locking feature that will drive cargo design. | ||||
| 2 | 9/3/26 | Can the USG provide a draft milestone plan for qualification and soldier testing? What is the intention for the 20-month testing window? Can additional maturation testing be completed during this time frame? | 9/3/26 | No draft milestone plans for qualification or soldier testing will be provided. Once the prototypes for qualification have been accepted, the entire quantity is delivered to the test site, which will formally evaluate the projectiles for performance, safety, and reliability. The pace of testing is at the discretion of personnel, platform, or ammunition availability and not controlled by the program office. | ||||
| 3 | 9/3/26 | Please confirm USG Configuration Control starts after completion of the CDR. | 9/3/26 | Yes, USG Configuration Control starts after completion of the CDR. | ||||
| 4 | 9/3/26 | Does the USG intend to furnish the M762 Fuse (GFM)? | 9/3/26 | Yes, the USG will have M762 fuzes at USG test sites to support planned USG testing. | ||||
| 5 | 9/3/26 | Will USG support with ignition training of expulsion charge and/or static payload expulsion test? | 9/3/26 | The contractor can conduct this sub-system level test or separately fund a USG test site to perform the test on their behalf. | ||||
| 6 | 9/3/26 | Please confirm whether the offerors are expected to provide projected unit cost estimates as part of their proposal. | 9/3/26 | Yes, this will be a part of the full cost proposal supported by executable quotes for materials. We cannot award using Rough Orders of Magnitude (ROM). | ||||
| 7 | 9/3/26 | May the IMS be submitted as an attachment, and excluded from the technical volume page count? | 9/3/26 | Yes | ||||
| 8 | 1.4 Eligibility (Prototype Project Opportunity Notice( PPON | |||||||
| Reinterpreted Question: If an Offeror is a non-traditional defense contractor, can they form a team with a large (traditional) business to submit a proposal, or are all participants restricted to small businesses or non-traditional defense contractors? | ||||||||
| In accordance with 10 U.S.C. §4022(d), Offerors shall meet one of the following conditions to be considered for an award: | ||||||||
| A. There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project. | Answer: Yes, an Offeror may form a team that includes a large (traditional) business. | |||||||
| B. 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. | ||||||||
| In order to be eligible for award, the proposed teaming arrangement must satisfy at least one of the statutory conditions of 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d). Per 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d) application of these conditions: | ||||||||
| The question is simple. If sub-A is a non-traditional defense contractor, can they form a team with big business to submit a proposal or are all participants restricted to small business per sub-B? | Under Condition (A): The team may include one or more large (traditional) businesses, provided that at least one Non-traditional Defense Contractor (NDC) or Nonprofit Research Institution is participating to a significant extent in the performance of the prototype project. | |||||||
| Under Condition (B): This is a separate, alternative path to eligibility. If a team is attempting to qualify under Condition (B), then all significant participants on the team must be small businesses or NDCs. | ||||||||
| Basically, the contractor is not restricted to Condition (B). If a “team” contains a large (traditional) business, they can qualify for award under Condition (A), provided the NDC’s participation is determined by the Government to be "significant" (e.g., they are responsible for key technical deliverables, critical design components, or a substantial portion of the prototype manufacturing). |
| 9 | 9/23/26 | Section 3.28 of the SOW references the Contract Quality Requirements for MACE. Can you please confirm where this document can be accessed or provide a copy? | The ‘Contract Quality Requirements for MACE.docx’ has been uploaded to SAM. Vendors who have already been approved for the TDP can access it immediately, and those not previously approved may request access through SAM. | |
| The following other TDP documents have been added: | ||||
| Attachment 17 - 3 D Model Creation & Standardization Guidance Document | ||||
| Attachment 18 - Contract Quality Requirements for MACE | ||||
| Attachment 19 - M1128 Base Bleed Package | ||||
| Attachment 20 - MACE BB Mortor Assembly components 20260626 | ||||
| Attachment 21 - rf Smoke Payload | ||||
| Attachment 22 - SPEC MIL-DTL-32720 M1128 Base Burner 5 | ||||
| 10 | 9/28/26 | For the 52-caliber Z and Supercharge, will the USG provide full structural environments to evaluate to include transient base pressure load vs. time, set-forward, set-back, and rotational accelerations vs. time and muzzle velocities | 9/30/26 | As more information is learned about developmental systems, we plan to provide structural environments to assess future platform structural survivability including with developmental propelling charges. |
| 11 | 9/28/26 | For the Phase I M864 expulsion charge, will the USG provide them as no-cost GFE or is there a unit cost for each charge the bidder should pay the USG? | 9/30/26 | For Phase I, the contractor is responsible for developing and sourcing an expulsion charge. The USG will not be providing the charge as a GFE. |
| 12 | 9/28/26 | In some places the due dates listed within Attachment 4, MACE CLIN Matrix, and the dates listed within the SOW, 5.0, “Deliverables”, and 6.0, “Milestone Payment Schedule,” are different. For example, within the SOW, 5.0 and 6.0, up to 335 prototype projectiles for safety testing are shown to be deliverable by 4 November 2027, assuming a stated contract award date of 22 Jan 2027. Within the CLIN Matrix those same 335 prototype projectiles are shown due 11 months after contract award which would make them due 27 December 2027 assuming a 22 Jan 2027 contract award date. PPON, paragraph 3.3.3 states, “The Offeror shall also include a completed copy of SOW Section 6.0 (Table 3: Milestone Schedule) within this volume, ensuring proposed milestone payments align with the proposed Phase I and Phase II CLIN pricing.” May we interpret that to say that the dates listed within the CLIN table have precedent and we may adjust the dates listed within the SOW: 5.0 and 6.0 to align? | 9/30/26 | The Government acknowledges the discrepancy between the delivery dates specified in the Statement of Work (SOW) and the performance periods specified in the MACE CLIN Matrix (Attachment 4) due to the proposal extension. Amendment 0005 to this solicitation provides a revised and corrected Statement of Work (SOW) and CLIN Matrix. These revised documents will serve as the definitive baseline for all proposal submissions. All Offerors shall use the timelines and dates specified within the amended documents as the sole basis for their proposals. |
| 13 | 9/28/26 | We request that specific test objectives be provided for the prototype deliverables required in Section 5.0 of the SOW in order to integrate with the Contractor Test Plan required in section 4.5.1. | 9/30/26 | The MACE Program will not be providing specific test objectives at this stage because the test objectives should be dependent on the specific design, materials, and manufacturing solution proposed, especially for Engineering Tests. The early Engineering Tests will verify metal parts survivability and basic function. Limited Safety Assessments will verify system safety and limited performance under limited environments. Qualification Tests will verify performance, safety, and reliability across all environments. User demonstrations and experimentation are to be determined (TBD) because they experimentation events for the user's operational needs. |
| 14 | 10/5/26 | We request that the USG provide tech data on DEVCOM AC’s proposed Phase 2/ER-Cargo design, to include rocket motor and cargo ICDs, metal parts drawings, mid-body fuze specification, rocket motor spec, and 52 caliber compatible rotating bands and obturators. | 10/5/26 | The MACE Program will not be providing tech data on active developmental efforts, including extended range artillery rocket motors, airframes, fuzing, rotating bands, and obturator efforts. The USG will release interface and performance specifications in the future after taking necessary steps to protect government intellectual property (IP). |
| 15 | 10/14/26 | For Phase I since there will be a mix of government furnished property for the delivery of MACE projectiles, is the contractor responsible for completing full up rounds with the cargo payloads already installed or will cargo payloads be installed into the projectiles at corresponding government facilities based on test needs? | 10/15/26 | For Phase I, the contractor is responsible for assembling full up rounds with cargo payloads already installed. Cargo payloads will either be Government Furnished Property or mass simulants. |
| 16 | 10/14/26 | Do the Ammunition Data Cards need to be prepared and submitted through the Worldwide Ammunition Data Repository Program (WARP)? | 10/15/26 | Ammunition Data Cards (ADCs) need to be provided with prototype projectile deliverables, but the ADCs do not need to be submitted through WARP. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .