Request for Information (RFI) for Ground Combat Vehicle Production.docx

DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

OPSEC #: 2026-248

1. PROGRAM:

CAPABILITY PROGRAM EXECUTIVE (CPE) GROUND

2. SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) FOR GROUND COMBAT VEHICLE PRODUCTION

3. DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:

The United States Government (USG) is seeking information from industry partners to explore innovative solutions for the rapid design, production, and delivery of ground combat vehicles. This RFI is part of the USG’s transformation strategy to modernize defense acquisitions, prioritize speed, and apply commercial practices to meet urgent warfighter needs. We are seeking integrated approaches that leverage advanced technologies like artificial intelligence (AI), digital engineering, and digital manufacturing; approaches that are implemented within a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) framework, supported by a clear data rights strategy, and result in a scalable production capability. As part of our strategic direction, we are seeking solutions that move away from bespoke or highly customized facilities, favoring standardized, scalable approaches to supporting our future needs.

The information provided in response to this RFI will inform future efforts and identify innovative approaches and partnerships to producing ground combat vehicles. Industry is encouraged to recommend innovative solutions, including non-traditional approaches, that align with the Department of War (DoW) mission to deliver capabilities at the speed of relevance. By contributing detailed and thoughtful responses, industry partners will directly influence the development of acquisition strategies that ensure the delivery of adaptable, high-performance combat vehicles to meet urgent warfighter needs.

For purposes of this RFI, the following assumptions are provided:

· The systems are defined as a 40 to 80-ton tracked combat vehicles.

· The DoW may produce approximately 10 prototype vehicles, beginning in FY27

· Prototype lead time is assumed to be no greater than 24 months.

· Continuous production of up to 2,500 vehicles per year.

The following definitions are provided to clarify this RFI:

4. RESPONSES SOUGHT:

1. Please provide a brief overview of your organization for this effort. If teaming/partnering, subcontracting or Joint Venture, please explain overall responsible entity. Including relevant experience in designing and producing complex systems at scale and speed.

2. Rapid and Scalable Production

2.1. Describe your approach to rapidly and flexibly producing a tracked combat vehicle. How would you leverage your existing capabilities, facilities, and workforce to deliver vehicles quickly and at scale?

2.2. What strategies, technologies, or production models would you employ to ensure your solution can be effectively scaled both up and down in response to fluctuations in demand? Please describe how you would manage surges in demand as well as periods of decreased demand.

2.3. Describe your approach to accessing manufacturing capability in secure (secret and higher) production facilities with compliance to Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 705. Include facility OPSEC, program protection, shipping, receiving, and handling of CUI and classified materials, technologies, and manufacturing processes.

2.4. Describe your company’s experience and knowledge with heavy combat vehicle production and qualifications (material handling, machining, armor welding, paint, assembly, bore sight of large caliber weapons, and component and vehicle test).

2.5. What manufacturing capabilities and facilities exist for large scale, heavy materials such as high-hard steel, titanium, etc.?

2.6. Describe your ability and access to heavy combat vehicle transportation via rail and truck.

2.7. Describe your approach to warehousing capability for Government Furnished Materials (GFM) or Contractor Furnished Materials (CFM).

2.8. How would you plan for sustainment, maintenance, and modernization of the facility and equipment to ensure long-term readiness?

3. Modern Manufacturing Practices

3.1. How would you apply modern manufacturing methods (e.g., digital manufacturing, digital engineering, automation, MOSA, advanced supply chain management) to accelerate production and reduce costs?

3.2. What commercial best practices or innovations would you adapt for defense production to ensure efficiency, quality, and speed?

3.3. Describe your integrated strategy to manufacturing, production strategy, software development, and security for a combat vehicle system. Citing concrete examples from previous programs, please explain how your organization's people, processes, and tools will meet the program's foundational requirements. Your approach must ensure the core vehicle infrastructure is built in accordance with Government-Owned Open Architecture (such as but not limited to Ground Combat Common Infrastructure Architecture, Sensor Open Systems Architecture), guarantee full interoperability between all integrated subsystems, implement a "defense in depth" strategy for robust safety and cybersecurity, and utilize modern software development practices such as Development, Security and Operations (DevSecOps).

3.4. What testing and validation capabilities would you implement on your production line ensuring sub-assemblies and system/subsystems are integrated properly prior to assembly and at final assembly?

4. Supply Chain and Industrial Base

4.1. Describe your approach to supply chain management of low volume (less than 100 per year), non-commercial components (such as sights, electronics, etc.).

4.2. How would you ensure a resilient and responsive and secure supply chain to support rapid and scalable production? What steps would you take to avoid bottlenecks, single points of failure, or supplier lock-in?

4.3. How would you leverage or expand the broader American industrial base, including non-traditional or commercial partners, to meet production goals?

5. Flexibility and Adaptability

5.1. How would your production approach accommodate evolving requirements, technology upgrades, or changes in demand over time?

5.2. What design or business strategies would you use to ensure the system can be easily updated, maintained, and sustained throughout its lifecycle?

5.3. How would your physical production facilities and processes be designed to accommodate the rapid integration, testing, and replacement of major system components (e.g., power packs, turrets, mission computers) from different suppliers during an active production run?

5.4. Describe how you would manage multiple products or configurations in a flexible manufacturing system, multi-product work cell and an integrated production hub.

5.5. How would your organization leverage a government-provided digital twin and technical data package to establish, manage, and optimize your production and assembly lines? Describe how this digital data would flow from the design to your factory floor.

5.6. Army Industrial Facilities are available to sell manufactured articles or to perform work at such Facilities, in certain circumstances and as permitted by law. Rock Island Arsenal, Watervliet Arsenal, Anniston Army Depot, Sierra Army Depot, or Red River Army Depot are available for opportunities. For information related to the capabilities of these facilities visit the following links: https://www.amc.army.mil/Organization/Locations/. How could leveraging the equipment, facilities, or expertise at one of these Army industrial sites enhance your company’s product, technology, or manufacturing process? What are your primary concerns or perceived barriers to partnering with a USG industrial facility? What suggestions do you have to make this process more accessible and efficient for a non-traditional vendor?

6. Data, Software, and Associated Data Rights Artifacts

6.1. Describe in detail your architectural and business strategy to explicitly enable the USG and/or third parties to develop, integrate, maintain, and replace major system components and software (such as power packs, sensors, mission computers, etc.) independently of your firm.

6.2. What specific design patterns, interface standards, and data deliverables would you use to guarantee MOSA compliance for future upgrades and sustainment?

6.3. The Army is interested in industry partners’ ability to provide a digital twin of the manufacturing architecture, including system models, data architecture models, and all specifications for physical, logical, and functional needs. How do you recommend managing intellectual property in a way that provides the USG with intellectual property, data rights and all associated artifacts, tools and operating environment necessary to fully exercise those rights for that architecture?

7. Agreement and Contracting Mechanisms

7.1. What type of agreement or contracting mechanism would you recommend to best enable rapid, flexible, and collaborative development and production with the USG? Please explain your rationale and any approaches to structuring such an agreement/contract.

8. Continuous Improvement and Innovation

8.1. How would you ensure continuous improvement in your production processes and adapt to changing configurations?

8.2. What mechanisms would you use to incorporate feedback, lessons learned, and new technologies into ongoing production?

9. Data, Digital Tools, and Collaboration

9.1. How would you use digital tools, data sharing, and real-time collaboration platforms to support design, production, and sustainment? How would you ensure secure and effective data exchange with the USG?

9.2. Describe your approach to program protection in a digital environment to include DOD impact levels 5 and 6 (IL5 and IL6) cloud environments.

9.3. What is your approach to providing data, tools, and support to enable USG or third-party repair and maintenance?

10. Respondent Overview

10.1. Company/Entity Name

10.2. Address

10.3. Point of Contact

10.4. Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code, if applicable

10.5. Unique Entity Identifier (UEI), if applicable

10.6. Phone Number

10.7. E-mail Address

10.8. Web page URL

10.9. Size of business pursuant to North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 336992. Based on the NAICS Code, state whether your company qualifies as:

10.9.1. Small Business (Yes/No)

10.9.2. Woman-Owned Small Business (Yes/No)

10.9.3. Small Disadvantaged Business (Yes/No)

10.9.4. 8(a) Certified (Yes/No)

10.9.5. HUBZone Certified (Yes/No)

10.9.6. Veteran-Owned Small Business (Yes/No)

10.9.7. Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (Yes/No)

10.9.8. Central Contractor Registration (Yes/No)

10.9.9. Nontraditional Defense Contractor (Yes/No)

5. INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONSES

a. All interested firms and manufacturers, regardless of size, may respond to this RFI. Responses must be submitted electronically in one of the following searchable formats: Microsoft Word 2016 (or later), Microsoft Excel 2016 (or later), or Adobe Acrobat. The maximum size for each e-mail message is 10 megabytes. You may send multiple e-mails if necessary. All proprietary information must be clearly marked. If your response contains proprietary information, the cover page must include the statement "PROPRIETARY INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN" in all capital letters. Additionally, you must provide a release statement authorizing the distribution of proprietary information to Army personnel involved with this RFI. To submit proprietary or sensitive information, please request a DoD SAFE link from the Point of Contact listed below.

b. The e-mail subject line shall be” “COMBAT VEHICLE PRODUCTION RFI Response – [Responders Name]”. All responses shall be received by the USG no later than 1700 Eastern Standard Time, 19 March 2026.

c. Submit electronic responses to darnell.jennings.civ@army.mil. Do not submit responses via System for Award Management (SAM). Responses that contain Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) shall be sent by DoD SAFE to the e-mail address above. All responses must be Unclassified.

d. Points of Contact:

Darnell Jennings U.S. Army Contracting Command-Detroit Arsenal (ACC-DTA) E-mail: darnell.jennings.civ@army.mil

AND

Natalie O’Reilly U.S. Army Contracting Command-Detroit Arsenal (ACC-DTA) E-mail: natalie.m.oreilly2.civ@army.mil

6. NOTICE

The USG may or may not invite you to discuss all or part of your response at its sole discretion but is not committed to do so. Therefore, you should make your response as complete as possible for consideration.

7. DISCLAIMER

This RFI is for informational purposes only. The information in this notice is subject to change and is not binding on the USG. This is not a solicitation for proposals and shall not be construed as a commitment by the USG to purchase enhancements, hardware, or services. Responses in any form are not considered offers and the USG is under no obligation to award a contract as a result of this announcement. Funds are NOT available to pay for preparation of responses to this announcement. Any information submitted by respondents to this RFI is strictly voluntary.

This notice does not constitute an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposal and is not to be construed as a solicitation, and no award shall be made based on this notice. A negative response to this survey does not exclude any responder from any future solicitation. There is no formal solicitation available at this time, no solicitation will be issued against this notice, and this RFI does not obligate the USG t to issue solicitation.

Participation in this effort is strictly voluntary with no obligation incurred by the USG. The USG will not reimburse contractors for any cost incurred for participation in responding to this RFI. All information is to be submitted at no cost or obligation to the USG.

Since this is not a solicitation for proposals, respondents WILL NOT be notified regarding information obtained related to this RFI. Responses will not be returned nor will detailed feedback be made available.

Proprietary Information. The USG acknowledges its obligations under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) §1905 to protect confidential information provided to the USG. Pursuant to this statute, the USG is willing to accept any trade secrets or proprietary restrictions placed upon data presented in response to this survey and to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure, subject to the following:

· Data must be clearly marked PROPRIETARY and be accompanied by an explanatory text so that the USG is clearly notified on what data is proprietary.

· Mark only data that is truly PROPRIETARY.

· Do not mark data that is already in the public domain or is already in possession of the USG or third parties on an unrestricted basis. Do not submit any classified data in response to this market survey.

· Proprietary data transmitted electronically must have the PROPRIETARY legend on both the cover of the transmittal e-mail as well as at the beginning of the file. Proprietary information contained within the correspondence shall use the legends: “PROPRIETARY PORTION BEGINS” and “PROPRIETARY PORTION ENDS.”

The USG is not responsible for the public disclosure of unmarked data received in response to this RFI. Accordingly, the respondent shall ensure that data provided in response to this RFI shall be appropriately marked (i.e. proprietary) to ensure proper USG handling of the data. Additionally, marked data that is already in the public domain or in the possession of the Government or third parties, or is afterward placed into the public domain by the owner or another party through no fault of the Government, will not be protected once in the public domain. Data already in the possession of the USG will be protected in accordance with the USG’s rights in the data. Should the USG need to reproduce the protected data for distribution purposes between USG offices, all such data shall be reproduced with restrictive legends in place. The Government may employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of RFI submissions. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing content, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk. The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool. USG support contractors may assist in reviewing RFI submissions.

END OF RFI