Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Increment 4 Prototype Request for Solutions

***AMENDMENT 2***

Amendment 2 is provided for transparency for questions and answers received since the posting of the RFS. Please pay particular attention to the graphics font and submission instructions.

Q: Would you prefer those as separate attachments, a combined .zip file or files embedded within the searchable .pdf itself? Will you be providing a DoD SAFE link or prefer another method for submitting this data?

Additionally, could you please provide a clarification on the proposal instructions regarding font size? We obviously intend to comply with the 12-pt Times New Roman font requirement for the technical narrative, but can you confirm whether that font requirement also applies to tables and graphics? We have some tables and figures that have slightly smaller (size 10pt font) text, but we would like to ensure legibility and compliance.

A: All components of the Solutions Brief, including the Technical Narrative and all attachments (e.g., Technical Data Sheet, Data Rights Assertions, ROM, etc.), shall be combined and submitted as a single, searchable .pdf file. Do not submit a .zip file or multiple separate attachments.

The 12-point Times New Roman font and 1-inch margin requirements apply to the main narrative text of the Solutions Brief. Text within tables, figures, charts, and graphics may be no smaller than 10-point Times New Roman font to ensure legibility.

Submissions shall be made via DoD SAFE. To ensure timely submission, interested Performers must request a DoD SAFE drop-off link from the Tiffanie.l.neal.civ@army.mil and Anthony.m.ambrosio.civ@army.mil no later than 1700 CDT 20 May 2026, 48 hours prior to the submission deadline, to allow time for submissions. The Government will then provide a secure link for the performer to upload their submission. It is the Performer’s responsibility to ensure their submission is completely uploaded to DoD SAFE prior to the submission deadline stated in the RFS.

Q: In the RFS, it mentions that the prototype project security level is up to secret (paragraph 1). Then, in paragraph two under operational constraints, you mention that the Solution must be physically handled as unclassified. Can you explain the differences here?

A: The distinction in the RFS lies between the classification of the data and active operational environment (the Project) versus the classification of the physical hardware (the Solution) when it is powered down or in transit.

Prototype Project Security Level (Up to Secret)
The "Up to Secret" classification applies to the mission context and the data the system will process. During active operations, the prototype will process, transmit, or store Secret-level information. Therefore, personnel supporting the active mission environment or discussing the full operational scope of the project will operate under Secret-level security protocols.

Operational Constraints: Physical Handling (Unclassified)
The requirement for the Solution to be physically handled as unclassified dictates that the hardware itself must not become a permanently classified asset. The solution must be engineered so that it does not retain classified information when powered off, zeroized, or un-keyed (e.g., utilizing removable encrypted storage, volatile memory, or approved Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) architectures).

This design constraint is critical because it ensures the physical device can be transported via standard commercial means, stored in unclassified supply areas, and physically maintained without the logistical burden of handling classified material.

                    Follow Up Q: The OML for our solution would be classified under the a different organization’s SCG. We are trying to determine whether the solution inside a canister would satisfy the requirement for unclassified physical handling.

                    Follow Up A: The intent of the requirement is that the solution must utilize the existing M142 kill chain without the addition of special handling or conditions.  Doctrine and operational changes due to classification is not acceptable. Recommend consulting with the primary USG agency technology stakeholder to determine the steps taken to allow the solution to be handled in an unclassified manner.   

Q: We would like clarification on a scenario we discussed during our industry 1 on 1, as it will impact our near term funding approach for procuring flight hardware.   Understanding that we are well in advance of the timeline for any potential award,  we asked if flight hardware ordered prior to the PrSM Inc 4 OTA Award, but purchased after an OTA award, could be considered as an “in kind” consideration for cost share.  Mr. Bedsole indicated that is a situation that could be considered for “in kind” contribution during our Industry 1 on 1.  I was unclear in the below wording whether the 1 on 1 discussion still applied. 

A: During the Industry Day sessions, Phase I was contemplated as a Research OTA, under which certain forms of in-kind contributions are more commonly accepted. Since that time, the acquisition approach has been updated to utilize a Prototype OTA, and the treatment of cost share is correspondingly more structured.

Under the Prototype OTA, the Government’s position is that, as a general matter, costs must be both obligated and expended during the period of performance to be eligible for consideration as cost share.

If a Performer executes a purchase order, subcontract, or other binding commitment for materials, hardware, or services prior to the effective date of an OTA award, that commitment is considered an independent business decision and is generally treated as a sunk cost. The fact that payment (expenditure) may occur during the period of performance does not, by itself, make such costs eligible for cost share.

To be considered an eligible cost-share contribution, the Performer’s commitment of resources (i.e., the obligation) should occur after award and must be directly allocable to the execution of the prototype project.

Any proposed cost-share approach should be clearly described in the solution submission and will be evaluated for allowability, allocability, and reasonableness in accordance with the terms of the RFS and the resulting agreement. To ensure fairness and consistency, this clarification will be provided to all potential offerors.

Q: Are you able to clarify the intent of the RFS statement in section 6.7.1, "The performer shall submit their investment profile for the solution. Investment profiles for the solution are defined as follows: cost sharing for this effort starting with Phase I award (4QFY26), not previous investments, nor “in-kind” swaps."

Our interpretation is that this requirement is aimed at ensuring Traditional Defense Contractors meet OTA requirements, and therefore Non-Traditional Defense Contractors are not required to provide an investment profile with their proposal.

Any clarification you can provide will help us to provide you with the correct information with our proposal.

A: The performer’s interpretation is partially incorrect. All performers, regardless of their status as a Traditional or Non-Traditional Defense Contractor, are required to submit an investment profile as part of their Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) submission.

It is correct that under 10 U.S.C. § 4022, a Non-Traditional Defense Contractor (NDC) is not statutorily required to provide a one-third (1/3) cost-share to be eligible for an OTA award.

However, the requirement to submit an investment profile (RFS Section 6.7.1) is not solely for statutory compliance; it is a required element of the competitive evaluation. As stated in RFS Section 7.2 (Factor 3), the Government will evaluate 'the performer’s investment profile.'

The Government desires 'skin in the game' from all performers to demonstrate commitment to the successful development of the PrSM Inc 4 prototype. Therefore, all performers must detail their proposed investment profile (i.e., cost-sharing for this effort starting with Phase I award) in their submission. If a performer (including an NDC) proposes zero cost-share or investment, they must explicitly state that in their ROM, and that profile will be evaluated accordingly under Factor 3.

***AMENDMENT 1***

Amendment 1 is an administrative update to the POC information in the RFS attachment. No other changes are made with this amendment.

The United States Government (USG) is seeking solutions for the development of Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Increment 4 (Inc 4).  This effort is structured as a multi-phase lifecycle program designed to move from high-risk research into full-scale production.  This program is required to follow a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) IAW 10 U.S.C. §§ 4401–4403 ensuring subcomponent interoperability, upgradeability, competition, right to repair, and the prevention of proprietary vendor lock.  

The STORM Project Office is seeking an affordable, cost-effective, MOSA-compliant solution capable of engaging moving maritime and relocatable land targets at ranges equal to, or greater than, 1,000 kilometers (km).  The solution must be compatible with the current configuration M142 launcher platform and be effective against moving maritime and relocatable land targets. 

This award will be made in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4022 Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects. In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4022(f), a transaction entered into under this section for a prototype project may provide for the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction to the participants in the transaction. 

Due to the accelerated nature of this acquisition, the question period is closed. All available information is contained within the RFS and its attachments, including the Q&A from the previous Industry Day. Only solutions briefs for a full, end-to-end solution as described in the RFS will be evaluated. Partial solutions will not be considered.

Please see attachments for complete details, including program schedule, submission instructions, and evaluation criteria.