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

Questions & Answers / Clarifications

This document contains questions and answers from an Industry Day event held on March 23-24, 2026, related to the PrSM Inc 4 RFS (Request for Solutions).

• Mission Evaluation: Solutions will be evaluated using a high-fidelity mission effectiveness model and simulation, with cumulative effects on targets being the primary factor. Maneuverability, trajectory, salvo size, warhead, seeker performance, and GPS-degraded environment operation are potential factors.
• Modeling Frameworks: The primary framework uses intel-community authoritative threat models. Analysis will incorporate industry-provided trajectories and performance models. Specific modeling tools may be shared during Phase I execution, but this is not guaranteed.
• Requirements: The Government avoids being overprescriptive. Key evaluation pillars are range (>1000km), compatibility with M142 launcher, and effectiveness against targets. Industry is to propose their best product.
• Solution Scope: A single full missile solution is required, evaluated against the three pillars. Offerors must submit a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for all three phases, with higher detail for Phase I. No partial solutions accepted.
• Timeline: RFS issued April 15th, Solution Brief due May 15th. Notification within 30 days if selected. Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) released by June 15th with a Statement of Objectives (SOO) and draft SOW.
• Range Requirements: Operational range is >1000km maximum and <300km minimum. Solutions outside these ranges will still be evaluated.
• Targets: Must address both ground and maritime targets, focusing on disrupting A2/AD bubbles. Land targets are relocatable but not actively moving. Classified target details will be provided.
• Classification: Missile and launcher are unclassified. Program classification depends on the partner's solution.
• Previous Increments: The solution does not need to be based on PrSM Increment 1 or 2; unique industry solutions are encouraged.
• Ejecta: Allowed if beyond the forward line of troops (FLOT) and landing location is predictable.
• Datalink: Not required, but desirable. Missile must be fully functional without it.
• Cost: Goal is best value; cost is an evaluation factor. Affordability and quantity are prioritized over high-cost solutions if effective.
• Launcher Compatibility: Must be M142 compatible. M270 compatibility is an objective. Standalone containerized launchers are not acceptable. Refer to Pod Weight/Size Assessment annex.
• Logistics: Offerors must address logistics if their solution exceeds standard MFOM dimensions. Fitting into the current logistics train is preferable but not strict.
• Contracting Vehicle: A new standalone Other Transaction Authority (OTA) will be used, not a traditional FAR-based contract.
• Funding: Operates on a shared investment model; Government provides some Phase 1 funding, but significant performer investment is expected.
• Flight Tests: Two planned (FY27, FY28). Evaluation focuses on range, M142 compatibility, and effects on targets. First flight is a downselect event.
• Operating Conditions: Threshold is INDOPACOM AOR operability; worldwide is objective. Conditioning requirements are undesirable.

This Q&A document clarifies key requirements, evaluation criteria, timelines, and technical aspects of the RFS, providing essential details for potential offerors to prepare their solutions and proposals.

Solicitation / RFP / RFQ

This document outlines the evaluation criteria for down-selection and award decisions for Phase I Option, Phase II, and Phase III of a program, likely related to the PrSM Increment 4. It details how the USG will assess solutions to proceed through different program phases.

Phase I Option (to proceed to Fly-off #2):

• Evaluation based on Mission Effectiveness using holistic performance modeling.
• Focus on flight characteristics, survivability, and lethality against intended targets.
• Solutions must address the capability gap defined for PrSM Increment 4.

Phase II Qualification (via Mod to Prototype OTA):

• Evaluation based on the final Phase I Flight Demonstration.
• Focus on operational performance demonstrated in test environments and predicted in Mission Effectiveness Analysis.

Phase III Production:

• Prototypes must be deemed successful.

• Must demonstrate acceptable manufacturing and production readiness levels.

• Must have approved modularity, open system architectures, and interfaces.

• The document references a "Prototype OTA" for Phase II qualification.

• It mentions "production units" and "Firm Fixed Price" for production.

Evaluation Factors for Phase I Option:

1. Schedule: Achievability of flight demonstration and production dates; identified risks and mitigations.
2. Technical Performance vs. Metrics: Mission Effectiveness Analysis against Thresholds and Objectives; mitigation of technical risks; TRL of 6 for Flyoff 1.
3. Architectural Integrity (MOSA): Conformance to MOSA requirements.
4. Price Reasonableness: Negotiated price for Option 1.
   • Weighting: Factor 1 > Factor 2 > Factor 3 > Factor 4. Non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

Evaluation Factors for Phase II Qualification (Final Fly-Off):

1. Operational Performance: Demonstrated in test environment and predicted in Mission Effectiveness Analysis.
2. Production Capacity & Delivery: Projected capacity rate and delivery dates during production.
3. Manufacturing & Production Readiness (MRL): Scalability of components, supply chain risk for long-lead items; TRL of 6+ for Flyoff 2.
4. Architectural Integrity (MOSA): Conformance to MOSA requirements.
5. Proposed Costs: Phase II costs and updated Firm Fixed Price for production units.
   • Weighting: Factor 1 > Factor 2 > Factor 3 > Factor 4 > Factor 5. Non-cost factors are significantly more important than price.

Phase II to III Transition:

• Criteria include successful prototype, manufacturing readiness, MOSA compliance, and fair/reasonable price.

Not specified in this document.

• References "Request for Solutions (RFS)" sections for specific metrics and requirements.
• Mentions "Fly-off #2" and "Flyoff 1" and "Flyoff 2."

Solicitation / RFP / RFQ

This Request for Solutions (RFS) seeks industry partners to develop the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Increment 4 (Inc 4). The program aims to create an affordable, cost-effective, Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) compliant missile capable of engaging moving maritime and relocatable land targets at ranges of 1,000 km or greater. The solution must be compatible with the M142 launcher platform and operate in contested GPS environments. The effort is structured in phases from prototype development through potential production, utilizing Other Transaction Authority (OTA).

• MOSA Compliance: Mandatory adherence to 10 U.S.C. §§ 4401–4403 for interoperability, upgradeability, and competition.

• Performance: Engage moving maritime and relocatable land targets at ranges >= 1,000 km.

• Compatibility: M142 launcher platform and organic resupply systems.

• Operational Environment: INDO-Pacific (PACOM) Area of Operations.

• Security: Prototype project up to Secret level; solution handled as unclassified.

• Phased Approach: Includes Phase 0 (Solutions Brief), Phase I (Prototype Design, Development, Demonstration), Phase I Option (Prototype Demonstration), Phase II (Qualification), and Phase III (Production).

• Deliverables: Vary by phase, including design packages, simulation data, prototype hardware, test reports, and technical data packages.

• Authority: 10 U.S.C. § 4022 (Other Transaction Authority for Prototypes).

• Period of Performance (Prototype OTA): 36 months.

• Potential Follow-on Production: Possible without further competition per § 4022(f).

• Solutions Brief Due Date: 22 May 2026, 1700 CDT.

• Submission Format: Max 15 pages, searchable PDF, 12pt Times New Roman, 1” margins.

• Submission Content: Technical Narrative, MOSA Strategy, Data Rights Assertion, OCI, Performer Eligibility, Technical Data Sheet, ROM.

• Evaluation Criteria (Solutions Brief): Technical Merit & Innovation (most important), Schedule, Price Reasonableness (ROM), and MOSA Compliance & Openness (least important). Non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

• Performers must have a Unique Entity ID (UEI) and be registered in SAM.gov.

• Potential for follow-on production without further competition.

• The USG reserves the right to down-select, reduce, or increase the number of awards at each phase.

• Non-Government advisors may be used for evaluation.

• Specific firms are prohibited from competing but may serve as advisors.

Form / Attachment / Pricing Sheet

This document, Appendix X - Affirmation of Business Status Certification (ABSC), is a form that must be completed by every significant participating entity in the opportunity. It requires entities to provide their legal and business status information and certify the accuracy of the representations made.

• Legal Entity Name, Industry Size Standard for NAICS, SAM UEI No., CAGE Code, Tax Identification No., Active SAM Registration, Address, POC Name/Title, POC Phone/e-mail
• Certification of business status: Nontraditional Defense Contractor (NDC), Nonprofit Research Institution (NRI), or Traditional Defense Contractor.
• Signature, Printed Name, Title, and Date of the certifying individual.
• Explanation section for Prime/Sole Offerors on how they satisfy requirements under 10 USC 4022(b)(d) regarding the appropriate use of authority, specifically concerning the significant participation of NDC or NRI, or if all significant participants are small businesses or NDCs, or if at least one-third of the project cost is funded by non-Federal sources.

This form is critical for bidders to understand the required business status certifications and explanations needed for their entity and any significant participating entities. It directly impacts proposal preparation by outlining specific information and certifications that must be submitted, particularly for the Prime Offeror and any subcontractors that are NDCs or NRIs. The form also details the criteria for defining "significant extent" of participation for NDCs/NRIs.

Form / Attachment / Pricing Sheet

This document is a Technical Data Request (TDR) for the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Increment 4. Its purpose is to obtain system performance data to evaluate the theoretical feasibility of proposed solutions. Bidders should provide available information, excluding classified data.

• Data Format: Tabular data is to be delivered as .csv files with clear descriptions.
• Simulation Assumptions: Data should start at motor ignition, exclude prelaunch/egress, launch from 0 Latitude 0 Longitude directly North with a 54.7-degree launch elevation, and exclude wind models. It should account for an oblate spheroid rotating earth (WGS-84).
• Requested Data Tables: Includes categories for Simple Evaluation Data (Trajectory, Geometry, Propulsion, Aerodynamics, Mass Properties, Actuator, Lethal Mechanism, Seeker) and Enhanced Evaluation Data (Monte Carlo, Autopilot, Stability Margin, IMU, Navigation, Z-data, Maneuverability).
• Expanded Specifications: Detailed requirements are provided for each data table, including coordinate systems for trajectory, CAD/drawings for geometry, multi-dimensional tables for propulsion, lookup tables for aerodynamics, specific parameters for mass properties and actuators, details on warhead/fuze for lethal mechanisms, and specific metrics for Monte Carlo, Autopilot, Stability Margins, IMU, Navigation, and Z-data.

This TDR outlines the specific technical data required for evaluating proposed PrSM Increment 4 solutions. Bidders must understand these detailed specifications to prepare and submit the necessary performance data in the correct format. Failure to provide the requested data or adhere to the specified assumptions may impact the evaluation of their proposed solution.