Alternative Protein Technologies for Military Field Feeding

SYNOPSIS: This Sources Sought Announcement is to assist the US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command - Soldier Center (DEVCOM-SC) to identify potential sources to provide innovative product development research and/or consumer research and/or demonstration food samples in the area of alternative proteins.
The Government requests responders submit a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) preproposal as outlined in DEVCOM-SC BAA W911QY-25-R-0023 located at:
https://sam.gov/opp/a5ec94e2baee40df9951f864a8665e71/view 
Please refer to Section VI - Scientific and Technical Areas of Interest, A. Combat Ration Research and Development. Submit the BAA preproposal to: michael.s.wiederoder.civ@army.mil, richard.j.green.civ@army.mil and jean.m.trumpis.civ@army.mil  by 15 May 2026, 5:00 PM EDT.
OBJECTIVE: DEVCOM-SC seeks product development, consumer research, and prototype demonstrations of current and emerging alternative protein technologies that could be integrated into military rations. 
BACKGROUND: The U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center (DEVCOM-SC), Combat Feeding Division (CFD), is seeking information from industry and academia on capabilities related to alternative proteins. The U.S. Army is exploring how the emerging alternative-protein sector can help meet several objectives, including enhancing food supply chain resilience, enabling biomanufacturing of foodstuffs in combat-forward environments, and providing tailored, high-quality nutrition to the Warfighter.
DEVCOM-SC CFD has unique expertise in the development and assessment of shelf-stable ration components, as well as food safety and palatability for the joint warfighter. We are looking to partner with the commercial and academic sectors to advance technology development in this area.
AREAS OF INTEREST: DEVCOM-SC is seeking information from offerors that can provide capabilities in one or more of the following areas. Please note, for the purposes of this RFI, we are specifically excluding solutions related to cell-cultured, lab-grown meat or insect protein.
1.    Innovative technologies for alternative protein development to reduce Soldier load: Seeking advanced technologies and processes, involved in fermentation, precision fermentation, or other novel biomanufacturing methods, that enhance the production of alternative proteins. Additional funding in specific components of the research would significantly accelerate advancements in technology and/or manufacturing readiness levels, enabling faster transition to operational use. These technologies should focus on creating lightweight and nutrient-dense ration solutions to reduce logistical burdens and physical load on warfighters while maintaining or enhancing nutritional value and operational performance. 
2.    Innovative Product Development: The development of innovative meat-alternative products specifically designed for inclusion in military rations, meeting stringent requirements for nutrition, shelf stability, and palatability.
3.    Consumer Research and Acceptability: The ability to conduct comprehensive consumer research (e.g., focus groups, sensory panels, field testing) to enhance the acceptability and consumption of alternative proteins within a military population.
4.    Food sample Demonstration: The capability to provide food samples that have Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) status to demonstrate the maturation of an alternative protein manufacturing technology. These prototypes will be provided to the Government for sensory acceptability and other performance characteristics and will be consumed by our test panel of experts.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Interested parties (companies or academic institutions) are requested to submit a proposal that details their capabilities in one or more of the areas listed in Section 3.0. Submissions should include:
•    A detailed description of your technical approach.
•    Relevant past performance or corporate experience.
•    A rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for the proposed work or prototypes.
This information will be used for market research and planning purposes. Responses to this RFI are not binding proposals, but they will help shape future solicitation requirements.
SOUGHT ANNOUNCEMENT ONLY.
This Sources Sought Announcement is issued solely for information and planning purposes and to identify interested sources. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION. No contract will be awarded from this announcement. This Sources Sought does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP in the future. It is subject to change and is not binding on the Government. Further, unsolicited proposals will not be accepted. Funding is not available at this time. The United States Army has not made a commitment to procure any of the items/services discussed, and release of this Sources Sought Announcement should not be construed as such a commitment or as authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. Response to this Sources Sought Announcement is voluntary and no reimbursement will be made for any costs associated with providing information in response to this and any follow-on information requests. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned.
Not responding to this Sources Sought Announcement does not preclude participation in any future RFP if any is issued. If a solicitation is released, it will be synopsized on the beta.SAM.gov website. It is the responsibility of the potential responders to monitor this site for additional information pertaining to this subject.
RESPONSES: Interested parties may identify their interest and capability by sending BAA preproposals regarding this requirement to DEVCOM-SC via e-mail ONLY to michael.s.wiederoder.civ@army.mil, richard.j.green.civ@army.mil and jean.m.trumpis.civ@army.mil  by 15 May 2026, 5:00 PM EDT. The U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative cost incurred in response to this Notice. All costs associated with responding to this Notice will be solely at the expense of the interested party. Submissions should include:
•    Whether you are proposing product development and/or consumer research and/or prototype demonstration.
•    A detailed description of your technical approach.
•    Relevant past performance or corporate experience.
•    A rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for the proposed work or prototypes.
Please provide business size (indicate your socioeconomic status), applicable NAICS code, and CAGE code.
QUESTIONS: Any questions for clarification may be emailed to michael.s.wiederoder.civ@army.mil, richard.j.green.civ@army.mil and jean.m.trumpis.civ@army.mil no later than 11 May 2026, 5:00 PM EDT. Verbal questions will NOT be accepted. Questions shall NOT contain proprietary or classified information. An unattributed list of questions and answers will be published at the same web location of this Sources Sought Announcement.

Amendment 1

Q: Among the typical performance requirements for shelf-stable ration components, such as ambient stability, water activity, texture retention, and sensory acceptability, are there one or two that you consider most critical to address in a 5-page concept paper?

     A: The determination of which performance requirements are most critical to address in the concept paper is at the offeror's discretion. Offerors should emphasize the factors they deem most relevant to their proposed approach.

Q:  For alternative-protein ration components, which selection criteria matter most at the concept stage: protein density, flavor acceptability, shelf stability, processing behavior, domestic sourcing, cost, or allergen profile?

     A: The prioritization of selection criteria at the concept stage is at the offeror's discretion. Offerors should emphasize the criteria that best support their proposed technical approach. However, domestic sourcing is an absolute requirement due to the Berry Amendment. The Berry Amendment mandates that the Department of War must give preference to domestically produced, manufactured, or grown food, clothing, fabrics, and certain other items. This means that, for ration components, sourcing ingredients and processing within the United States is not just preferred but required by law, unless a specific exception is granted. (exceptions will not be granted for this effort).

Q: For Area A, are novel ready-to-eat formats acceptable at the concept stage, provided they meet the shelf-stability and consumption requirements of a field ration?

     A: The proposal of novel ready-to-eat formats at the concept stage is at the offeror's discretion. If the proposal includes sensory evaluation, all components should possess GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status, otherwise all the components should have an understood pathway to achieving GRAS status.

Q: For the 5-page concept paper, is it preferable to keep the initial submission focused on formulation and product development, or is it appropriate to include proposed stability and sensory evaluation as part of the effort?

     A: The specific content of the 5-page concept paper is at the offeror's discretion. Offerors may choose to include proposed stability and sensory evaluation if it best supports their technical approach.

Q: For the prototype demonstration component (Area 4), does CFD have specific ration formats or component types in mind (e.g., gel/semi-solid formats, dry powder mixes, sauce-style components) that would be most useful for your sensory evaluation program? We want to prioritize development work that maps directly to your near-term testing needs.

     A: The proposal of novel ready-to-eat formats at the concept stage is at the offeror's discretion. If the proposal includes sensory evaluation, all components  should possess GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status, otherwise all the components should have an understood pathway to achieving GRAS status.

Q: Are we eligible to submit a preproposal if our registered NAICS code does not match the one specified in the call?

     A: KO Response: “Yes, a contractor can submit a pre-proposal (or proposal) for a NAICS code that is not currently listed in their System for Award Management (SAM) profile. There are a couple of GAO cases that state that the NAICS code does not specifically need to be listed in their SAM profile.”

Amendment 2

Q: The Sources Sought background identifies two distinct strategic objectives: (1) enhancing food supply chain resilience through domestically-sourced alternative protein production, and (2) enabling biomanufacturing of foodstuffs in combat-forward environments. Could you clarify the relative priority of these two objectives for this solicitation? Specifically, is the near-term emphasis on ration-ready products and supply chain resilience, with forward-deployment biomanufacturing as a longer-term research interest, or are both weighted equally for this response?

     A: The determination of which performance objectives are most critical to address in the concept paper is at the offeror's discretion. Offerors should emphasize the factors they deem most relevant to   their proposed approach.

Q: For Area 4 food sample demonstrations, what quantity of product samples is expected, in what format (e.g., individual serving portions, bulk ingredient), and over what delivery timeframe? Are there specific per-serving weight or macronutrient targets that prototypes should meet?

     A: The quantity, format, and specific targets for samples are at the offeror's discretion; however, minimal samples should be presented that clearly demonstrate the characteristics of the component. While nutritional standards for operational rations (NSOR) are required for fielded ration components, those not meeting NSOR requirements will be considered due to the research nature of this effort. Samples are required per the SOW and the period of performance (PoP). For a reference of NSORS: https://www.armyresilience.army.mil/ard/images/pdf/Policy/AR%2040-25%20Nutrition%20and%20Menu%20Standards%20for%20Human%20Performance%20Optimization.pdf (page 13)

Q: For products proposed under Area 2, will the Government conduct Accelerated Shelf-Life Testing (e.g.,ASLT protocols) to evaluate the 3-year shelf-life requirement, or is real-time testing expected as part of the research scope? If ASLT is the method to be considered?

     A: The Government does not currently plan a shelf-life study, but it could as a follow-on effort. Offerors should consider shelf-life in their product design. If the offeror believes that inclusion of an accelerated study would strengthen their proposal, they can choose to include such a study.

Q: For Area 3 consumer research and acceptability work, is there flexibility to use existing civilian sensory panel data as a comparative baseline, or should all organoleptic data be generated from a military population? If military population testing is required, does DEVCOM-SC facilitate access to active duty or reserve personnel for sensory panels, or is that the contractor's responsibility to arrange?

     A: Area 3 pertains to capabilities focused on consumer research, such as focus groups, sensory panels, and field testing, to evaluate the acceptability and consumption of alternative proteins. It is up to the offeror whether to include any or all of the areas listed. DEVCOM SC may evaluate product as part of area 4, but any proposal in area 3 is up to the offeror to coordinate. If the offeror believes that a civilian sensory panel will help demonstrate the acceptability of the product, they are free to propose such a panel.

Q: For offerors intending to address multiple areas of interest, should a single integrated preproposal be submitted or separate submissions per area?

     A:  A singular submission should be made, but it could have separable parts that could be incorporated or not into a final funded proposal as negotiated by the offeror and the Government if the proposal is selected for funding.

Amendment 3

Q: The Sources Sought specifies that, "if the proposal includes sensory evaluation, all components should possess GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status." Could you confirm whether self-affirmed GRAS (i.e., a GRAS dossier prepared under 21 CFR Parts 20, 25, 170, 184, 186, and 570 and submitted to FDA, with a No-Questions-Letter pending) satisfies this requirement, or whether a granted FDA No-Questions-Letter is required at the time of sample submission?

     A: For area 4, submission of samples to CFD for sensory analysis, a no questions asked letter must be granted. Self-affirmed status is not sufficient.

Q: For an offeror operating as a US-incorporated subsidiary of a foreign parent company, with a US ingredient platform but no in-house finished-ration formulation capability, are teaming arrangements between the US ingredient prime and a US-CAGE-registered downstream ration formulator within scope for any follow-on RFP issued under this Sources Sought?

     A: We believe that it is up to the US incorporated Prime offeror to determine its teaming arrangements.