Marine Corps Wargaming Prize Challenge - Central Florida Tech Grove

U.S. Marine Corps Program Manager Wargaming Capability (PM WGC)

Marine Corps Wargaming Challenge

The Central Florida Tech Grove, in partnership with the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD) and the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Program Manager Wargaming Capability (PM WGC), is running a prize challenge to identify a secure, end-to-end wargaming solution and complementary specialist capabilities, suitable for further development to enhance the Marine Corps Next-Generation Wargaming Ecosystem. This challenge seeks solutions that support the full wargaming lifecycle, deliver credible multi-domain simulation and effects, and accept Government data, models, artificial intelligence (AI), and specialist capabilities so the wargaming environment can evolve over time while the Government retains control of its data, models, and interfaces.

Join the Challenge

See Details

View Calendar

Prize Challenge Information

Overview

The Central Florida Tech Grove, in partnership with NAWCTSD and PM WGC, is executing a prize challenge to identify the strongest end-to-end wargaming solution and complementary specialist capabilities for a modular, interoperable wargaming environment hosted at the General Robert B. Neller Center for Wargaming and Analysis in Quantico, VA. The challenge evaluates wargaming software and specialist technologies for Marine Corps use across a workflow that runs from planning and design through execution, data capture, analysis, and reporting.
Participants may compete for an end-to-end award, one or more specialty awards, or both. Submissions will be evaluated in two stages. In Stage 1, a Government Judging Panel of Government personnel and Government-designated subject matter experts (SMEs) will score each written submission, matrix response, and demonstration video against the Stage 1 Judging Criteria. Stage 1 selects four end-to-end finalists and up to two finalists in each specialty category. In Stage 2, finalists demonstrate their capabilities live at the Prize Challenge Demo Day, which determines final end-to-end placement and the winner of each specialty. Prize awards total $1,999,999; the number of prizes will be determined based on evaluation criteria. At most, up to four end-to-end prizes and one specialty prize each will be awarded.

Award	Purpose
End-to-end	Overall end-to-end or integrated solution. Multiple prizes may be awarded, at most four placed winners.
AI Integration / Middleware	S1: useful cross-platform integration and controlled automation. (Interfaces, adapters, translation, orchestration or governed automation that lets independently developed tools exchange useful information) At most one award will be given.
Multi-Domain Effects & Combat Assessment	S2: modeled consequences, assessment and feedback into play. (Modeled or human-adjudicated consequences of kinetic/non-kinetic actions, propagation to mission capability, and assessment that informs subsequent play). At most one award will be given.
Intelligence Preparation / JIPOE-IPB / Other Specialist Capability	S3: intelligence preparation or another bounded specialist contribution. (Intelligence/operational-environment preparation and analysis, including Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment (JIPOE) and Intelligence Preparation of the Battlespace (IPB), or another clearly bounded capability needed by a wargaming task). At most one award will be given.

End-to-end and specialty awards are ranked separately. PM WGC makes all selections based on the scores of the Government Judging Panel. The Central Florida Tech Grove administers the challenge and makes no selection or award decision.

Problem Statement

The Marine Corps has sought to develop and field a world-class wargaming suite at the General Robert B. Neller Center for Wargaming and Analysis that improves current operation plans, informs capability development, and develops new concepts against emerging technologies. While other Services have acquired bespoke systems, the Marine Corps has yet to identify a solution that satisfies the complete set of Marine Corps specific requirements.

To close that gap, the Marine Corps must integrate complex, distributed Modeling and Simulation (M&S) tools into a scalable, repeatable, and transparent wargaming cloud ecosystem that enables rapid, authoritative capability monitoring and produces rigorous, statistically defensible data. Existing and future wargaming systems, models, data sources, and capabilities must be able to interoperate, so any new capability must work with what the Marine Corps already uses and with what it will add later, without dependence on a single vendor. Achieving this requires technical collaboration among industry and Government to build a unified, interoperable ecosystem that the Marine Corps can objectively govern and rigorously stress-test to deliver the scalable analytical rigor required to maintain decision advantage.

Timeline

11/2/2026: Prize Challenge release. The challenge page and submission portal open on the Tech Grove website and challenge.gov, and registration to participate opens. Announcement distributed through the Tech Grove website, email campaigns, and other information distribution channels.
11/18/2026: Virtual information session at 2:00 pm Eastern Time. The registration link for the session will be posted on the challenge page at release.
By 11/20/2026, the following will be provided to registered participants through the submission portal:1. Link to the recording of the virtual information session 2. Answers to questions received during the information session 3. Any additional materials identified during the information session that are of value and releasable to participants
1/25/2027: Participant registration deadline by 11:59 pm Eastern Time.
3/1/2027: Deadline for submission of the technical document, demonstration video, entry declaration, and matrix responses through the submission portal by 11:59 pm Eastern Time. Submissions must meet the Initial Submission Requirements.
3/1/2027 to 3/30/2027: Evaluation of submissions by the Government Judging Panel against the Stage 1 Judging Criteria. Four end-to-end finalists and up to two finalists in each specialty category will be selected for the Demo Day.
3/31/2027: Notification to finalists of selection to participate in the Demo Day and instructions for submission of Demo Day materials.
4/30/2027: Finalists submit all Demo Day materials by 11:59 pm Eastern Time per the instructions provided via email and the Finalist Submission Requirements.
5/4/2027 to 5/6/2027: Prize Challenge Demo Day, conducted over two days within this window. Finalists will receive their assigned session times with the Demo Day instructions.
5/7/2027: Winners announced. Final end-to-end placement and the winner of each specialty are announced, and prize payment processing begins.

Benefits & Prizes

$1.99M

in total cash prizes

Up to $1,999,999 in total prize awards, distributed among selected winners.
Additional Considerations-
Opportunities to learn from and collaborate with other industry, government, and academic leaders and partners in this space.
Potential for follow-on opportunities such as Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs), Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs), and others.

How to Enter

Participants will deliver the below by 11:59 pm Eastern Time on 3/1/2027 through the submission portal:

Entry declaration: State whether the entry competes for an end-to-end award, one or more named specialty awards, or both. A team names one Team Lead to register, submit, and receive any prize.
Technical document: One document (PDF), maximum two pages including figures/tables. Summarize working capability, integration, technical depth, limits and next increments.
Demonstration video: One viewable video link, maximum seven minutes; no video download required. Show the working scope of the entry. Video may include narration.
Matrix responses: Complete the structured online survey through the submission portal. Each scored response must be at most one page (PDF), use 12-point Times New Roman font, and have margins no greater than 0.75 inches. B1 and B2 narrative responses are required; additional supporting capability tables are addressed under Evidence / Proof Sheet below. Title each response and label its file using the following naming convention:

TeamName or CompanyName_A_A1_End to End Game Execution
TeamName or Company Name_B_B1_Modeling Effects and Warfighting Behavior
TeamName or Company Name_B_B2_Modeling Effects and Warfighting Behavior

Evidence / Proof Sheet (optional): Optional evidence index with references tied to existing question IDs. For B1 and B2, vendors may additionally provide one capability page per claimed domain. Each domain page should describe working capabilities, applicable levels of war (strategic, operational, tactical), and warfighting functions supported within that domain. Clearly distinguish demonstrated capabilities from planned or externally provided capabilities.

To join the challenge and submit your solution please use the link below:

Join the Challenge

Judging

Two-Stage Evaluation Process

Submissions are evaluated across two stages. Stage 1 initial submissions are evaluated against initial submission requirements, using the Government scenario described under Government Furnished Information. End-to-end solutions must pass eight end-to-end solutions requirements, demonstrated in the demo video, to be considered as a finalist. In addition, written responses must be provided for 15 questions and are graded according to the scoring matrix, totaling 100 points.

Entries for specialty solutions must include written responses to three questions, graded according to the specialty scoring matrix, totaling 30 points.

Finalists will be invited to a live demonstration day. Participation is limited to vendors that successfully advance through the technical down-select and qualify either as an end-to-end finalist or as a specialty finalist.

Overall end-to-end finalists are the highest-ranked vendors competing for final placement (up to four awards). Specialty finalists are vendors that qualify for one or more specialty awards in AI Integration / Middleware, Multi-Domain Effects & Combat Assessment, or Intelligence Preparation / JIPOE-IPB / Other Specialty Capability.

A vendor may qualify in both pathways. When this occurs, the vendor completes one integrated demonstration that addresses both the end-to-end and applicable specialty requirements.

An end-to-end candidate needs a working end-to-end capability that connects the required functions and has a feasible path to deployment. A specialist candidate needs a working capability in its specific area, a clear path for integrating that capability into a larger workflow, reviewable evidence of performance, and a feasible path to deployment.

The demonstration day is a live government-directed demonstration with scenario injects. The live demonstration is evaluated against the demo day scoring matrix. The demo day end-to-end solution scoring matrix includes five elements totaling 100 points. The demo day specialty solution scoring matrix includes three elements totaling 100 points. Each winner is selected on 50% Stage 1 score (scaled to 100 for specialty demonstrations) + 50% specialty demonstration.

Each finalist's final score split evenly between the Stage 1 technical evaluation and the live Demo Day demonstration.

Stage 1: Overall End-to-End Solutions Requirements

Each listed requirement is evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis for overall end-to-end submissions. The Government will determine compliance using the participant's technical responses, supporting evidence, and demonstration video.

A Pass requires sufficient evidence that the capability is currently functional and meets the stated requirement. Planned capabilities, unsupported claims, or visualization alone do not satisfy requirements. Vendors are encouraged to provide a specific, observable example demonstrating that the capability is functional. End-to-end solutions must pass all criteria.

Where practical, the example should show:

Trigger: The user action, event, or condition initiating the capability.
System Response: The resulting change in system behavior or simulation state.
Operational Effect: How that change affects decisions, readiness, operations, or mission outcomes.

Vendors should identify where the supporting evidence can be found in their submission or demonstration video in their video transcript. All of the following requirements must pass to be evaluated against the Stage 1 Scoring Matrix:

Land-domain mission modeling: The system must represent a working land-domain environment. Show how the model represents movement and maneuvers, posture, ground forces, sensors, and weapons. Clearly separate working simulation from visualization, prototypes, and planned features.
Air-domain mission modeling: The system must represent a working air-domain environment. Show how the model represents platforms, missions, sensors, weapons, basing, and command relationships. Clearly separate working simulation from visualization, prototypes, and planned features.
Maritime-surface mission modeling: The system must represent a working maritime-surface environment. Show how the model represents vessels, missions, sensors, weapons, maneuver, and operating conditions. Clearly separate working simulation from visualization, prototypes, and planned features.
Space and Cyber Modeling: If domains are not modeled, perform, record, and model the effects of a white cell inject.
Joint, combined, coalition, amphibious, and ground operations: The system must represent joint, combined, and coalition command. When relevant, it must support amphibious and condition-based ground operations. Terrain, environment, mobility, and force posture must affect results.
Logistics function: The system must represent a working model of the logistics function. Show supply, platform, fuel, ammunition, maintenance, personnel, medical support, transportation, and infrastructure. Changes in supply, delay, loss, and replenishment must affect readiness, maneuver, and tempo.
Marine Force Laydown: Marine air-ground task force organization and integration; Marine expeditionary force, Marine expeditionary unit, and Marine littoral regiment representations.
Marine Operational Representation: Stand-in force operations; Expeditionary advanced base operations and littoral operations in contested environments; Marine aviation, air defense, fires, and information capabilities; Naval integration and measurable Marine contributions to fleet and joint objectives; Reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, and intelligence-driven planning.

Stage 1 Scoring Matrices

Stage 1 evaluates vendors through their submitted technical responses, supporting evidence, and demonstration video using the Government-furnished scenario and published evaluation criteria. Vendors must describe their capability to deploy or reproduce their solution in a Government-compatible Azure environment, including relevant architecture, dependencies, security requirements, and deployment limitations. Written responses must be provided for each matrix question; videos may also be used to evaluate the criteria where demonstrated.

Stage 1 End-to-End Solution Scoring Matrix: 100 Total Points

Item	Question / Required Evidence	Unsatisfactory	Satisfactory	Exceptional
A. END-TO-END GAME EXECUTION
A1	Describe how your current solution supports the full wargaming workflow using the Government scenario, from preparation through final reporting. Explain how it handles an unscripted player action, any required human adjudication, and a live scenario change or branch. Identify what decisions, state changes, evidence, analysis, and final outputs are retained for Government review.	0 Points: The workflow cannot be completed or requires unplanned vendor-only work outside the evaluated solution.	5 Points: The complete workflow is executed and all required decisions, state, evidence, and outputs are retained.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and completes the defined tempo, live-change, branch/replay, and evidence-continuity tests without rebuilding the scenario.
B. MODELING, EFFECTS AND WARFIGHTING BEHAVIOR
B1	Describe the domain capabilities that are working today in land, air, maritime surface, subsurface, space, and cyberspace, as applicable. For each claimed domain, identify the resolution, fidelity, validation basis, dependencies, and known limitations. Clearly distinguish modeled behavior from visualization, scripting, human adjudication, or external integration. Include how terrain and environmental conditions (for example, weather, sea state, illumination, and road networks) affect results.	0 Points: Claimed domain capability is absent, primarily visual/scripted, or cannot be supported by model evidence.	5 Points: Each claimed domain demonstrates working behavior with declared resolution, fidelity, validation, dependencies, and limitations.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and demonstrates credible interaction among multiple domains with resulting mission effects.
B2	Describe the strategic, operational, and tactical levels supported by your solution and the applicable C2, maneuver, fires (including the find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess (F2T2EA) kill chain), intelligence, logistics, force protection, and information functions. Explain how these functions produce decisions, constraints, cause-and-effect behavior, and mission consequences. Include one example where a change in one level or function affects another.	0 Points: Claimed capabilities are labels, static modifiers, or unsupported scripted outcomes.	5 Points: Claimed levels/functions demonstrate reviewable decisions, constraints, cause-and-effect behavior, and mission consequences.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and demonstrates interactions among multiple levels/functions where a change in one alters another.
B3	Describe one end-to-end mission thread that crosses domains or resolutions and includes at least one critical dependency such as C2, communications, sensors, logistics, infrastructure, or positioning/timing. Explain how state, timing, dependencies, effects, and evidence are preserved throughout the thread. If supported, describe how the solution handles degradation, failure, workaround, or restoration.	0 Points: Effects or dependencies remain disconnected or require untraceable manual transfer.	2.5 Points: The complete thread preserves state, timing, dependencies, effects, and evidence.	5 Points: Meets Satisfactory across multiple models or resolutions and demonstrates degradation, failure, workaround, or restoration behavior.
B4	Describe at least one working specialized capability such as cyber effects, electronic warfare and electromagnetic spectrum operations (EW/EMS) integrated air and missile defense (IAMD), autonomous or unmanned behavior, human or organizational behavior, or an external specialist model. Identify the conditions, timing, dependencies, limitations, and mission consequences associated with the capability. If an external model or tool is used, explain how information is exchanged with the broader game.	0 Points: Claimed capability is absent, opaque, or only scripted.	2.5 Points: At least one applicable capability has defined conditions, timing, dependencies, limitations, and mission consequences.	5 Points: Multiple specialized capabilities or external specialist models interact with the broader game through documented, testable interfaces.
C. DEPLOYMENT, DATA AND INTEROPERABILITY
C1	Describe how the evaluated release can be deployed or reproduced in the required Azure environment. Identify the identity, network, storage, monitoring, security-boundary, and user-access requirements. Explain which deployment and configuration steps are automated and how rollback or recovery is handled.	0 Points: The evaluated release cannot be deployed or required architecture/security elements are undocumented.	2.5 Points: The evaluated release is deployed or reproducibly deployable with required architecture and controls documented.	5 Points: Meets Satisfactory with automated build/deploy, monitoring, configuration control, testing, and rollback.
C2	Describe how the same authoritative data or model configuration can be reused in at least two workflows, models, or applications. Identify the source, version, assumptions, and transformations that are retained with the data or configuration. State whether any vendor-only conversion is required for reuse.	0 Points: Data/model configuration is trapped in one component or cannot be traced.	2.5 Points: Data/model configuration can be exported, traced, and reused.	5 Points: The same validated data/configuration is demonstrated in multiple independent models or applications without vendor-only transformation.
C3	Describe how the proposed solution would enable interoperability with other Government, commercial, or independently developed capabilities in a wargaming ecosystem. Identify the information, products, tasks, events, or services the solution can exchange; the interfaces or mechanisms used or proposed for exchange; how exchanged information remains usable, traceable, and appropriately handled across systems; what is implemented, demonstrated, planned, or simulated; any manual steps, vendor support, proprietary dependencies, or other constraints; and how Government could connect independently developed components without requiring direct integration among prize challenge competitors.	0 Points: Provides only general claims of interoperability or compatibility; does not adequately explain what the solution exchanges, how exchange would occur, or how another capability could use the exchanged information. Does not identify material manual steps, vendor dependencies, proprietary constraints, or integration limitations.	5 Points: Provides a credible and specific interoperability approach. Identifies expected exchanges, interfaces or mechanisms, information handling approach, maturity of the proposed capability, and known constraints. Explains a feasible means for Government to connect independently developed components without requiring direct integration among competitors.	10 Points: Meets the Satisfactory standard and provides strong evidence that the approach is reusable, scalable, and practical for Government adoption. Demonstrates or clearly substantiates reusable interfaces, data structures, adapters, or integration patterns; automated validation, synchronization, or error handling; preservation of relevant context and traceability; or applicability across multiple tools, vendors, or independently developed components.
C4	Describe how one important component could be replaced or emulated by an alternative provider or implementation. Identify the required data, configuration, interfaces, documentation, dependencies, rights, and transition steps. Explain whether the workflow can continue without material loss of data or functionality.	0 Points: Government cannot transition the component without major data loss, proprietary conversion, or redesign.	2.5 Points: All required transition elements and substitution steps are documented and available.	5 Points: The component is actually replaced or emulated and the required workflow continues without material loss.
D. PERFORMANCE, VV&A AND ASSURANCE
D1	Describe the current measured performance of your solution using a representative wargaming workload. Include scale, resolution, concurrent users, simulation rate, latency, resource utilization, telemetry, and recovery performance, as applicable. Identify the test conditions, measurement methods, supporting evidence, and known performance limitations. Explain how performance changes as workload complexity and scale increase.	0 Points: Published minimum performance is not met or the failure test causes unacceptable state/evidence loss.	5 Points: Meets the published performance threshold and recovers from the defined failure while preserving required state and evidence.	10 Points: Meets the published objective/stretch performance target and passes fault isolation/recovery without material workflow interruption.
D2	Describe one material model or adjudication behavior that has been evaluated using a known-answer or benchmark test. Identify the expected result, acceptable tolerance, input data, model logic, assumptions, validation basis, and known limitations. Provide evidence demonstrating whether the result can be reproduced across repeated or modified tests. Explain how uncertainty is measured, documented, and communicated. Existing validation evidence may be submitted.	0 Points: Expected behavior cannot be explained, tested, or reproduced.	2.5 Points: The test produces the expected result within defined tolerance and the data, logic, assumptions, and limitations are reviewable.	5 Points: Meets Satisfactory across repeated or modified tests with regression evidence and uncertainty characterized.
D3	Describe how one prior result can be reproduced within a defined tolerance and traced back to its objective, source data, decisions, model/version, adjudication, and analytic method. Identify which portions of the evidence chain are retained automatically. Explain any replay, comparison, regression, sensitivity, or automated evidence checks supported by the solution.	0 Points: The result cannot be reproduced or the evidence chain contains a material break.	2.5 Points: The result is reproduced within defined tolerance and the complete evidence chain is retained.	5 Points: Meets Satisfactory with automated replay, branch comparison, regression, sensitivity, or evidence-chain checks.
D4	Describe each material AI or agent function used in the evaluated capability and the authority granted to it. For one consequential function, identify the model/version, permissions, inputs, outputs, logging, human control, and prohibited actions. Explain how the solution detects unsupported outputs or rule exploitation and how monitoring, containment, rollback, or recovery is handled. If the evaluated capability uses no AI or agent functions, state that; the row is scored Satisfactory.	0 Points: A material test cannot be performed or produces an uncontrolled consequential action.	2.5 Points: AI remains within defined authority, actions are traceable, and defined failures are detected and contained.	5 Points: Meets Satisfactory plus adversarial/exploitation testing, tool-permission enforcement, automated monitoring, and demonstrated rollback/recovery.
E1	Describe the current authorization and security posture of the evaluated release. Identify the authorization path, role and access controls, audit evidence, SBOM, component provenance, known vulnerabilities, and remediation responsibilities. Identify any unresolved issue that could affect deployment, authorization, or continued operation. An Authorization to Operate is not required to compete.	0 Points: A material security gap, unknown component, unsupported dependency, or missing control prevents acceptable evaluation.	2.5 Points: Authorization path, role/access controls, audit, SBOM, provenance, vulnerabilities, and remediation responsibilities are current and reviewable.	5 Points: Meets Satisfactory with automated evidence collection, tested remediation, mature supply-chain controls, and low remaining authorization burden.
F1	Describe the remaining work required to deploy and sustain the evaluated capability. Include the schedule, responsible owners, training, staffing, licenses, Azure or infrastructure costs, support, maintenance, and technical debt. For each material gap, identify the responsible party, expected cost or resource requirement, and planned completion point.	0 Points: Material gaps, resources, costs, responsibilities, or sustainment dependencies are missing or unowned.	2.5 Points: Government can determine what must be done, by whom, when, and at what expected cost to deploy and sustain the capability.	5 Points: Meets Satisfactory with independently useful increments, measurable cost controls, low Government burden, competitive support options, and planned technical-debt reduction.

Stage 1 Specialty Scoring Matrices: Total 30 points each specialty

Specialty candidates answer the three rows for each entered specialty. Each row is scored 0, 5, or 10, for a total of 30.

Item	Required Evidence	Unsatisfactory	Satisfactory	Exceptional
S1. AI Integration / Middleware
S1a	Demonstrate or provide evidence of how your capability connects at least two independently developed systems, models, data sources, tools, or AI services. Describe what information is exchanged, translated, or orchestrated, including how meaning, state, identity, and provenance are preserved. Identify any manual intervention, synchronization, or vendor assistance required. Existing integration evidence or a representative demonstration may be submitted. Direct integration with another competing participant is not required.	0 Points: The integration cannot be demonstrated, requires substantial manual re-entry, or does not adequately preserve information integrity across connected components.	5 Points: Demonstrates functional integration between at least two independently developed components, with documented information exchange, preserved state and provenance, and identifiable integration requirements.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and demonstrates integration across three or more independent components, with measurable reductions in manual effort, automated information exchange, and evidence of reliable operation.
S1b	Describe and demonstrate the controls governing automated or AI-assisted actions, including permissions, delegated authority, human approval, activity logging, and error handling. Explain how malformed, conflicting, unauthorized, or unreliable inputs and outputs are detected, contained, and addressed. Provide existing test results, system logs, or representative demonstrations showing how the capability responds to these conditions.	0 Points: Automated actions lack adequate authorization, oversight, or traceability, or erroneous outputs can propagate without effective detection or containment.	5 Points: Demonstrates enforceable permissions, appropriate human approval controls, activity logging, and mechanisms for detecting and containing invalid or unauthorized actions.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and provides evidence of adversarial or fault testing, controlled recovery or rollback, and preservation or restoration of system state following an error.
S1c	Identify the interfaces, schemas, configuration requirements, documentation, and access conditions necessary for a Government integrator or authorized third party to connect to, extend, or replace components of your capability. Identify proprietary dependencies, licensing restrictions, and any vendor support required for integration or maintenance. Explain how an independent integrator could complete a representative integration using the supplied documentation.	0 Points: Essential interfaces or integration requirements are insufficiently documented, or integration is not reasonably achievable by an authorized third party.	5 Points: Provides sufficient interface documentation, schemas, configuration guidance, and licensing information for an authorized third party to perform a representative integration.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and demonstrates that an independent integrator has successfully added, extended, or replaced a connection using the provided documentation without material vendor intervention.
S2. Multi-Domain Effects & Combat Assessment
S2a	For the Government test effects, describe the triggering conditions, timing, dependencies, and how each effect changes game state and mission capability. Identify whether each effect is modeled, externally integrated, or human-adjudicated.	0 Points: Effects are labels, narrative injects, or scripted outcomes, or cannot be traced to a triggering action.	5 Points: Each test effect has defined conditions, timing, dependencies, and mission consequences recorded in game state.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and effects propagate across domains, tools, or resolutions with consistent state.
S2b	Explain how your capability assesses whether an intended effect was achieved and how that assessment informs subsequent play, adjudication, or decisions. Identify how uncertainty is represented.	0 Points: No assessment is produced, or the assessment is not available to subsequent play.	5 Points: The assessment is recorded, traceable to the effect, and available to players or adjudicators.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and the assessment automatically informs subsequent play with uncertainty stated.
S2c	Run the Government known-answer test for one effect. Identify the expected result, tolerance, input data, logic, assumptions, and limitations, and explain whether the result reproduces across repeated or modified runs.	0 Points: The expected result is not met within tolerance or cannot be explained or reproduced.	5 Points: The known-answer test is met within tolerance with reviewable data, logic, assumptions, and limitations.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory across repeated or modified runs with regression evidence and uncertainty characterized.
S3. Intelligence Preparation / JIPOE-IPB / Other Specialist Capability
S3a	Using Government-furnished source data, produce your specialty output (for example, a JIPOE or IPB product, a threat or terrain analysis, or another bounded specialist product). Identify the sources, transformations, assumptions, and confidence.	0 Points: No usable output is produced from the Government source data, or sources and transformations cannot be identified.	5 Points: A usable output is produced with sources, transformations, assumptions, and confidence retained.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and the output updates automatically and traceably when the source data changes.
S3b	Show how another planning, simulation, GIS, or analytic tool consumes your output. Identify the interface or format and any manual steps, and explain what the output changes in that workflow.	0 Points: The output is isolated or must be re-entered manually.	5 Points: Another tool consumes the output through a documented interface or format.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and more than one tool consumes the output with a measured improvement in time, effort, or error.
S3c	Describe how an analyst reviews the logic, data, assumptions, confidence, and limits behind the output. Explain how classification and releasability markings are preserved and how any AI use is controlled.	0 Points: The output cannot be explained or reviewed, or markings are lost.	5 Points: Logic, data, assumptions, confidence, and limits are reviewable, and markings are preserved.	10 Points: Meets Satisfactory and the output reproduces from retained inputs, with any AI use logged and under human approval.

Phase 2: Demo Day and Final Judging

Demonstration Day

Demo Day provides the Government an opportunity to observe and test the capabilities demonstrated during earlier evaluation phases under a common, controlled live scenario. Finalists selected from the Stage 1 evaluation and confirmed to participate in the Demo Day will deliver the below by 11:59 pm Eastern Time on 4/30/2027 via the designated process that will be provided via email on 3/31/2027:

Candidates may provide an updated technical document (maximum two pages), required only if the scope, version, dependencies, or risks of the evaluated release have changed since the Stage 1 submission. The entry declaration may not change.

The purpose of the event is intended to determine:

Final placement of the overall end-to-end finalists (up to four)
Winner of the AI Integration / Middleware specialty award.
Winner of the Multi-Domain Effects & Combat Assessment specialty award.
Winner of the Intelligence Preparation / JIPOE-IPB / Other Specialist Capability specialty award.

It is expected each finalist will be awarded a two- hour period of time for demonstration on demo day. In this case, up to six end-to-end finalists and up to two partial solution finalists can be selected in each category. The government retains the right to shorten demonstration times to one hour if it is determined in advance that it will be sufficient to complete all tasks. In this case, up to ten end-to-end candidates and up to three partial solution candidates may be selected in each category.

All invited vendors will have already demonstrated sufficient technical capability to qualify for the category in which they are competing. Demo Day is therefore focused on validating performance, adaptability, usability, interoperability, and operational credibility under live conditions.

End-to-end Finalist Demonstration

Finalists with an end-to-end solution will demonstrate the breadth of their wargaming capability using a Government-defined scenario.

The demonstration should show the system operating as a connected workflow from preparation through execution, analysis, and reporting. The Government may introduce common injects or changes during the demonstration to evaluate how the system responds to unexpected conditions without restarting the scenario or losing important state, data, or evidence.

End-to-End Solution Demonstration Day Scoring Criteria

Category	Demo Requirement	Points
Live Wargaming Execution	Complete the Government-defined scenario from preparation through execution, analysis, and reporting.	30
Unscripted Change & Adaptability	Respond to a Government-directed inject or change without restarting or losing state or evidence.	20
Modeling & Analytic Credibility	Demonstrate one material modeled effect from input through outcome and analysis.	20
Interoperability & Government Control	Demonstrate one meaningful external integration or component or data exchange.	15
Operational Usability	Demonstrate setup, Government-user workflow, operating burden, and recovery from a defined issue.	15
TOTAL		100

The Demo Day score will be combined with the technical evaluation completed during Stage 1. The final score will be combination of Stage 1 and Demo Day scores (50% Stage 1 score and 50% Demo Day).
The combined score determines final placement (up to four awards). Ties are broken by the higher Demo Day score.

Specialty Finalist Demonstrations
Specialty finalists are not required to demonstrate an end-to-end wargaming platform. Instead, each specialty finalist will complete a focused demonstration using a common Government-defined test appropriate to the capability being evaluated. The objective is to evaluate innovative depth within the specialty area without penalizing vendors that intentionally provide a bounded capability rather than a complete platform.

Specialty Demonstration Day Scoring Criteria

Category	Demo Requirement	Points
Live Wargaming Execution	Complete the Government-defined scenario from preparation through execution, analysis, and reporting.	30
Unscripted Change & Adaptability	Respond to a Government-directed inject or change without restarting or losing state or evidence.	20
Modeling & Analytic Credibility	Demonstrate one material modeled effect from input through outcome and analysis.	20
Interoperability & Government Control	Demonstrate one meaningful external integration or component or data exchange.	15
Operational Usability	Demonstrate setup, Government-user workflow, operating burden, and recovery from a defined issue.	15
TOTAL		100

The demo day score will be combined with the Stage 1 technical evaluation score to determine each specialty winner. The Stage 1 specialty score will be normalized to a 100-point scale by dividing the points earned by the total possible points for the applicable specialty matrix and multiplying by 100. The final specialty score will consist of 50 percent of the normalized Stage 1 score and 50 percent of the Demo Day score. The combined score determines the winner of each specialty. Ties will be broken first by the higher Demo Day score.

Demo Day Event Structure

Demo Day may be conducted over approximately two days, depending on the number of specialty finalists. End-to-end finalists are expected to receive approximately 2-3 hours for their integrated demonstration. After initial submissions, the government may determine that one hour is sufficient time to demonstrate capability. This information will be provided in advance of demonstration day.

Specialty-only finalists are expected to receive approximately 60 to 90 minutes for their bounded specialty demonstration.
A vendor competing for both an end-to-end award and one or more specialty awards should demonstrate the specialty capability during its end-to-end finalist session rather than conducting a second full demonstration.

Government Furnished Information

The baseline for evaluation and demonstration is the South China Sea (SCS) Crucible scenario, provided to registered participants through the submission portal. The scenario includes the complete, unclassified, nine-month road-to-crisis timeline spanning January to September 2025, along with the initial force laydowns, unit dispositions, and postures at H-Hour (H+0) for the active 72-hour operational execution window. Along with the scenario narrative, the Government provides Wargame Analytical Objectives. These objectives guide the focus of simulation elements and shape the scenario storyline while providing a common analytical framework for structuring system dashboards and after-action reporting (AAR). Participants are not judged on the results of the objectives, nor on the number of objectives answered or achieved.

The wargaming simulation operates under the following standardized logistics assumptions:

Initial Supply Posture: All airbases and Carrier Strike Groups (CVNs) begin the simulation at H+0 with sufficient stocks across all logistics classes to sustain initial continuous sortie generation.
Non-Constraining Classes: Class I (Food), Class IV (Construction), Class VIII (Medical), and Class IX (Repair Parts) are treated as non-constraining and remain unlimited for the duration of the 72-hour execution window.
Constraining Classes: Bulk fuel (Class III) and precision ammunition (Class V) stocks are strictly finite. These classes are depleted through active operations and replenished only through modeled resupply flows. Disruption, delay, or loss of these logistics flows directly constrains and reduces subsequent sortie generation and operational tempo.

Rules & Eligibility

Eligibility Requirements

Participants may be individuals or teams from industry, academia, state/local government, or non-profit entities. Eligibility is subject to verification during each Phase and before award of any prize. A team names one Team Lead to register, submit, and receive any prize. To be eligible to win, all individual participants or members of a participating team must meet the following eligibility requirements:

Participants must have complied with all requirements set forth in the prize challenge.
All individuals must be U.S. citizens and 18 years or older.
Except for employees appointed under the STEM Student Employment Program or other student employment programs, Federal employees and support service contractors are not eligible to participate.
Participants may not use Federal funds to support

Award Rules

A participant may receive no more than one end-to-end award and one specialty award.
An end-to-end award must include and demonstrate the end-to-end solution requirements. An end-to-end award requires a Stage 1 score of at least 50 of 100 and no Unsatisfactory (0 points) score on A1, D1, or E1.
A specialty award requires at least Satisfactory on each of the three Stage 2 rows for that specialty.
At most, four end-to-end prizes and one specialty prize each will be awarded. The Government may make fewer awards than listed, or none in a category, if no entry meets these minimums. Unawarded funds are not added to other prizes.

Challenge Terms and Conditions

Representations:

Upon submission, the Participant hereby represents and warrants that:

It is the sole author and copyright owner of the submission; that the submission is an original work of the Participant and that the Participant has sufficient rights to use and to authorize others, including PM WGC, the Marine Corps, Tech Grove, NAWCTSD and the Navy, to use the submission, as specified throughout the Official Rules; that the submission does not infringe upon any copyright or upon any other third party rights of which the Participant is aware; and that the submission is free of malware;
The submission, and any use thereof by PM WGC, the Marine Corps, the Central Florida Tech Grove, NAWCTSD or the Navy, is not defamatory or libelous in any manner; does not constitute or result in any misappropriation or other violation of the publicity rights or right of privacy of any person or entity; and does not infringe, misappropriate or otherwise violate any intellectual property rights, privacy rights or any other rights of any person or entity;
It is free to enter into this challenge without the consent of any third party;
There is no suit, proceeding, or any other claim pending or threatened against the Participant, nor does any circumstance exist, to its knowledge, which may be the basis of any such suit, proceeding, or other claim, that could limit or impair the Participant's performance of its obligations pursuant to the Terms and Conditions;
It will not infringe, violate, or interfere with the intellectual property, publicity, privacy, contract or other right of any third party in the course of performance of this agreement or cause PM WGC, NAWCTSD or the Navy to do any of the same;
It will comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations in performing under these Terms and Conditions; and
It otherwise meets the eligibility requirements set forth by the prize challenge.

Data Rights and Marking

All data submitted under the Prize Challenge will be made available to PM WGC, the Central Florida Tech Grove, NAWCTSD and parties authorized to act on behalf of PM WGC or NAWCTSD. By accepting these Terms and Conditions, the Participant consents to the use of all data submitted by a participant to PM WGC and NAWCTSD.
The use of protective markings such as "Do Not Publicly Release - Trade Secret" or "Do Not Publicly Release - Confidential Proprietary Business Information," or similar restrictive markings, is authorized. Submission is strongly encouraged where appropriate. However, Participants should be aware that the use of protective markings is not dispositive as to whether information will be released publicly pursuant to a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §552, et seq., as amended by the OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175. Any information received from the Participant is considered to be a federal agency record, and as such, subject to public release under FOIA. Decisions to disclose or withhold information received from a Participant are based on the applicability of one or more of the nine FOIA exemptions, not on the existence or nonexistence of protective markings. The agency's designated FOIA Officer will determine if information sought under a FOIA request will be withheld pursuant to one or more of the nine FOIA exemptions. All FOIA requests received are processed in accordance with 32 C.F.R. Part 286. Participants will be notified of any FOIA requests for their submissions in accordance with 32 C.F.R. § 286.10. Following notification by a FOIA processor, participants will be provided the opportunity to review their materials that were requested under FOIA and provide the FOIA processor with comments regarding whether the Participant believes any or all the materials are exempt from release.

Relationship of the Parties

Nothing contained in these Terms and Conditions is intended to create or constitute a relationship between PM WGC, the Marine Corps, Tech Grove, or NAWCTSD and a Participant. Participation in the Prize Challenge does not imply any form of sanction, endorsement or support of the Participant by PM WGC, the Marine Corps, Tech Grove, or NAWCTSD, nor does it grant either party any authority to act as agent, nor assume or create any obligation, on behalf of the other party. A Participant may not use a PM WGC, Marine Corps, Tech Grove, NAWCTSD, or Department of War logo or official seal in their submission.

Participant Liability and Insurance

All Participants agree to assume and, thereby, have assumed any and all risks of injury or loss in connection with or in any way arising from participation in this challenge, or development of any submission. Upon registration, except in the case of willful misconduct, all Participants agree to and, thereby, waive and release any and all claims or causes of action against the Federal Government and its officers, employees and agents for any and all injury or damage of any nature whatsoever (whether existing or thereafter arising, whether direct, indirect, or consequential and whether foreseeable or not), arising from their participation in the challenge, whether the claim or cause of action arises under contract or tort.
Based on the subject matter of the prize challenge, the type of work that it will require, as well as the unlikeliness of claims for death, bodily injury, property damage, or loss potentially arising from or related to participation in the prize challenge, no individual or entity participating in the prize challenge is required to obtain liability insurance or demonstrate financial responsibility in order to participate in this prize challenge.

Disputes

Participation constitutes each Participant's full and unconditional agreement to these Official Rules and Terms and Conditions, which are final and binding in all matters related to the challenge. The final scores and determinations are final and binding on all Participants. The final scores of the Judging Panel and the final determination of all Winners may not be challenged by the Participants.

Follow-On Activities:

This Open Call Announcement is considered to have potential for further efforts that may be accomplished via FAR-based contracting instruments, Other Transaction Authority (OTA) for Prototype Projects 10 USC 4022 and Research 10 USC 4021, Prizes for advanced technology achievements 10 USC 4025, and/or Prize Competitions 15 USC 3719. If a prototype OTA is awarded and considered successfully completed, follow-on production may be pursued in accordance with 10 USC 4022(f). The public open call announcement made at www.challenge.gov is considered to satisfy the reasonable effort to obtain competition in accordance with 10 USC 4025(b), 15 USC 3719(e) and 10 USC 4022(b)(2). Any FAR-based actions will follow announcement procedures per FAR 5.201(b) accordingly.

Intellectual Property Considerations:

By participating in this competition and submitting in any of the rounds, participants are granting the US Government and its Partners permanent access to the provided software prototypes, videos, and documents with the provision that the US Government and its Partners may store and copy the documents in perpetuity. Participants will retain intellectual ownership of and publishing rights. Participation does not transfer ownership of a participant's pre-existing intellectual property to the Government.

Excluding any material considered to be co-produced with the US Government, the US Government and its Partners agree not to share submissions with other entities, including files and tradecraft concepts.

Background Information:

The Central Florida Tech Grove is a Department of War innovation hub established in 2020 under a Partnership Intermediary Agreement between the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division and the University of Central Florida Research Foundation. Uniquely, the Tech Grove was founded as a multi-service innovation hub with funding from the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps training commands as well as the Office of Naval Research and the Office of the Secretary of War. With a three-pronged mission to 1) grow the defense industrial base, 2) facilitate technology transfer and transition, and 3) solve problems, Tech Grove executes a wide range of initiatives that bring together entrepreneurs, industry, academia, and government from across the United States and internationally to ideate and collaboratively develop innovative solutions for military human performance at all levels. www.centralfloridatechgrove.org

About Program Manager Wargaming Capability (PM WGC)

The U.S. Marine Corps Program Manager Wargaming Capability (PM WGC) is responsible for developing and fielding an advanced suite of software tools and simulations to the General Robert B. Neller Center for Wargaming and Analysis in Quantico, VA. The primary use cases for the software are Concept Development, Capability Development, and Operational Plan Assessment, with Training and Education, Science and Technology, and Senior Leader Engagement as secondary priorities. The wargames considered are comprehensive across all levels of war (Strategic, Operational, Tactical), all warfighting domains (Land, Air, Sea, Space, Cyber), and all warfighting functions (Maneuver, Fires, Intelligence, Force Protection, Logistics, Command and Control, Information). The collective software requirements apply to all levels of war, with commensurate adjustments to the resolution of models and associated metrics, and data outputs must be analytically rigorous, transparent, and defensible.

About Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division

The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD) is the principal Navy center for research, development, test and evaluation, acquisition, and product support of training systems, providing inter-service coordination and training systems support for the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force, and performing such other functions and tasks as directed by higher authority. With a skilled military and civilian acquisition, research, and development workforce along with advanced laboratories, NAWCTSD produces leading-edge advances in training systems and human performance in air, land, and sea applications. NAWCTSD is a foundational member of Team Orlando, a unique collaborative with the training and simulation divisions of the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as well as academia and key supporting economic development organizations. www.navair.navy.mil/nawctsd

Satisfying Competition Requirements: Other Transaction Authority:

This Challenge public announcement is an open call to small businesses and non-traditional defense contractors seeking innovative, commercial technologies proposed to create new DoW solutions or potential new capabilities fulfilling requirements, closing capability gaps, or providing potential technological advancements, technologies fueled by commercial or strategic investment, but also concept demonstrations, pilots, and agile development activities improving commercial technologies, existing Government-owned capabilities, or concepts for broad Defense application(s). As such, the Government reserves the right to award a contract or an Other Transaction for any purpose, to include a prototype or research, under this public announcement. The Federal Government is not responsible for any monies expended by the applicant before award and is under no obligation to pursue such Other Transactions.

Additional Links & Resources

Find additional resources, documents, and FAQ to assist with Prize Challenge participation.

South China Sea Crucible Slides >

FAQ

Join the Challenge