JAILBREAK Needs-Driven Acquisition for Near-term Operations (NANO) - Accelerated Capability Event (ACE) II

The Army FUZE Contracting Center, on behalf of the Global Tactical Edge Acquisition Directorate (G-TEAD), intends to negotiate and award experimental purposes agreements pursuant to authority 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) §4023.

The government is seeking to identify potential sources capable of providing technologies, software, systems integration solutions to enable sensors, platforms, weapons systems, and command-and-control (C2) technologies to share data seamlessly in real time. White papers demonstrate operational relevance, technical maturity, integration readiness, and the ability to support rapid execution timelines.

The goal of this initiative is to break down traditional system-silos at the tactical edge, ensuring interoperability and rapid sensor-to-shooter data transfer in degraded, contested, and operational environments.

Problem Statement

The Army has an emergent operational requirement to rapidly deploy an integrated autonomous sensing and effector capability on a highly compressed timeline. Specifically, the Army seeks fully autonomous platform navigation and mission routing (to maneuver through contested terrain) and semi-autonomous modular sensor payloads (to automatically detect and track targets), while ensuring that any kinetic or non-kinetic effector functions strictly maintain a human-in-the-loop architecture for command-and-control targeting decisions. "The immediate objective is to deliver prototype systems comprising a combination of autonomous platforms, hot-swappable modular sensor payloads, autonomy/mission management software, communications, and supporting services.

Current ground sensing architectures are largely fixed to Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) and static locations, limiting indications and warning (I&W) and coverage depth beyond the wire, while existing industry offerings tend to be individual, proprietary products rather than complete, interoperable mission solutions. This fragmentation creates significant friction in extending sensing range and integrating payloads with diverse ground platforms and existing command-and-control (C2) systems.

To address this gap, the Army seeks integrated Mission Team solutions that deliver cohesive, end-to-end autonomous sensing and effector capabilities. These systems must:

• Extend Ground Sensing Range: Project organic capabilities at threshold minimum 20 km and objective 40km beyond the wire/FLOT. Permissible offers include emplacement of disposable sensors and / or usage of an ariel asset to extend the autonomous ground vehicle’s sensing range is permissible from offers.
• Support Swappable Modularity: Deliver modular payloads (combining sensors and/or kinetic and non-kinetic effectors) that can be rapidly, physically, and logically hot-swapped in the field across diverse platform classes.
  • Small Payloads (under 100 lbs) must be integrated with light tactical autonomy platforms.
  • Medium Payloads (100 to 1,000 lbs) must integrate with medium tactical platforms.
  • Large Payloads (over 1,000 lbs) must integrate with heavy-duty mobile architecture such as tactical trailers or utility vehicles.
• Operate in DDIL Environments: Execute autonomous navigation, mission planning, and target acquisition once a known reference point is established, utilizing both BLOS and LOS network transports. Can include storing waypoints or similar. Does not require full mission planning autonomy software.
• Standardize Open Interfaces: Required open, Documented, vendor-agnostic interfaces (e.g., gRPC for intra-/inter-robot tasking and IBCS-M for C2 task management) to avoid long-term vendor lock-in and ensure compatibility with Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and Multiple autonomy stacks.
• Enable Modern C2 Integration: Accept tasking geometry, mission plans, and agent-skill-based tasking from IBCS-M (Lattice) and Maven Smart System (MSS).

The requirement is to deliver coherent, interoperable, and rapidly deployable robotic sensing and effector systems that can be tested, scaled, and transitioned to operational use in the Theater of Operations, enabling earlier I&W, and improved decision advantage for the Combatant Commander.

Desired Capability Categories

• Category 1 – Lightweight Sensor + Effector (Small Payload Class)
  • Industry teams should propose integrated solutions that combine:
  • Swappable modular payload (under 100 lbs. combined weight) fully integrating sensor and effector
  • Passive and/or active sensor integration, as applicable
  • Swappable modular payload utilizing a universal, standardized mechanical interface for rapid "bolt-on/bolt-off" field swapping.
  • Additional mission capability support, including power as required for the proposed configuration
  • OpenAPI integration to enable interoperability and modularity
  • Compatibility with multiple C2 platforms and tasking via Agent Skills
• Category 2 – Medium-Weight Sensor + Effector (Medium Payload Class)
  • Industry teams should propose integrated solutions that combine: Hot-swappable modular payload (between 100 and 1,000 lbs combined weight)
  • Swappable modular payload utilizing a universal, standardized mechanical interface for rapid "bolt-on/bolt-off" field swapping.
  • An effector, including kinetic and/or non-kinetic options
  • Passive and/or active sensor integration, as applicable
  • Additional mission capability support, including power as required for the proposed configuration
  • Open API integration to enable interoperability and modularity
  • Compatibility with multiple C2 platforms and tasking via Agent Skills
  • Integration into Government Furnished Equipment and Autonomy stack frameworks
• Category 3 – Large Platform-Mounted Sensor + Effector (Large Payload Class)
  • Industry teams should propose integrated solutions that combine:
  • Full Autonomous heavy platform (e.g., tactical trailer vehicle or similar)
  • Swappable modular payload (Large class, typically over 1,000 lbs)
  • Swappable modular payload utilizing a universal, standardized mechanical interface for rapid "bolt-on/bolt-off" field swapping.
  • Kinetic and/or non-kinetic effectors with integrated sensing
  • Safety architecture
  • Open API integration to enable interoperability and modularity
  • Compatibility with multiple C2 platforms and tasking via Agent Skills
• Category 4 – Low-Cost Attritable Platform
  • Industry teams should propose integrated solutions that combine:
  • High-mobility, cost-effective Autonomous Ground Platform paired with a sensor for contested areas
  • Cost-constrained design where the cost of autonomy software/hardware does not exceed the cost of the platform
  • Open API integration to enable interoperability and modularity
  • Compatibility with multiple C2 platforms and tasking via Agent Skills

White Paper Submission Guidance

            The Government is seeking concise, mission-focused white paper submissions from vendors capable of delivering integrated mission capabilities in support of JAILBREAK objectives. Submissions shall demonstrate operational relevance, technical maturity, integration readiness, and the ability to support rapid assessment and potential follow-on operations.

Vendors are advised that submission of a white paper does not guarantee selection for further consideration. The Government reserves the right to use submitted information for planning, assessment, and potential down-select purposes consistent with applicable acquisition authorities and procedures.

Required White Paper Content

White papers shall address, at a minimum, the following content areas:

Submission Format and Delivery Instructions

White papers shall be prepared and submitted in accordance with the following requirements:

• Length: approximately 3–5 pages, excluding cover page. Anything over 5 pages will not be evaluated;

• Page size: 8.5 x 11 inches;

• Margins: 1 inch;

• Font: standard legible font, such as Arial or Times New Roman;

• Font size: 11–12 point;

• Spacing: single-spaced or 1.15-line spacing; and

• File format: PDF.

The first page of the document and the electronic file name shall be clearly labeled as follows:

JAILBREAK Mission Team White Paper – [Team Name]

White papers shall be submitted electronically to:

jailbreaknanoace@army.mil

Mission Team Lead Contact Information

Each submission shall include complete contact information for the Mission Team Lead. At a minimum, the following shall be provided:

• organization name;

• individual’s name;

• title;

• mailing address;

• telephone number; and

• email address

• UEI & CAGECODE

The white paper must include full contact information for the Mission Team Lead (organization, name, title, mailing address, phone, and email) and address, at a minimum, four key areas:

(1) Mission Team Overview

The vendor shall describe the Mission Team structure and composition. This section shall include:

• Team name;
• Team Lead;
• Team composition, including lead entity, partners, and key subcontractors or contributors, if applicable;
• high-level roles and responsibilities of participating organizations; and
• prior relevant operational, technical, prototyping, or integration experience.
• List each system, company and capability as it aligns to the categories. i.e. ( System1, Company1, (Ground Autonomous Platform, Sensor, Effector, Autonomy stack, integrator, Etc..))                  

Because this effort is being considered as a prototype project under 10 U.S.C. § 4023, vendors should clearly identify the organizations that will contribute to prototype development, integration, fielding, support, and operational execution

(2) Operational Problem Understanding –

The vendor shall clearly address the operational problem identified in the applicable brief, notice, or project materials.

This section shall include:

• the vendor’s understanding of the operational problem;

• the operational context and threat environment;

• the mission thread the vendor intends to address;

• the operational significance of the problem;

• a restatement of the problem in the vendor’s own words; and

• an explanation of how the proposed prototype project approach aligns with JAILBREAK’s mission-centric objectives.

The Government is not seeking a generic product description. Vendors shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the mission need, the operational gap, and the relevance of the proposed prototype capability to the stated problem.

(3) Overall Solution and Solution Breakdown

The vendor shall identify the overall prototype solution being proposed and explain how it addresses the operational problem.

This section shall:

• summarize the integrated mission capability being offered;

• explain how the proposed prototype solution addresses the identified problem;

• break the solution into major components, subsystems, or functional elements;

• describe the role of each element in the overall capability; and

• explain how the elements function together as an integrated mission solution rather than as independent products or services.

As applicable, vendors should address:

• platforms;

• sensors;

• software;

• analytics;

• communications;

• support services; and

• concepts of operation (CONOPs).

The Government is particularly interested in prototype solutions that can be demonstrated in an operationally relevant environment and that provide measurable mission utility.  

(4) Problem Restatement and Vendor Prototype Approach

The vendor shall explicitly restate the problem and explain how the vendor intends to solve it through the proposed prototype effort.

This section shall clearly address:

• the operational problem to be solved;

• the underlying mission need;

• the capability gap being addressed;

• the vendor’s proposed prototype method of solving the problem;

• how the prototype capability will be employed operationally; and

• the expected mission effects or operational outcomes.

Where appropriate, vendors should describe expected contributions such as:

• increased speed of sensing;

• improved decision advantage;

• support to targeting or the kill chain;

• enhanced survivability;

• improved detection, tracking, or engagement timelines; and

• reduced operational burden.

(5) Equipment Availability and Delivery Readiness

The vendor shall include a dedicated section addressing the availability of equipment required to solve the stated problem and the vendor’s ability to deliver such equipment within the Government’s required timeline.

This section shall include, at a minimum:

• identification of the prototype equipment currently available;

• current readiness status of the equipment;

• whether the equipment is mission-capable at the time of submission or requires additional configuration, integration, or preparation;

• quantity of equipment available for deployment;

• current location of the equipment;

• readiness for both CONUS and OCONUS deployment;

• the vendor’s ability to meet the Government’s required delivery window;

• any lead times associated with shipping, transport, staging, integration, licensing, training, or support;

• any assumptions regarding Government-furnished equipment, facilities, access, transportation, or approvals; and

• any risks, constraints, or dependencies that may affect timely delivery or operational availability.

If multiple configurations or prototype variants exist, the vendor shall identify:

• which configuration is proposed for immediate delivery;

• which capabilities are available upon delivery;

• which capabilities, if any, would be delivered in a later phase; and

• the timeline for achieving full operational capability.

The Government is seeking prototype capabilities that can be delivered and employed on an operationally relevant timeline. Vendors shall clearly distinguish between currently fieldable capability and capability that remains in development or requires additional maturation.

(6) Integration and Architecture

The vendor shall describe the overall system architecture and integration approach.

This section shall include:

• the high-level architecture of the proposed capability;

• key interfaces and data flows;

• interoperability with existing systems, where applicable;

• the approach to integration across Mission Team members;

• the extent to which integration has already been accomplished prior to Government selection; and

• how the team will support rapid execution within JAILBREAK Mission Sprint timelines.

The Government places emphasis on integrated mission capability and reduced execution risk. Vendors should therefore clearly explain how integration is being achieved within the team and how that integration supports rapid prototype execution and operational use.

(7) Cybersecurity Architecture, Integration, and Maturity
To ensure rapid and secure integration into operational enclaves and existing platforms, proposed solutions must demonstrate sufficient maturity to meet short-suspense requirements for an Interim Approval To Test (IATT), followed by a Rapid Authorization To Operate (ATO). White papers must address the following cybersecurity and architectural elements from an integrated solutions perspective:

• Data Classification: State the expected classification levels for processing, storing, and transmitting data (e.g., unclassified, CUI, and/or classified).
• Network Integration: Explain how the system will securely connect with operational classified or unclassified mission networks and coalition architectures. A one-page system/network view diagram is preferred and will not count against the total page limit.
• Data Protection & Anti-Tamper: Identify encryption standards for data at rest and in transit, and provide an anti-tamper roadmap to protect against battlefield loss or exploitation.

(8) Non-evaluated: Vendor White paper should include if they have available test range for follow on assessment.

Rough Order of Magnitude:

As a separate attachment, Offerors shall provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) pricing construct that clearly identifies estimated costs for the prototype system(s) and associated support for experimental testing in the theater of operations over the following periods:

• 1 month;

• 3 months; and

• 6 months.

At a minimum, the ROM shall separately identify the following cost elements:

1. System Cost Hardware, software, and any required licenses.

2. Logistics Support Spares, sustainment, shipping/transport, and in-theater support, as applicable.

3. Training Initial operator and maintainer training, and refresher training if proposed.

4. Field Service Representative (FSR) Support On-site and/or remote support.

Offerors shall provide:

• ROM pricing for each duration period with FSR support included; and

• optional pricing for the same durations with FSR support excluded, identified as an FSR Off option.

All ROM pricing shall:

• clearly state all underlying assumptions, including but not limited to:

• number of prototype systems;

• locations;

• level of effort;

• hours per week;

• number of trainees; and

• support concept;

• be structured in a manner that can be readily translated into line items for potential prototype project execution; and

• support Government assessment of cost, scalability, and supportability.

Because this effort is being considered under 10 U.S.C. § 4023, the ROM should reflect a prototype project construct rather than a traditional production procurement construct, unless otherwise stated by the Government.

Recommended White Paper Organization

To facilitate efficient Government review, vendors are encouraged to organize submissions in the following order:

1. GO/NO-GO Annotation Summary by System.

2. Mission Team Lead Contact Information 

3. Mission Team Overview 

4. Operational Problem Understanding 

5. Problem Restatement 

6. Overall Solution Summary 

7. Solution Breakdown by Component 

8. Vendor Prototype Approach to Solving the Problem 

9. Equipment Availability and Delivery Readiness 

10. Proposed Mission Capability and Operational Use Cases 

11. Integration and Architecture 

12. Non-Evaluated Test Range Availability 

Separate attachment:

13. ROM Pricing Summary and Assumptions

Additional Submission Guidance

Vendors are encouraged to ensure that submissions are concise, complete, and directly responsive to the operational problem. White papers should emphasize:

• mission relevance;

• prototype maturity;

• integration readiness;

• delivery readiness;

• operational utility; and

• the ability to support rapid experimentation, assessment, and potential transition.

Submissions should clearly distinguish between:

• existing capability and planned capability;

• integrated mission solutions and stand-alone products;

• currently available prototype equipment and equipment requiring additional development; and

• assumptions versus demonstrated readiness.

Gates of Entry (GO/NO-GO):

1. Vendors (Including each system submitted for the team) must have received a Memorandum of Observation (MoO) (i.e. Jailbreak 1.0, 1.5. 2.0) or actively be on site working towards an MoO (GO/NO-GO).
2. Delivery of prototype equipment: Vendors should have prototype systems available for both CONUS and OCONUS assessments from Late September/early October 2026 (GO/NO-GO). Potential for follow on rapid operations

Evaluation Criteria – Weighted Mission Assessment:

Following application of mandatory Jailbreak Gates (GO / NO‑GO), the Government will conduct a weighted Mission Assessment to differentiate among qualified Mission Teams. The evaluation will consider the following five factors:

1. Operational Value – 30% 

   - Degree to which the proposed capability addresses the stated operational problem and mission thread. 

   - Clarity and realism of operational use cases (e.g., extending sensing beyond the wire, improving indications and warning, supporting Combatant Commander decision-making). 

   - Anticipated mission impact in the designated theater and alignment with theater of operations operational needs.

2. Technical Approach – 30% 

   - Soundness, feasibility, and maturity of the technical solution (platforms, sensors, autonomy, software, communications). 

   - Use of open, vendor‑agnostic interfaces and APIs, and ability to integrate with designated C2 systems (e.g., IBCS‑M, MSS). 

   - Ability to achieve Interim Approval To Test (IATT) for all live operational assessments (including in theater) and ability to achieve Rapid Approval To Operate (ATO) for full operational use (including in theater).   

3. System of Systems Integration – 20% 

   - Evidence of pre‑award integration within the Mission Team (e.g., existing interfaces, lab integration, prior demonstrations). 

   - Coherence of system architecture and data flows across team members’ components. 

   - Ability to field the capability as an end‑to‑end mission solution rather than a set of loosely coupled products.

4. Execution Feasibility – 20% 

   - Credibility of the plan to meet the compressed timelines (e.g., 10–14 days from selection to fielding, sprint milestones). 

   - Identification and management of key risks, dependencies, and resource requirements. 

   - Demonstrated ability (past performance or demonstrable capacity) to execute rapid integration, test, and deployment.

Live Pitch Requirements and Evaluation

As part of the Mission Assessment, each qualified Mission Team will participate in a live pitch session at SOFWERX Tampa, FL:

• Duration: 10 minutes total per Mission Team.
  • 5 minutes – Plan of Action:
    • Mission Team will brief its execution plan to meet the sprint timeline, including key milestones from selection through test and initial deployment.
    • Topics should include: integration approach, risk mitigation, required Government support, and how the team will deliver mission-ready capability within the specified window.
  • 5 minutes – Judge Q&A:
    • Government panel will conduct structured questions focused on clarifying the team’s approach in the areas of Operational Value, Technical Approach, Integration, Execution, and Transition.
• Attendance Requirement:
  • At least one member of the Mission Team must be physically present in person for the pitch session. Additional team members may participate virtually if permitted by the Government, but the in‑person representative must be empowered to speak for the team and respond to questions.

The content and clarity of the pitch, including the Plan of Action and responses during Q&A, will be used to inform scoring under Execution Feasibility and may also refine the Government’s assessment of Operational Value, Technical Approach, and System‑of‑Systems Integration as appropriate.

Authorities Used

• 10 USC 4023 – Procurement for Experimental Purposes

Points of Contact

• Contracting POC: Mr. John Rosamilia, john.c.rosamilia.civ@army.mil
                                             
• Capability Lead (G-TEAD): MAJ Robert Davis, jailbreaknanoace@army.mil
                                                         Ms. Cynthia Claridge, jailbreaknanoace@army.mil
   

The official timeline for the requirement:

• 17–21 AUG: Special Notice Period: Opens on 17 AUG; closes at 1700 EST on 21 AUG.
• 22 AUG: Gate Check Review: Compliance screening and initial technical threshold checks of all submissions.
• 22–23 AUG: White Paper Review: Board evaluations commence.
• 24–25 AUG: Live Pitches: Downselected industry teams present technical and operational capability briefs.
• 26 AUG: Negotiations / Contract Award: Selection, final contract negotiations, and immediate award execution.
• 31 AUG: Operational Sprint Planning: Initiation of the 3x weekly (MWF) progress and sync battle rhythm. (Timeline Subject to Change)
• 31 AUG–18 SEP: Industry Team Integration: Physical, software, and payload integration of vendor systems onto platforms. This is vendor lead and resourced. (Timeline Subject to Change)
• 21–25 SEP: Operational Assessment Window: Rigorous 3-day technical and operational field evaluations. (Timeline Subject to Change) (Location CONUS TBD)
• 05 OCT: Ready to deploy: Equipment ready for deployment to a Theater of Operations (Timeline Subject to Change)

Government Special Notice

This request is for white papers only and is issued in connection with potential prototype project activity under 10 U.S.C. § 4023.

The Government reserves the right to:

• request additional information;

• engage in follow-on discussions;

• invite selected respondents to participate in demonstrations, assessments, or prototype project negotiations;

• award multiple experimental purposes agreements for prototypes; or

• take no further action.

Submission of a white paper does not obligate the Government to enter into an experimental purposes agreement, issue an award, or reimburse any costs associated with preparation or submission.