PPON MACE Extended Updated Attachments- W15QKN26R1C5R (Dated 10-15).docx

Prototype Project Opportunity Notice (PPON)

For

155mm Modular Artillery for Combat Effectiveness (MACE)

Solicitation Number: W15QKN-26-R-1C5R

Issued by:

U.S. Army Contracting Command – Rock Island at Picatinny Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

In Support of:

Project Manager Combat Ammunition Systems Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

PPON Issue Date: August 19, 2026

Original Proposal Due Date: 1500 EDT on September 30, 2026

PPON Amended Issue Date: August 31, 2026

Revised Proposal Due Date: 1500 EDT on October 30, 2026

SECTION 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Background

The U.S.Army is seeking to expand domestic manufacturing capacity for large caliber projectiles in order to meet emerging global security requirements and modernize the Defense Industrial Base (DIB). Specifically, the U.S. Army is exploring the manufacture of 155mm cargo-carrying projectiles under the 155mm Modular Artillery for Combat Effectiveness (MACE) program. MACE will support current large caliber artillery systems as well as next-generation Field Artillery Systems through alternative manufacturing processes, thereby expanding the supplier base. The MACE is intended to be a multi-functional projectile body that will interchangeably accept a variety of lethal and non-lethal payloads.

The primary objective of this effort is to establish a scalable, resilient manufacturing capability for affordable projectiles. This approach aims to secure a robust supply chain that mitigates critical bottlenecks in processes, equipment, and materials. By expanding this industrial base, the U.S. Army will be able to acquire projectiles in bulk, optimize unit costs, improve Field Artillery efficiency, and ensure reliable production during periods of surge or conflict.

The secondary objective of this effort is to develop a modular range of payload capabilities, scaling from low-cost systems which defeat standard threats up to high-end systems required for sophisticated peer conflict (aligned with the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, November 2025). The flexibility of the new MACE projectile will enhance the U.S. Army’s tactical readiness and defensive posture. MACE cargo munitions are designed to deliver payloads over targeted areas at extended ranges against personnel or armored targets, providing area denial, smoke, illumination, and other advanced capabilities. This versatility directly supports the Army’s modernization priorities for long-range precision fires.

1.2 Acquisition Approach

The purpose of this PPON is to competitively solicit and award up to two (2) prototype Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) under the authority of 10 U.S.C.§4022 for sources capable of prototyping a manufacturing process for 155mm cargo-carrying artillery. The Government intends to maximize industry participation and encourage Nontraditional Defense Contractors (NDCs). The Government will request full technical and pricing proposals.

The resulting prototype OTAs are anticipated to be awarded on a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) basis. The project is divided into two phases. Phase I is the development and qualification of a cargo-carrying projectile to achieve 30-35 km and preparation for a Milestone C production decision. The Government may choose to proceed into Phase II before Phase I is successfully completed, to develop and qualify a cargo-carrying projectile to achieve ranges beyond 35 km and prepare for a Milestone C decision. The estimated duration for Phase I of the prototype OTA is thirty-four (34) months (in accordance with the Statement of Work) and the estimated duration for Phase II is to be defined.

The Phase I overarching goal is for the contractor(s) to develop one prototype projectile design and manufacturing process, and deliver loaded, assembled, and packed (LAP) artillery projectiles: for engineering tests, test demonstrations, limited safety tests, qualification tests, and soldier tests. The Government intends to conduct Phase I qualification testing thirteen (13) months after agreement award.

The Phase II overarching goal is for the contractor(s) to develop one prototype projectile design and manufacturing process, and deliver alternate range extension sub-systems and loaded, assembled, and packed (LAP) artillery projectiles, inclusive of the expulsion system and new alternate range extension solution. The Government intends to conduct Phase II qualification testing on these prototypes.

Follow-On Production Contract or Transaction: In accordance with 10 U.S.C. §4022(f), competitive procedures are being used for the selection of parties in this prototype transaction. Therefore, upon determination the participant(s) in the transaction successfully completed the prototype project provided for in the agreement – or in the event a particularly favorable or unexpected result is accomplished which justifies transition to production – this prototype project may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of further competitive procedures.

Should the Government pursue a follow-on production award, a production scope supporting this prototype project would be provided and a separate solicitation request would evaluate production pricing. The anticipated scale of a follow-on production contract or transaction resultant from this prototype project award is estimated to be the initial production of up to 10,000 artillery projectile systems per year.

For more information regarding Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) regulations and policies, please refer to the DoW Other Transactions Guide, Version 2.0, dated July 2023. A copy of the Guide can be obtained by contacting the PPON Points of Contact listed in Section 9.

1.3 Definitions

Reference Attachment 1 - Terms and Conditions, Supplement 2: Definitions

1.4 Eligibility

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.

(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.

(C) 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.

(D) The senior procurement executive for the agency determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify the use of a transaction that provides for innovative business arrangements or structures that would not be feasible or appropriate under a contract, or would provide an opportunity to expand the defense supply base in a manner that would not be practical or feasible under a contract.

The eligibility of proposals under conditions (A) and (B) above is subject to a determination by the Government that the significance of the proposed nontraditional defense contractor and/or nonprofit research institution participation satisfies the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 4022(d). Offerors should refer to Attachment 2 - Business Status Certification and Attachment 3 - Supplement to Business Status Certification, for guidance on developing a proposal that can satisfy conditions (A) and (B).

If the Government determines that an Offeror’s proposal does not meet conditions (A) or (B) above, the Government may, at its sole discretion, request additional rationale and support or provide the Offeror with an opportunity to propose an alternative cost share arrangement that meets condition (C) above in accordance with § 4022(d).

In addition, Offerors must have a number and must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) to obtain a Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code and Unique Entity Identifier. This system verifies identity and ensures that payment is sent to the right party. In general, to invoice and receive payment after award of an OTA, Offerors must register in Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) through the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE).

The Offeror is subject to a determination by the Agreements Officer (AO) that it is a responsible party that is not suspended or debarred by the Federal Government, and is not prohibited by Presidential Executive Order, or law from receiving such award. Additionally, Offerors who attempt to circumvent the eligibility requirements/conditions may be excluded from consideration at the Agreements Officer’s discretion.

1.5 Evaluators

Army Contracting Command – Rock Island (ACC-RI) at Picatinny with the assistance of Government subject matter experts from Development Command Armament Center (DEVCOM AC) and Project Manager Combat Ammunition Systems (PM CAS), will review and evaluate proposals submitted in response to this PPON. There will be no Government contractor personnel involved in the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this PPON.

SECTION 2 – CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBERS (CLINS)

Complete MACE CLIN Matrix (Attachment 4).

SECTION 3 – PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 General Instructions Submission Overview

3.1.1 This PPON utilizes a single Full Proposal submission process: offerors shall submit full proposals encompassing Technical, Schedule, Price, and Miscellaneous Documentation volumes.

3.1.2 The costs of preparing, submitting, and participating in proposal efforts are not considered an allowable direct charge to any contract or agreement with the Government.

3.1.3 The Government does not anticipate negotiating the OTA Terms and Conditions. If the Offeror cannot accept the Government’s Terms and Conditions, then the Government reserves right to award to an alternative Offeror.

3.1.4 The Government also does not anticipate changes to the SOW prior to award that would result in additional costs or the need for the Contractor to resubmit a cost proposal.

3.1.5 Any PPON amendments or general questions and answers will be issued via the Beta.SAM.gov website within the Notice for this PPON, W15QKN-26-R-1C5R.

3.1.6 Advertising brochures are not desired.

3.1.7 Multiple proposals may be submitted by the same organization; however, each written proposal must be separate and distinct from one another.

3.1.8 The proposal(s) shall be valid for six (6) months after date of submission.

3.1.9 All proposal submission information shall be unclassified and will be protected as competitive source selection information.

3.1.10 The proposal shall be written in the English language and conform to the instructions herein.

3.1.11 Technical and/or computer software data with military application may require appropriate approval, authorization, or license for lawful exportation.

3.1.12 All communications regarding the contents of the PPON and its attachments shall be addressed to the PPON points of contact identified in Section 9 of this PPON.

3.1.13 All proposal submissions shall be submitted through the SAM.gov website.

3.2 Full Proposal Preparation

3.2.1 The Offeror shall prepare the proposal submission as set forth in the chart below:

155mm MACE Proposal Submission

Volume I, Factor 1 – Phase I (155mm MACE to 30-35 km):

Includes Sub-factor 1.1 (Schedule) and Sub-factor 1.2 (Technical) Page Count by Subfactor:

155mm MACE = Maximum 23 pages.

VendorName_Vol_1_Phase1_155mm MACE_XXXXXX

Volume II, Factor 2 – Phase II (155mm MACE with Alternate Range Ext. beyond 35 km):

Includes Sub-factor 2.1 (Technical) and Sub-factor 2.2 (Schedule).

Maximum 23 pages, File name: VendorName_Vol_2_Phase2_XXXXXX

1. Price Proposal, using the naming convention:

VendorName_Vol_3_Price_Proposal_XXXXXX

Volume IV, Miscellaneous Agreement Documentation

1. Offeror Cover Letter

2. OTA Terms and Conditions (Reference Attachment 1)

3. Completed ABSC (Reference Attachments 2 and 3)

4. SOW Section 6.0 Milestone Table.

Return with File name: VendorName_Vol_4_Docs_XXXXXX.pdf

3.2.2 Page Limitations

Page limitations cited above are maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read and will not be considered in the evaluation. Glossaries/Acronym lists do not count against page limitations.

3.2.3 Page Size and Format

All submissions shall use the following formats. Each volume shall be clearly identified. Pages shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the company name, date, and PPON number in the header/footer.

· Format 1 (Standard Text - MS Word/PDF): 8.5 x 11 inches, 1-inch margins (top, bottom, left, right), 0.5-inch header/footer. Arial font, minimum 12-point text size. Paragraphs separated by one blank line.

· Format 2 (Spreadsheets/Diagrams - MS Excel/PDF): Up to 11 x 14 inches, 1-inch margins. Arial font, minimum 10-point text size (diagram/image labels may be as small as 8-point but must be legible).

3.2.4 Stand-Alone Volumes & Pricing Location

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis. Cross-referencing within a volume is permitted to conserve space. Pricing information of any kind shall not be included in Volumes I, II, or IV; it shall only appear in Volume III Cost/Price.

3.2.5 Digital File Format

Proposals shall be submitted in electronic, searchable formats (MS Office or searchable PDF). Self-extracting .exe files, hyperlinks, and ZIP files are not acceptable.

3.3 Proposal Submission Content

Proposals shall address the Government requirements outlined in the PPON and its attachments. The Government reserves the right to reject any proposal that does not comply with the proposal preparation instructions. Each Offeror bears responsibility for submitting its offer by the specified date/time.

3.3.1 Volume I: Factor 1 – Phase I (155mm MACE to 30-35 km)

3.3.1.1 Sub-factor 1.1 – Schedule (Most Important Sub-factor for Phase I)

3.3.1.1.1 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): The Offeror shall provide a Phase I IMS detailing all key design processes, material acquisitions, and Government reviews. The IMS shall be submitted in a printed format (pdf) and a Microsoft Project native file. The Government will evaluate exclusively on the contents of the printed (.pdf) IMS submission.

3.3.1.1.2 Narrative: The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative (Max 3 pages) describing the relationship and resources required to complete each key Phase I milestone, with associated mitigations, and clearly communicate when design prototypes are available for Government evaluation.

3.3.1.2 Sub-factor 1.2 – Technical

3.3.1.2.1 Phase I Design: The Offeror shall provide a design for a cargo-carrying projectile that achieves ranges 30 - 35 km and meets munition qualification test requirements. The description shall include subsystems, propelling charge, expulsion design, platform configuration, and demonstrate compliance with System Engineering (SE) design milestones.

3.3.1.2.2 Risk & Manufacturing: The Offeror shall address reliability, maturity, materials, supply chain, equipment risks, mitigation efforts, schedule drivers, and performance trade-offs for their selected manufacturing, load, assemble, and pack (LAP), and inspection process(es).

3.3.1.2.3 Facilities & Scaling: The Offeror shall describe essential design, prototyping, and production facilities, equipment, and process controls. If not currently in place, provide a plan demonstrating readiness to meet the Phase I delivery schedule. The offeror shall outline a design approach for scaling technology to deliver up to 10,000 artillery systems per year.

3.3.2 Volume II, Factor 2 – Phase II (155mm MACE with Alternate Range Extension beyond 35 km)

3.3.2.1 Sub-factor 2.1 – Technical (Most Important Sub-factor for Phase II)

3.3.2.1.1 Phase II Design: The Offeror shall provide a design for a cargo-carrying projectile with an alternate range extension solution that achieves ranges beyond 35 km and meets munition qualification test requirements. The description shall include subsystems, propelling charge, expulsion design, platform configuration, and demonstrate compliance with System Engineering (SE) design milestones.

3.3.2.1.2 Risk & Manufacturing: The Offeror shall address reliability, maturity, materials, supply chain, equipment risks, mitigation efforts, schedule drivers, and performance trade-offs for their selected manufacturing, load, assemble, and pack (LAP), and inspection process(es) for the Phase II design.

3.3.2.1.3 Facilities & Scaling: The Offeror shall describe essential design, prototyping, and production facilities, equipment, and process controls. If not currently in place, the Offeror shall provide a plan demonstrating readiness to meet the Phase II delivery schedule. The Offeror shall outline a design approach for scaling technology to establish a manufacturing capability under a follow-on agreement or contract with an ability to produce up to 10,000 Phase II 155mm cargo-carrying MACE projectiles with alternate range extension per year.

3.3.2.2 Sub-factor 2.2 – Schedule

3.3.2.2.1 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): The Offeror shall provide a Phase II IMS detailing all key design processes, material acquisitions, and Government reviews. The IMS shall be submitted in a printed format (pdf) and a Microsoft Project native file. The Government will evaluate exclusively on the contents of the printed (.pdf) IMS submission.

3.3.2.2.2 Narrative: The Offeror shall provide a detailed narrative (Max 3 pages) describing the relationship and resources required to complete each key Phase II milestone, with associated mitigations, and clearly communicate when design prototypes are available for Government evaluation.

3.3.3 Volume III, Cost/Price (Evaluation Factor 3)

Offerors must submit a cost proposal by CLIN sufficient for the Government to assess cost realism, cost risk, and understanding of the requirement. At a minimum, Offerors must provide a summary breakdown of major cost elements, including Direct Labor, Indirect Rates, Major Materials/Equipment, Subcontracts, and Fee. A clear Basis of Estimate (BOE) must accompany the submission and must align proposed labor hours and key materials with the technical tasks in the Technical Volumes (Volume I and Volume II).

The Government does not require a granular, bottoms-up substantiation of every minor cost element, but the estimate must clearly reflect the technical approach. Offerors must propose and delineate the total cost-plus-fixed-fee for each individual CLIN from CLIN 0001 through CLIN 0026 (as laid out in Attachment 4 - MACE CLIN Matrix) associated with completing the prototype project, along with any supporting information necessary for determination of a fair and reasonable price.

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.

The cost proposal must be submitted in Microsoft Excel, with formulas intact and functioning and include the supporting documentation in accordance with Attachment 5 - MACE OTA Instructions to Offerors. Use of the OTA Cost Proposal Template and OTA Proposal Adequacy Checklist and Accounting System Questionnaire (Attachment 5) are not required but highly encouraged.

3.3.4 Volume IV, Miscellaneous Agreement Documentation

3.3.4.1 Cover Letter: (Max 2 Pages). Must include Company Name, POC, UEI/CAGE, SAM.gov confirmation for NAICS 332993, Small Business Status, Team Member details, a statement validating the proposal for six (6) months, and Authorized Representative signatures.

3.3.4.2 OTA Terms and Conditions: Return with highlighted portions completed and requested minor deviations identified in tracked changes.

3.3.4.3 Attachment 2-Business Status Certification (BSC): Complete the form to validate eligibility under 10 U.S.C. § 4022 (e.g., Nontraditional participation or cost-share) plus Attachment 3-Supplement to The Business Status Certification (BSC)

3.3.4.4 Section 889 Certification: Provide evidence of the SAM.gov entry for FAR Provision 52.204-26 (and 52.204-24 if applicable) regarding the prohibition on contracting with entities using certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment.

SECTION 4 – BASIS FOR AWARD

4.1 General Evaluation Process

Each Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in a careful, full, and impartial manner pursuant to the stated criteria of this PPON. The Government’s selection decision will be based on an integrated assessment of the proposals submitted in response to this PPON, giving due consideration to all the Evaluation Factors/Sub-factors and their relative order of importance. The proposal(s) that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government will be eligible for award.

Offerors are cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the Offeror that proposes the lowest evaluated cost or the Offeror whose proposal receives the highest rating.

The Government intends on making up to two (2) awards but reserves the right to make one (1) award or none based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation results.

The Government may contact Offerors during the source selection process to request clarifying information, in the form of Technical Exchanges. The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey (Safety and Security) or similar, in order to determine the selected Offeror’s responsibility.

The basis for award of an OTA resulting from this PPON will be the result of the evaluation factors specified below.

4.2 Evaluation Factors

The Government will use the following evaluation factors and sub-factors to evaluate each proposal submitted in response to this PPON:

Factor 1 – Phase I: 155mm MACE to 30-35 km Sub-factor 1.1 – Schedule (Most important sub-factor for Phase I) Sub-factor 1.2 – Technical Factor 2 – Phase II: 155mm MACE with Alternate Range Extension beyond 35 km Sub-factor 2.1 – Technical (Most important sub-factor for Phase II) Sub-factor 2.2 – Schedule Factor 3 – Cost/Price

4.2.1 Volume I: Factor 1 – Phase I (155mm MACE to 30-35 km)

4.2.1.1 Phase I (Sub-factor 1.1) – Schedule (Most Important Sub-factor for Phase I)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Phase I Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) will successfully meet the Phase I program requirements and delivery dates. The Government’s evaluation will consider the completeness of the IMS events and associated descriptions, the IMS logic and structure, critical path(s), production transition approach, and the Offeror’s provided risk assessment of the IMS and associated assumptions and justifications. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror clearly documented all key Phase I design processes, materials, and other events key to the PPON requirements. The Government will evaluate if the IMS sufficiently addresses all government safety incremental and final reviews required for Phase I certification, including lead-time for preparations, dry-runs, and action item resolution. The Government will also evaluate if the Offeror’s organizational chart sufficiently details the relationship of the Offeror’s various organizational elements including subcontractor/sub-vendor and the Government. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed narrative accompanying the IMS, to include the relationship and resources required to complete each key milestone, with associated mitigations, and the extent to which the IMS clearly communicates when Phase I design prototypes are available for Government evaluation.

4.2.1.2 Phase I (Sub-factor 1.2) – Technical

The Government will evaluate the proposed design for the Phase I 155mm MACE technology to achieve 30-35 km in range. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has provided a complete design plan and design description for the Phase I technology. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has addressed the technology's maturity, risks and opportunities, schedule drivers, and performance trade-offs. The Government’s evaluation of the planned approach will include the Offeror’s current maturity of the technology, plans for maturity progression, and planned integration tasks. The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of system engineering (SE) principles, evaluating any prior examples provided to support the Offeror’s claims. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s estimated system cost strategy and preliminary goals accompanied by support to demonstrate the realistic nature of the strategy and goals. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror described the essential Phase I design facilities, prototyping facilities, equipment, processes, and process controls in place or, if not in place, a plan to demonstrate how they will be put in place in time to meet prototype system delivery schedule requirements of the PPON. Finally, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s plan to implement the processes demonstrated their ability to establish a manufacturing capability under a follow-on agreement or contract with an ability to produce up to 10,000 Phase I 155mm cargo-carrying MACE projectile systems per year.

4.2.2 Volume II: Factor 2 – Phase II (155mm MACE with Alternate Range Extension beyond 35 km)

4.2.2.1 Sub-factor 2.1 – Technical (Most Important Sub-factor for Phase II)

The Government will evaluate the proposed design for the Phase II 155mm MACE technology with Alternate Range Extension solution to achieve ranges beyond 35 km. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has provided a complete design plan and design description for the Phase II technology. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has addressed the technology's maturity, risks and opportunities, schedule drivers, and performance trade-offs. The Government’s evaluation of the planned approach will include the Offeror’s current maturity of the Phase II technology, plans for maturity progression, and planned integration tasks. The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of system engineering (SE) principles, evaluating any prior examples provided to support the Offeror’s claims. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s estimated system cost strategy and preliminary goals accompanied by support to demonstrate the realistic nature of the strategy and goals. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror described the essential Phase II design facilities, prototyping facilities, equipment, processes, and process controls in place or, if not in place, a plan to demonstrate how they will be put in place in time to meet prototype system delivery schedule requirements of the PPON. Finally, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s plan to implement the processes demonstrated their ability to establish a manufacturing capability under a follow-on agreement or contract with an ability to produce up to 10,000 Phase II 155mm cargo-carrying MACE projectiles with alternate range extension per year.

4.2.2.2 Sub-factor 2.2 – Schedule

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s Phase II Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) will successfully meet the Phase II program requirements and delivery dates. The Government’s evaluation will consider the completeness of the IMS events and associated descriptions, the IMS logic and structure, critical path(s), production transition approach, and the Offeror’s provided risk assessment of the IMS and associated assumptions and justifications. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror clearly documented all key Phase II design processes, materials, and other events key to the PPON requirements. The Government will evaluate if the IMS sufficiently addresses all government safety incremental and final reviews required for Phase II certification, including lead-time for preparations, dry-runs, and action item resolution. The Government will also evaluate if the Offeror’s organizational chart sufficiently details the relationship of the Offeror’s various organizational elements including subcontractor/sub-vendor and the Government. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed narrative accompanying the IMS, to include the relationship and resources required to complete each key Phase II milestone, with associated mitigations, and the extent to which the IMS clearly communicates when Phase II design prototypes are available for Government evaluation. Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed narrative accompanying the IMS, to include the relationship and resources required to complete each key milestone, with associated mitigations.

4.2.3 Volume III: Factor 3 – Cost/Price

Total Evaluated Price: The Cost/Price Evaluation Factor will be evaluated but will not be assigned a rating. For evaluation purposes, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the sum of the evaluated price for Phase I and Phase II, less any proposed cost share. The TEP will be used in the overall award determination.

The Total Amount for each CLIN will be calculated by multiplying the sum of the proposed cost per unit and the applicable fixed fee by the quantity specified for each CLIN in the MACE CLIN Matrix (Attachment 4).

The evaluated price for Phase I will be calculated by summing up the proposed total amount for CLIN 0001 through 0013. The evaluated price for Phase II will be calculated by summing the proposed total CPFF for CLINs 0014 through 0026.

The Government will evaluate the Price Proposal for realism, reasonableness, allowability, and allocability as applicable. If cost share is proposed, the Government will evaluate the proposed cost share for credibility, realism, and consistency with the Offeror’s technical approach. Priced CLINs shall be proposed to include the breakdown of total cost and fixed fee for each CLIN listed in MACE CLIN Matrix (Attachment 4).

4.2.3.2 Cost Realism and Cost Risk Evaluation (Phase I and Phase II): The Government will evaluate proposed costs for realism and cost risk for both Phase I and Phase II but will not calculate a Most Probable Cost (MPC). The cost realism evaluation will assess whether the proposed labor mix, labor hours, major materials, other direct costs, and indirect costs, are realistic and consistent with the Offeror’s unique technical approach. Unrealistically low proposed costs may indicate a lack of understanding of the requirement or a higher risk of unsuccessful performance. Such findings will be documented and may influence the overall risk evaluation.

4.2.3.3 Evaluation of Proposed CLIN Pricing: All priced CLINs shall be proposed in accordance with PPON instructions. The Government will review the basis of estimate, rationale, and traceability of proposed costs. The Government may consider historical actuals, market information, and other relevant data when assessing reasonableness and realism. Proposed costs determined to be unsubstantiated, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the technical approach may increase the assessed cost risk. The Government reserves the right to request additional cost or price data if required to support the fair and reasonable price determination.

4.3 Relative Order of Importance

The Government will evaluate submissions based on three overarching factors: Factor 1 (Phase I), Factor 2 (Phase II), and Factor 3 (Cost/Price). Factor 1 and Factor 2 each consist of two sub-factors: Technical and Schedule.

Overall Factor Order of Importance:

The main factors are listed below in descending order of importance:

1. Factor 1: Phase I Sub Factor 1: Schedule Sub Factor 2: Technical Evaluation

2. Factor 2: Phase II Sub Factor 1: Technical Evaluation Sub Factor 2: Schedule

3. Factor 3: Cost/Price

Factor 1 (Phase I) is more important than Factor 2 (Phase II). All non-cost factors (Factor 1 and Factor 2), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3 (Cost/Price). However, the Government reserves the right to award to a lower-rated, lower-priced proposal if the Government determines that the price premium for a higher-rated proposal is not justified.

4.4 Rating Definitions

4.4.1 The evaluators will use the following terms in support of the ratings assigned for Factor 1 – Phase I.

A benefit means an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that enhances performance, provides enhancement to the technology, and/or reduces schedule or performance risk.

A shortcoming means an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that does not provide adequate performance, does not provide technology enhancement, and/or increases schedule or performance risk.

A risk means an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that causes the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful performance.

4.4.2 The evaluators will use the following terms in support of the ratings for Factor 2 – Phase II.

Acceptable

The Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the development path, has benefits that outweigh or offset any shortcomings, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Marginal

The Offeror’s proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the development path, the shortcomings are not offset by the benefits and/or the risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

4.4.3 Factor 3 – The Price/Cost evaluation factor will not receive a rating but will be factored into the selection decision as noted above in paragraph 4.3.

SECTION 5 – PPON STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

Reference:

Statement of Work (Attachment 7) Purchase Description (Attachment 8)

SECTION 6 – PACKING AND MARKING

The following packaging instructions are applicable to the following CLIN

· 002: Up to 115 MACE projectiles for Engineering Tests and Demo(s)

· 006: Up to 335 MACE projectiles for Limited Safety Tests

· 008: Up to 1,200 155mm MACE IPB projectiles

· 009: 1,000 155mm MACE IPB projectiles in FY28 for soldier testing

· 011: 1,000 155mm MACE IPB projectiles in FY29 for soldier testing

· 023: Up to 1,200 155mm alternate configuration IPB projectiles

Detailed Packaging and Unitization Requirements apply to this procurement:

Preservation and Packaging Requirements: Per Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 49.

Packing Requirements: Preservation and Packaging Requirements: Per CFR 49.

Marking Requirements: MIL STD-129 and/or CFR 49

No Bar Codes Required.

Unitization Requirements: Eight (8) projectiles are palletized in accordance with drawing 13071735, Packing and Marking for Pallet Wood, Ammunition for 155MM Extended Range Projectiles. Three (3) pallets shall be bundled together using steel strapping in accordance with U.S. Army unitization drawing 19-48-4076, cage code 28620, Bundling of Separate Loading Projectiles for Storage and Transport (reference Drawing Attachment 9).

The following unitization procedures are applicable to the following CLIN and for items other than full up 155MM rounds:

· 019: Up to 100 alternate range extension sub-systems

Wood Packaging Materials - Heat Treatment and Marking of Wood Packaging Materials: In accordance with the requirements of International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 15, the following commercial heat treatment process has been approved by the American Lumber Standards Committee (ALSC) and is required for all Wood Packaging Material (WPM). WPM is defined as wood pallets, skids, load boards, pallet collars, wooden boxes, reels, dunnage, crates, frames, and cleats. Packaging materials exempt from the requirements are materials that have undergone a manufacturing process such as corrugated fiberboard, plywood, particleboard, veneer and oriented strand board. All WPM shall be constructed from Heat Treated (HT to 56 degrees Centigrade for 30 continuous minutes) lumber and certified by an accredited agency recognized by the ALSC in accordance with Wood Packaging Material Policy and Wood Packaging Material Enforcement Regulations (see URL:

http://www.alsc.org). All materials must include certification markings in accordance with ALSC standards and be placed in an unobstructed area that will be readily visible to inspectors. Pallet markings shall be applied to the stringer or block on diagonally opposite sides and ends of the pallet and be contrasting and clearly visible. All dunnage used in configuring and/or securing the load shall also comply with ISPM 15 and be marked with an ALSC approved DUNNAGE stamp. Failure to comply with the requirements of this restriction may result in refusal, destruction, or treatment of materials at the point of entry.

Performance-Oriented Packaging: For all hazardous items, prior to marking and shipment, the contractor shall ensure that the exterior shipping container has been tested by a U.S. Government approved Performance-Oriented Packaging (POP) test laboratory in compliance with POP requirements in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The test will be conducted to a weight of at least 10% greater than the gross package (pack out) weight or to the specified POP certification weight listed on the corresponding Packing and Marking drawing(s), whichever is greater.

- The POP test report shall be prepared by the POP test laboratory in accordance with DI-PACK-81059 (Data Item Description) in accordance with Part 178, CFR 49 with the appropriate POP marking of the test laboratory.

- The report must be submitted to the U.S. Government for approval as directed in the contract data requirement list (CDRL) DD Form 1423.

- The U.S. DoD POP symbol shall not be applied to the container unless the Government approves the contractor’s test report and authorizes use of the DoD POP symbol on the container.

POP recertification is required every year for a single pack per 49 CFR.

Identity security classification of the material to be shipped: Unclassified

DOT Container Marking: XXXXX

Appropriate Transportation Security Category for Arms, Ammunition, or Explosives (AA&E) as categorized in DoD 5100.76-M: Uncategorized AA&E Items

SECTION 7 – ARMS, AMMUNITIONS, AND EXPLOSIVES

The requirements of DoD 5100.76-M apply to the following items of AA&E being developed, produced, manufactured, or purchased for the Government, or provided to the COMPANY as Government-furnished property under this agreement.

In addition to what has been listed above in SECTION 4, as well as within the Terms and Conditions, provide Safety Data Sheet(s) and AA&E worksheet (Attachment 10).

SECTION 8 – OTHER INFORMATION

ACC-RI at Picatinny policy is to treat all submissions as source selection information, and to disclose their contents only for the purpose of evaluation. Restrictive notices notwithstanding, during the evaluation process, submissions may be handled by support contractors for administrative purposes and/or to assist with technical evaluation. All ACC-RI at Picatinny and DoD support contractors performing this role are expressly prohibited from performing DoD-sponsored technical research and are bound by appropriate nondisclosure agreements (Attachment 6).

Offerors are advised that developments arising from the resulting Agreement 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 anticipated OTA, the recipient will comply strictly with the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (22 CFR 120-130), the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (DoD 5220.22-M) and the Department of Commerce Export Regulation (15 CFR 730-774).

The total OTA(s) amount will not be obligated at time of award. Funding for the OTA(s) will be obligated when funding is appropriated. Based on the availability of funds, the Government and OTA Awardees may need to renegotiate the schedule, milestones events, and/or the SOW.

PURCHASE DESCRIPTION & DRAWINGS: will be provided to Offerors upon request once the Offeror signs, completes and submits the following documents for contracting approval: Attachment 12 Technical Data Request Questionnaire; Attachment 6 Non-Disclosure and Non US Agreement plus Attachment 14 DD2345 Military Critical Technical Data Agreement. The Purchase Description is marked Distribution D; therefore, distribution will only be authorized to the Department of War (DoW) and United States DoW Contractors. Attachment 13 Certificate of Destruction Form will be filled out to certify that all Technical Data Package (TDP) received via SAM provided by the U.S. Government under W15QKN-26-R-1C5R have been destroyed along with any copies in any form (electronic data, CD-ROM, print, etc.) and further certify that no copies in any form whatsoever have been retained.

SECTION 9 – CONTACT INFORMATION

U.S. Army Contracting Command – Rock Island at Picatinny Building 10 Phipps Road, CCNJ-CA Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

Agreements Specialist – Mary O’Connell, Email: mary.p.oconnell3.civ@army.mil Agreements Officer – Christopher W. Brown, Email: Christopher.w.brown7.civ@army.mil

Be advised, only an Agreements Officer has the authority to enter into a binding agreement on behalf of the Government. He or she will sign the agreement, and only an Agreements Officer has the authority to change the terms of the agreement.

SECTION 10 – GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY

Reference Attachment 11 – Government Furnished Property (GFP)

SECTION 11 – ATTACHMENTS

· OTA Proposal Substantial Checklist

· OTA Proposal Adequacy Checklist

· Accounting System Questionnaire

Attachment 9 (upon request – see Section 8)

Packing and Unitization Drawings

· Cover Assembly (13023905)

· Base Assembly (13071736)

· Packing and Marking for Pallet Wood, Ammunition for 155 MM Extended Range Projectiles (13071735)

· Bundling of Separate Loading Projectiles for Storage and Transport (19-48-4076, cage code 28620)