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

*All Questions & Answers regarding this Special Notice are included below.*

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.

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 capability on a highly compressed timeline. The immediate objective is to deliver prototype system(s)—each comprising a combination of robotic platforms, sensors, autonomy/mission management software, communications, and supporting services. Current ground sensing architectures are largely fixed to Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) and other static locations, limiting indications and warning (I&W) and coverage depth beyond the wire, while existing industry offerings tend to be individual products rather than complete mission solutions, creating friction in extending sensing range and integrating with existing command-and-control (C2) systems.

To address this gap, the Army seeks integrated Mission Team solutions that deliver end‑to‑end autonomous sensing capability: systems objective is to extend ground sensing at least 20 km beyond the wire; operate in contested and DDIL environments once a known reference point is established; offer adequate mobility to enhance system survivability; BLOS and LOS network transport; accept tasking geometry and mission plans from IBCS‑M (Lattice) and Maven Smart System (MSS); and integrate via open, vendor‑agnostic interfaces (e.g., gRPC for intra-/inter‑robot tasking and IBCS‑M for C2 task management), emphasizing common interfaces rather than common platforms to avoid long‑term lock‑in. The requirement is not simply to provide robots or sensors, but to deliver coherent, interoperable, and rapidly deployable robotic sensing systems that can be tested 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 – Autonomous Platform + Sensor
  
  • Industry teams should propose integrated solutions that combine:
  • Semi to Full Autonomous platform
  • ISR or targeting sensor
  • Safety architecture
  • Open API integration
  • Compatibility with multiple C2 platforms
• Category 2 – Platform + Effector + Additional Capability
  • Industry teams should propose integrated solutions that combine:
  • Semi to Full Autonomous platform
  • Effector
  • Safety architecture
  • Open API integration
  • Compatibility with multiple C2 platforms

Vendor Submission Guidance

Submissions shall submit a concise, mission-focused white paper of approximately 3-5 pages (excluding cover), using a standard legible font (e.g., Arial or Times New Roman) in 11–12 point size with single or 1.15 line spacing, on 8.5 x 11-inch pages with 1-inch margins, in PDF format. The document shall be clearly marked on the first page and in the file name as “JAILBREAK Mission Team White Paper – Team Name” and shall be submitted to jailbreak@army.mil.

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 – describing the team name, Team Lead, team composition (prime/lead, partners, key subcontractors), high-level roles and responsibilities, and prior relevant experience;

(2) Operational Problem Understanding – explaining your understanding of the operational problem as outlined in the brief/solicitation, the operational context and threat environment, the mission thread you intend to address, and how your approach aligns with JAILBREAK’s mission-centric focus;

(3) Proposed Mission Capability – describing your integrated solution (platforms, sensors, software, analytics, communications, services, and CONOPs), how these elements form a coherent mission capability rather than stand-alone products, and the operational use cases and expected mission effects (e.g., speed of sensing, contributions to the kill chain, survivability); and

(4) Integration & Architecture – outlining your overall system architecture and integration approach, key interfaces and data flows, interoperability with existing systems where applicable, and how integration is accomplished within the Mission Team prior to Government selection to support rapid execution in the JAILBREAK Mission Sprint timelines.

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

Rough Order of Magnitude:

Offerors shall provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) pricing construct that clearly identifies costs for the prototype system(s) and associated support over 1‑month, 3‑month, and 6‑month periods of experimental testing in the theater of operations. At a minimum, the ROM shall break out:

(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, refresher training if proposed); and

(4) Field Service Representative (FSR) support (on‑site and/or remote).

Offerors shall present ROM prices for each duration (1, 3, and 6 months) with FSR support included and shall also provide optional pricing for those same durations with FSR support excluded (i.e., a “FSR off” option) to allow the Government to assess cost tradeoffs and tailor FSR support levels as needed. All ROM pricing shall clearly state underlying assumptions (e.g., number of prototype system(s), locations, level of effort, hours per week, number of trainees) and shall be structured in a way that can be readily converted into CLINs/option CLINs if the Government elects to proceed to award.

Gates of Entry (GO/NO-GO):

1. Vendor 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 17-24AUG (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 four 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 the theater of operations 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 (not all-inclusive)

• 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, jailbreak@army.mil
                                              Ms. Cynthia Claridge, jailbreak@army.mil

The official timeline for the requirement:

• 08–09 August 2026: JAILBREAK white paper submission / pitches window
• 10 August 2026: Vendor pitches
• 10 August 2026 (planned): Government negotiation / award
• 11 August 2026 (planned): Announcement of selected Mission Teams
• 17 August 2026 (planned): Prototype assessment (technical and operational due diligence). Date is subject to change. 
• 17–24 August 2026: Potential deployment and operational assessment in theater (GO/NO‑GO dependent)

Questions & Answers:

1. Are we permitted to submit one white paper for Category 1 and a second white paper for Category 2? Or is the expectation that a single white paper covers both Category 1 and Category 2 requirements? 

A. If it is the exact same solution, you would only submit one for category two. If these are different solutions, i.e different teams, then submit one for each team.

2. Is it permissible for a single prime contractor to submit more than one white paper per category? For example, if we have different teaming arrangements that offer different solutions for Category 1, is it permissible to submit distinct Category 1 white papers for each technical solution/teaming arrangement? We understand that we are permitted to subcontract with other companies but would appreciate clarification regarding if we can offer more than one solution per category. 

A. You can submit more than one white paper as long as it is different solutions with different teams (i.e. Company A can team with Company B and C to solve one solution) then Company A can work with Company D and E for another solutions.

3. Are classified submissions acceptable? We perform work on unclassified systems but also have many systems that are required to run on classified networks. If so, please advise on the e-mail address and POC for a classified submission. 

A. Classified submissions will not be accepted.