Sierra Army Depot Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) W912GY-25-S-C001: Complete Guide for Startups

Executive Summary

The U.S. Army Contracting Command at Sierra Army Depot (ACC-SIAD) is running an open, continuously accepting Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) for Organic Industrial Base (OIB) modernization under solicitation number W912GY-25-S-C001. The solicitation is posted on SAM.gov and is open until June 30, 2030, with no fixed proposal deadline. Companies submit a five page solution brief against one of eight published Areas of Interest (AoIs), and awards are made as fixed price contracts under FAR Part 12 commercial item procedures. Both traditional and nontraditional defense contractors are eligible, and no prior government contracting history is required.

For a venture backed startup or a commercially focused small business, this is one of the more accessible entry points into Army depot modernization. There is no 50 page proposal, no cost accounting standards burden at the front end, and no requirement to have an existing defense customer. What the Army wants is a commercially available or near commercially available product that solves a specific, physical, unglamorous depot problem.

Sierra Army Depot CSO at a Glance

• Solicitation number: W912GY-25-S-C001

• Issuing office: U.S. Army Contracting Command, Sierra Army Depot (ACC-SIAD), Herlong, California

• Program: Organic Industrial Base (OIB) Modernization

• Authority: 10 U.S.C. Section 3458, implemented by DFARS Subpart 212.70

• Solicitation type: Commercial Solutions Opening, a competitive procedure similar to a Broad Agency Announcement

• Where it is posted: SAM.gov (the Government Point of Entry)

• Status: Continuously open, currently reflecting CSO Amendment 02 and AoI Amendment 01, both dated August 18, 2026

• Closes: June 30, 2030, with the government reserving the right to extend by amendment

• Areas of Interest: Eight continuously open AoIs

• Phase 1 submission: Five single sided pages in 12 point font, or fifteen briefing slides

• Award type: Fixed price, including fixed price incentive fee, primarily FAR Part 12

• Typical period of performance: Generally not more than 12 months unless the AoI states otherwise

• Eligibility: Traditional and nontraditional defense contractors, small businesses, nonprofit research institutions, and foreign owned businesses subject to clearance limitations

• Contracting Officer: Ms. Melissa Kaarbo, melissa.m.kaarbo.civ@army.mil

• Additional point of contact: Ms. Kimberly Hunter, kimberly.a.hunter.civ@army.mil

What Is a Commercial Solutions Opening and Why It Matters for Startups

A Commercial Solutions Opening is a competitive acquisition procedure that lets Department of Defense contracting officers buy innovative commercial products, technologies, and services without running a traditional Request for Proposals. It was authorized permanently under 10 U.S.C. Section 3458 and is implemented through DFARS Subpart 212.70. Under a CSO, the government may competitively select proposals received in response to a general solicitation based on peer review by scientific, technological, or other subject matter experts.

Three features of the CSO make it materially different from a standard federal procurement, and all three favor a startup:

• It is a competitive procedure by statute. Selection under a CSO satisfies the competition requirements of 10 U.S.C. Chapter 221 and FAR 6.102. The Army does not have to justify a sole source, which removes a common source of internal friction and delay.

• Everything is treated as commercial. Contracting officers must treat products and services bought under a CSO as commercial products and services. That means FAR Part 12 terms, simplified contract clauses, and no default requirement to build a government approved accounting system before you can be paid.

• Your submission is evaluated on its own merits. The solicitation is explicit that solution briefs are evaluated against the stated criteria, not against other companies' submissions. You are not competing head to head against an incumbent prime for a single slot.

The solicitation itself lists five benefits of the process: a streamlined application requiring only minimal corporate and technical information, fast track evaluation timelines, negotiable payment terms for non-dilutive capital, negotiable intellectual property rights, and direct feedback from end users and mission partners inside the Department of Defense who actually operate the equipment.

What Sierra Army Depot Is Actually Trying to Solve

Sierra Army Depot is a major Army logistics and storage installation with a large footprint of open storage, maintenance shops, demilitarization operations, an airfield, and out-loading operations that push materiel to the field. The Organic Industrial Base is the network of Army depots, arsenals, and ammunition plants that manufacture, repair, and sustain equipment. The Army's stated position is that its decisive military advantage over peer competitors is steadily eroding and that modernizing the OIB is a prerequisite for closing that gap.

The solicitation names six technology domains where the Army says modernization is most needed: agile and flexible facilities, a connected digital enterprise, advanced manufacturing, digital twin, automation, and cyber security. The framing throughout the document is about throughput and speed, described as increasing the "Speed of Battle," rather than about basic research.

This matters for how you write. The Army is not asking for a science project. It is asking how your technology moves more materiel through the depot faster, with fewer people doing dangerous or repetitive work, at lower lifecycle cost, in compliance with environmental and safety rules.

The Eight Areas of Interest in Detail

All eight AoIs are continuously open, and all solution briefs submitted under them are evaluated against the Phase 1 criteria in Section 3.2.2 of the CSO. If government funding or resources are not available for a proposed effort, the solution brief is retained in the ACC-SIAD library rather than discarded, which means a strong brief can be pulled forward when funding appears later.

1. Agile and Adaptive Facilities

Scalable, world class facilities that can rapidly adapt to changing mission requirements. The stated emphasis is on integrating physical and virtual processes to create flexible production, maintenance, and demilitarization lines so the depot can respond quickly to engineering changes and supply chain variation.

Companies that fit here typically offer reconfigurable production cells, modular tooling and fixturing, digital twin and factory simulation software, rapid line changeover systems, modular or relocatable industrial structures, and manufacturing execution software that reconfigures workflows without a capital rebuild.

2. Advanced Manufacturing and Maintenance

Technologies that increase the speed, scale, and precision of depot operations, with a specific call out of the depot's maintenance processes and parts capabilities. The solicitation names wash, blast, weld, paint, preservation, and repair processes supporting a wide variety of systems and platforms, and it asks respondents to address safety, environmental compliance, capacity, and efficiency.

Relevant technologies include metal and polymer additive manufacturing for obsolete or long lead spare parts, cold spray and other repair deposition methods, robotic and automated welding, advanced coatings and surface preparation, laser ablation stripping, non-destructive inspection, reverse engineering and scan to part workflows, and predictive maintenance analytics. If you make legacy parts available on demand instead of through a 40 week procurement lead time, this is your AoI.

3. Automation and Robotics

The solicitation defines automation as an automatic control measure that uses feedback loops from sensors, cameras, encoders, lasers, and probes to control a process, mechanism, or system, achieved through mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, electrical, electronic, and computing means in combination. The applied focus is automated and robotic systems for materiel handling, warehousing (pick, sort, and store), and processing, with the goal of reducing manual labor in repetitive or hazardous tasks and increasing accuracy and speed.

Strong fits include autonomous mobile robots and automated guided vehicles, robotic piece picking and palletizing, automated storage and retrieval systems, machine vision inspection and sortation, collaborative robots for shop floor tasks, teleoperation for hazardous environments, and exoskeletons or lift assist systems. Hazardous task removal is called out directly, so demilitarization, chemical handling, and heavy lift use cases are well aligned.

4. Logistics and Inventory Management Modernization

Re-engineering inventory and warehouse management systems to increase accuracy, reduce loss, and improve efficiency. The solicitation specifically points to modern hardware and software, naming Warehouse Management Systems, to streamline receiving, storage, and picking.

This is the most software friendly AoI. Candidate solutions include warehouse management and warehouse execution platforms, RFID and passive sensing for asset tracking across large open storage areas, computer vision inventory audit, drone based cycle counting, digital yard management, demand forecasting and inventory optimization, and integration layers that connect commercial systems to Army logistics systems of record. Note that any software touching Army networks will eventually face cybersecurity and authority to operate requirements, so address your security posture early.

5. Airfield Maintenance

Comprehensive inspection, preservation, and repair of airport infrastructure and grounds required for safe and efficient aircraft operations. Named aspects include pavement markings and electrical systems, snow and ice management, debris and vegetation control, and coordination with air traffic control to minimize operational impact. The AoI explicitly includes the Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS), which provides continuous real-time weather information to airports, pilots, and aviation stakeholders.

Fits include automated pavement condition assessment, foreign object debris detection, runway marking and striping automation, airfield lighting systems, snow and ice removal or anti-icing technologies, vegetation management, and AWOS hardware, sensors, modernization, or data integration. The AWOS mention is unusually specific for a continuously open AoI, which generally signals a live need.

6. Energy, Environmental, and Chemical Management

Safe, sustainable, and efficient use of energy, fuels, and chemicals across depot facilities and operations. The AoI specifically asks for innovative solutions for surface coating, cleaning, stripping, and plating that reduce hazardous waste and improve sustainability.

Relevant technologies include hexavalent chromium and PFAS free coatings and platings, non-hazardous cleaning and degreasing chemistries, laser and dry media stripping that eliminates blast media waste, closed loop water and solvent recovery, VOC and emissions reduction, waste minimization and treatment, energy efficiency and on-site generation, microgrids and energy storage, and industrial process electrification. Regulatory and environmental compliance pressure on legacy depot chemistries makes this AoI durably funded across the Army.

7. Public Private Partnerships (P3) Opportunities

Collaborations with private industry that bring commercial innovation, investment, and expertise into the depot. The stated aim is to accelerate modernization, improve operational efficiency, and sustain critical depot capabilities through shared resources and shared risk.

This AoI is structurally different from the other seven. It is less about a discrete product and more about a business model: co-investment in depot capability, shared use of depot facilities or equipment, work share arrangements, technology transfer, or arrangements where a company brings capital equipment onto the installation in exchange for guaranteed throughput. If your go to market depends on placing capital equipment somewhere and operating it, read this AoI closely.

8. Advanced Packaging Manufacturing at the Point-of-Need

This AoI was added by AoI Amendment 01 dated August 18, 2026, and it is the most sharply defined requirement in the set. The Army is seeking on-site fabrication technologies and non-lumber material solutions that let Sierra Army Depot manufacture customized crates, pallets, skids, and blocking on demand.

The stated requirements are specific. Solutions must deliver a highly versatile, scalable manufacturing capability that can rapidly adapt to produce an effectively unlimited variety of dimensions, using lightweight, weather resistant, and easily recyclable materials. The technology must replace legacy carpentry operations in order to eliminate labor intensive bottlenecks, high material washout rates, continuous lumber procurement costs, and ISPM-15 Wood Packaging Material compliance risk. The stated outcome is modernized out-loading throughput and reduced lifecycle logistics costs.

If you work in automated packaging fabrication, on-demand box and crate manufacturing, thermoformed or molded composite packaging, honeycomb or engineered paperboard structures, recyclable polymer shipping containers, or CAD driven cut and assemble systems, this AoI is a direct match. The level of detail here, combined with the fact that it was added by amendment rather than included at the original posting, generally indicates an identified and prioritized requirement rather than general market research.

Funding Allowance: What You Can and Cannot Expect

This is the part most companies misread, so it is worth stating plainly. The CSO does not publish an award ceiling, a floor, or a reserved pool of funding. The solicitation states directly that because of government budget uncertainties, no specific dollars have been reserved for awards under this CSO, and that requests for a Commercial Solution Proposal are subject to the availability of government funds.

Here is what the solicitation does commit to:

• Award instrument: Contracts or agreements under this authority shall be fixed price, including fixed price incentive fee. The government intends to primarily award FAR-based contracts under Part 12 commercial item procedures, but reserves the right to award other contract or agreement types depending on the AoI and industrial base response.

• Period of performance: Generally no greater than 12 months for any solution brief or CSP submitted under this CSO, unless a specific AoI states otherwise. Size your proposed effort and your price to a 12 month scope.

• Payment terms: The solicitation lists negotiable payment terms for non-dilutive capital as a benefit of the process. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to negotiate terms and conditions directly with the company prior to execution, including payment terms. For a cash constrained startup, this is where you negotiate milestone or advance payment structures rather than pure cost reimbursement in arrears.

• Intellectual property: IP rights are negotiable. You are asked to identify any IP involved and any restrictions on the government's use of that IP. IP risk is an explicit scored evaluation factor at Phase 2, so unresolved or aggressive assertions cost you points.

• Pricing format: Phase 1 requires a rough order of magnitude price. Phase 2 requires a ROM in a range of minus 25 percent to plus 75 percent along with a notional schedule. Phase 3 requires a full price volume with enough detail for the government to test price reasonableness, which for time and materials line items means labor categories, direct labor hours, fully burdened fixed hourly rates, and material costs supported by vendor quotes or other bases of estimate.

And here is what the government will not pay for:

• Costs of preparing and submitting a Phase 1 solution brief.

• Costs associated with a Phase 2 presentation or pitch, unless a specific AoI says otherwise.

• Costs of developing a Phase 3 Commercial Solution Proposal, unless a specific AoI says otherwise.

• Proposal preparation costs are explicitly not recoverable and are not a direct charge to any resulting award or any other contract or agreement.

The practical read: treat this as an unfunded business development investment with a fast, cheap first step. A five page brief is a one to two week effort for most teams, which is a reasonable bet against a fixed price production or pilot contract with a customer that operates at depot scale.

Timeline and Key Dates

There is no single submission deadline. The CSO is continuously open on SAM.gov until June 30, 2030, and the government may extend that date by amendment if the underlying authority is extended. New AoIs may be added at any point during the solicitation's life, which is exactly what happened with the packaging AoI added in August 2026, so companies are advised to check SAM.gov frequently for new postings.

The internal clocks that do matter once you submit:

• Phase 1 evaluation: The government will attempt to complete evaluation of solution briefs within 30 calendar days of the close of the submittal period and to notify companies of results as soon as practicable.

• Phase 2 evaluation: The government aims to complete evaluation of presentations and pitches within 30 calendar days of the pitch.

• Pitch validity: Presentation and pitch submissions must remain valid for no less than 90 days after evaluation.

• The 90 day funding gate: If government funding or resources are not assigned to a Phase 3 CSP within 90 days after pitch evaluation, the government will issue a notification of non-eligibility and officially close that AoI selection process. This is the single most important date in the document, because it is where an otherwise successful submission can stall for reasons that have nothing to do with your technology.

• CSP validity: A Phase 3 Commercial Solution Proposal must remain valid for at least 120 days from the submission date.

• Notification of non-selection: Companies not advanced to the pitch or CSP phase are notified in writing as soon as practicable. Verbal feedback may be provided on request at the Contracting Officer's discretion, and it is worth asking for.

Realistically, a company entering at Phase 1 with funding already aligned to the requirement should plan for roughly three to six months from submission to award. A company entering against an AoI where funding has not yet been identified should expect the brief to sit in the ACC-SIAD library until a requirement and funding line converge.

How the Three Phase Process Works

Phase 1: Written Solution Brief

Unless a specific AoI says otherwise, the solution brief must not exceed five single sided pages in 12 point font, or alternatively may be submitted as briefing slides not exceeding fifteen slides. The brief must contain four elements:

• Title page: Company name, title, date, point of contact name, email address, phone, and address, and a specific identification of which AoI you are responding to. The title page does not count against the page or slide limit.

• Executive summary: A summary of the technology or service.

• Technology concept: How your solution represents an application of innovative commercial products, technologies, or services, or an adaptation of existing ones, to the AoI. Describe the unique aspects of your technology and the work as it relates to the AoI. State clearly whether you are proposing a pilot or demonstration of existing commercially ready and viable technology, or development of technology for potential defense application. If development or adaptation is proposed, identify a suggested path to mature the technology. Identify any data and software you consider proprietary.

• Price: A rough order of magnitude price for the proposed solution.

The executive summary, technology concept, and price sections all count against the limit. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures are explicitly not desired, and the use of a diagram or figure to depict the essence of the proposed solution is strongly encouraged. Companies may submit multiple solution briefs against a single AoI if each represents a separate and distinct concept, but an individual brief may only address one concept.

Phase 2: Presentation or Pitch, If Applicable

Companies whose briefs are evaluated to be of merit may be invited to pitch in person, virtually, or on paper, depending on the requirement. If a demonstration is required, the AoI will say so. The government may also request an additional written submission to supplement or clarify the Phase 1 brief. During the pitch you must address a description or demonstration of how the solution is an innovative application of commercial technology to the AoI, a ROM price in a minus 25 percent to plus 75 percent range with a notional schedule, any IP involved and associated restrictions on government use, and whatever additional detail the invitation specified.

Phase 3: Commercial Solution Proposal

Companies evaluated to be of merit through Phase 1, Phase 2, or a combination may be invited to submit a full written proposal in two separate volumes.

Volume I, Technical, must contain no cost information. It requires a detailed work plan showing how each objective will be accomplished, in as much detail as you consider necessary to fully explain your technical approach and all assumptions used to develop the solution and associated costs. It must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature of the work, explain how the project will be organized, staffed, and managed, and include a list of suggested deliverables and deliverable dates.

Volume II, Price, must contain enough information for the government to perform a basic price analysis. The government reserves the right to request additional pricing support, including commercial price catalogs, previous commercial sales receipts, and other proprietary information used to determine reasonableness and future budgetary cost estimates.

Technical proposals are rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. Price proposals are rated Fair and Reasonable or Not Fair and Reasonable. Neither an Acceptable technical rating nor a Fair and Reasonable price determination guarantees award, because program priorities, negotiations, and availability of funds are also considered.

Phase Skipping Works in Both Directions

The government reserves the right to forgo Phase 1 and Phase 2 and directly request a CSP, and to move expeditiously through the phases if urgent requirements arise. Separately, companies may elect to forgo Phase 1 and Phase 2 and submit a written CSP directly. In practice, going straight to a full CSP is usually the wrong move for a first time entrant, because the five page brief is the cheapest way to test whether a real requirement and a funding line exist behind the AoI before you invest in a full proposal.

How Your Submission Will Be Evaluated

Phase 1 solution briefs are evaluated against four criteria, listed in the solicitation in descending order of importance:

• Responsiveness of the brief in addressing the AoI with a commercially available product, process, or service readily available to meet the government's immediate needs.

• Technical merit of the proposed solution, including the extent to which it is unique or innovative for government application.

• The extent to which funding is available for the proposed effort.

• The proposed milestone schedule and its ability to meet the AoI need within a relevant time period.

Read the first and third criteria together, because they set the strategy. The most heavily weighted factor is commercial readiness and immediate availability, not novelty. A mature product with fielded commercial installations outscores a more clever prototype. And because funding availability is itself a scored criterion, a brief that is cheap, fast, and scoped to a 12 month period of performance scores better than an ambitious multi-year program the depot cannot currently pay for.

Phase 2 pitches are scored on eight factors, also in descending order of importance: relevance of the solution to the AoI with a commercially available product or process, technical merit and demonstrated feasibility, uniqueness and innovation, technical risk and maturity, risk in the proposed ROM, risk in the proposed milestone schedule, risk in the company's viability and business solution, and potential risk in anticipated IP and data rights assertions.

Five of those eight factors are risk factors. Company viability is scored explicitly, which means an early stage company should proactively address runway, manufacturing capacity, key personnel, and supply chain rather than hoping the topic does not come up. The government may also use external market research to evaluate a company's viability, so assume your funding history and public footprint will be reviewed.

Both phases are evaluated on an absolute basis, not comparatively. The government reserves the right to select all, some, or none of the submissions received against any AoI.

Eligibility and Registration Requirements

• Nontraditional defense contractors are expressly welcome. A nontraditional defense contractor is defined in 10 U.S.C. Section 3014 as an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one year period preceding the solicitation, any DoD contract or subcontract subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards. The definition includes all small business concerns meeting the size standards in 13 C.F.R. Part 121.

• Small businesses and nonprofit research institutions are both defined and contemplated in the solicitation.

• Foreign owned businesses may submit independently or as part of a teaming arrangement with one or more United States owned businesses, though the ability to receive an award may depend on obtaining the necessary clearances and approvals for proscribed information.

• Unique Entity ID and SAM registration are required before award. Companies are advised to begin SAM registration as soon as they identify an AoI of interest. Registration in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) at piee.eb.mil is also required for invoicing, and PIEE registration cannot occur without an active SAM registration.

• Responsibility determination: The company must be determined responsible by the Contracting Officer and must not be suspended, debarred, or otherwise prohibited by executive order or law from receiving an award.

Proprietary Data, Export Control, and Classification Rules

The government acknowledges its obligation under 18 U.S.C. Section 1905 to protect confidential information, but that protection is conditional on how you mark your submission:

• Qualifying data must be clearly marked PROPRIETARY and accompanied by explanatory text so the government is clearly notified of the limitations being placed on it.

• Mark only what is truly confidential, and indicate the specific portions of a page using circling, underscoring, or highlighting.

• Do not mark data already in the public domain or already held by the government or third parties on an unrestricted basis. The government is not obligated to protect unmarked data.

• Do not submit classified data.

• Understand the tradeoff. The government sometimes uses support contractors to evaluate responses. Marking data as proprietary precludes disclosure to those support contractors, so heavily marked submissions may receive limited or no consideration. The government will use best efforts to evaluate proprietary submissions without support contractors, consistent with available resources. Mark surgically, not defensively.

• Technical data with military application may require approval, authorization, or license for lawful export. Confirm your ITAR and EAR posture before you submit.

The CSO process for FAR contracts is covered by the Procurement Integrity Act as implemented through FAR Part 3.104, so the usual ethical restrictions on procurement information apply to both sides.

How to Position a Winning Solution Brief

Five pages is not much room, and most unsuccessful briefs fail for the same avoidable reasons. Based on the stated evaluation criteria, the strongest submissions do the following:

• Name the AoI in the first sentence. Responsiveness is the top weighted criterion. Do not make an evaluator infer which of the eight AoIs you are answering.

• Lead with commercial readiness, not the technology. Open with what is already fielded, where, at what scale, and with what measured results. Commercial traction is evidence, and it is scored ahead of novelty.

• Quantify the depot outcome. Translate your capability into throughput, labor hours avoided, hazardous waste eliminated, lead time reduced, or lifecycle cost saved. Percentages tied to a baseline beat adjectives.

• Use a diagram. The solicitation strongly encourages a figure depicting the essence of the solution, and it is the highest information density you can buy within the page limit.

• Price to a 12 month scope and be realistic. Funding availability is a scored criterion. A credible six figure pilot that can be executed inside a fiscal year is easier to fund than a multi-year program.

• Address risk before you are asked. Company viability, schedule risk, ROM risk, and IP risk are four of the eight Phase 2 scoring factors. Retiring them early in writing converts a weakness into evidence of maturity.

• Be clear about maturity. The solicitation asks you to state explicitly whether you are proposing a pilot of commercially ready technology or development for defense application, and if the latter, to lay out a maturation path. Ambiguity here reads as risk.

• Submit more than one brief if you have more than one concept. Multiple distinct concepts are permitted, and several AoIs overlap. A robotics company, for example, may have separate credible answers for AoI 3 and AoI 4.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is solicitation W912GY-25-S-C001?

W912GY-25-S-C001 is the Commercial Solutions Opening issued by U.S. Army Contracting Command at Sierra Army Depot (ACC-SIAD) for Organic Industrial Base modernization. It is a continuously open competitive solicitation posted on SAM.gov that seeks innovative commercial products, technologies, and services across eight Areas of Interest, and it remains open until June 30, 2030.

What is the deadline to apply to the Sierra Army Depot CSO?

There is no single deadline. The CSO is continuously open until June 30, 2030, and the government may extend that date by amendment. Because new Areas of Interest can be added at any time and specific AoIs may carry their own open periods, companies should monitor SAM.gov regularly. Submissions received after a prescribed AoI open period has ended will not be considered, reviewed, or evaluated.

How much funding is available under this CSO?

No dollar ceiling or reserved funding pool is published. The solicitation states that due to government budget uncertainties, no specific dollars have been reserved for awards, and that requests for a Commercial Solution Proposal are subject to the availability of government funds. Awards are fixed price, generally with a period of performance of 12 months or less unless a specific AoI states otherwise, and the practical award size is driven by the scope you propose and the funding the depot has identified for that requirement.

Does the government pay for my proposal costs?

No. The government will not pay for costs associated with solution briefs, presentations or pitches, or development of a Commercial Solution Proposal, unless a specific AoI stipulates otherwise. Proposal preparation costs are explicitly not recoverable and are not a direct charge to any resulting award or other contract.

Can a startup with no prior government contracts apply?

Yes. Both traditional and nontraditional defense contractors may be awarded contracts or agreements under this CSO. A nontraditional defense contractor is defined as an entity that has not performed a DoD contract subject to full cost accounting standards coverage for at least one year preceding the solicitation, and the definition expressly includes small business concerns. You must obtain a Unique Entity ID, register in SAM, and register in PIEE before award.

How long is the solution brief and what must it contain?

Unless a specific AoI says otherwise, the solution brief is limited to five single sided pages in 12 point font, or alternatively fifteen briefing slides. It must include a title page, an executive summary, a technology concept section, and a rough order of magnitude price. The title page does not count against the limit, but the other three sections do.

What are the eight Areas of Interest at Sierra Army Depot?

The eight continuously open AoIs are agile and adaptive facilities, advanced manufacturing and maintenance, automation and robotics, logistics and inventory management modernization, airfield maintenance, energy, environmental, and chemical management, public private partnership opportunities, and advanced packaging manufacturing at the point-of-need. The eighth AoI, covering on-site fabrication of crates, pallets, skids, and blocking using non-lumber materials, was added by AoI Amendment 01 dated August 18, 2026.

How long does the evaluation take?

The government will attempt to complete Phase 1 solution brief evaluation within 30 calendar days of the close of the submittal period, and aims to complete Phase 2 pitch evaluation within 30 calendar days of the pitch. Pitch submissions must remain valid for at least 90 days after evaluation, and a Phase 3 proposal must remain valid for at least 120 days from submission.

What happens if my solution brief is good but there is no funding?

If government funding or resources are unavailable for the proposed effort, solution briefs are retained in the ACC-SIAD library rather than discarded. Separately, if funding or resources are not assigned to a Phase 3 proposal within 90 days after pitch evaluation, the government provides a notification of non-eligibility and officially closes that AoI selection process. Retained briefs can be revisited when a funding line materializes.

What kind of contract results from a CSO award?

Contracts or agreements under this authority are fixed price, including fixed price incentive fee. The government intends primarily to award FAR-based contracts under Part 12 commercial item procedures, but reserves the right to award other contract or agreement types depending on the AoI and the industrial base response. Only a Contracting Officer, under FAR 1.602, can enter into or modify a binding contract on behalf of the government.

Is my intellectual property protected?

IP rights are negotiable under this CSO, and you are required to identify any IP involved and any restrictions on government use. Proprietary information must be clearly marked and accompanied by explanatory text to receive protection under 18 U.S.C. Section 1905. Be aware that marking material proprietary precludes disclosure to support contractors assisting the evaluation, which may result in limited or no consideration of that material, so mark only what is genuinely confidential.

Can foreign owned companies submit?

Yes. Foreign owned businesses may submit independently or as part of a teaming arrangement with one or more United States owned businesses. However, the ability to receive a contract or agreement may depend on the foreign owned business obtaining the necessary clearances and approvals to access proscribed information.

Can I skip straight to a full proposal?

Yes. Companies may elect to forgo Phase 1 and Phase 2 and submit a written Commercial Solution Proposal directly, and the government likewise reserves the right to skip phases and request a proposal directly based on individual merit or urgency. For most first time entrants the five page brief is the better path, because it is a low cost way to confirm that a real, funded requirement sits behind the AoI.

Who do I contact about this solicitation?

The Contracting Officer is Ms. Melissa Kaarbo at melissa.m.kaarbo.civ@army.mil, and an additional point of contact is Ms. Kimberly Hunter at kimberly.a.hunter.civ@army.mil. Questions about the objectives or preparation of a solution brief should be directed to the points of contact listed in the respective AoI, and submissions must be made electronically exactly as prescribed in that AoI.

Why the CSO Path Is Worth Your Time

For a deep tech, advanced manufacturing, robotics, or industrial software company, the Sierra Army Depot CSO offers something SBIR does not: a direct route to a fixed price commercial contract with an operating customer, with no dilution, negotiable IP terms, a five page front door, and a decision cycle measured in weeks rather than a twice yearly cycle. The tradeoff is that funding is not guaranteed, which makes the quality and targeting of the first submission the whole game.

BW&CO helps deep tech and dual use founders identify the right Area of Interest, structure a responsive solution brief, price to a fundable scope, and manage the path from brief through pitch to proposal. We have helped clients secure more than $350 million in non-dilutive funding across the Department of Defense, NIH, NSF, NASA, DOE, and ARPA-H. Innovation funding simplified.

If you are evaluating whether your technology fits one of the eight Sierra Army Depot Areas of Interest, contact BW&CO for a fit assessment.

DCSA Innovation Gateway (HS0021-26-CSO-DCSA): The Complete Guide for Startups

Executive Summary

The DCSA Innovation Gateway is a five-year commercial solicitation from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) that awards Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) for prototype projects under 10 U.S.C. 4022. It is DCSA's front door for commercial innovators, and it is built specifically so that small businesses and companies with no prior defense contracting history can compete. Companies do not submit against the Gateway itself. They respond to individual Innovation Calls published on SAM.gov under the Gateway, starting with a 6-page Solution Concept Paper rather than a full proposal.

Solicitation number HS0021-26-CSO-DCSA. Open period: June 23, 2026 through June 22, 2031. NAICS code 541512, Computer Systems Design Services.

DCSA Innovation Gateway at a Glance

• Agency: Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), Department of Defense

• Solicitation number: HS0021-26-CSO-DCSA

• Solicitation type: Commercial Solutions Opening style announcement resulting in prototype OTAs

• Award instrument: Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) for prototypes, 10 U.S.C. 4022

• Open period: June 23, 2026 to June 22, 2031

• First submission: 6-page Solution Concept Paper using the required template (Attachment 1)

• Where opportunities are posted: SAM.gov, as Innovation Calls referencing the DCSA Innovation Gateway

• Unsolicited proposals: Not accepted and not reviewed

• Cost share: Not required for most small businesses and nontraditional defense contractors

• Follow-on: Successful prototypes can move to a production contract or transaction without further competition

• Technical focus: Digital transformation, data and AI, cyber and industrial security, digital workforce and IT governance

What Is DCSA and Why Does This Solicitation Exist?

DCSA is the Department of Defense agency responsible for personnel vetting and background investigations, industrial security oversight of cleared contractor facilities, counterintelligence, insider threat detection, and security training across the National Industrial Security Program. It touches millions of security clearance records and thousands of cleared facilities, which makes it one of the most data-intensive agencies in the federal government.

The Innovation Gateway exists because DCSA wants commercial technology, not custom-built government software. The agency describes the Gateway as its commercially focused front door for innovators, with the goal of partnering with creative companies to solve its most critical mission challenges. Practically, that means DCSA is willing to skip the traditional FAR-based procurement path and use OTA authority to get prototypes on contract faster, with negotiable terms, negotiable intellectual property rights, and a direct path to production if the prototype works.

For a venture-backed startup or a small commercial software company, this is one of the more accessible defense entry points available, because the first submission is a short concept paper rather than a 50-page proposal with a full cost volume.

What DCSA Is Looking For: The Four Technical Priorities

The Gateway publishes four broad technical priority areas. Individual Innovation Calls narrow these into specific problem statements, but every concept must map back to one or more of these areas.

1. Digital Transformation Enablement

DCSA is seeking prototypes that accelerate agency-wide digital transformation by improving how digital capabilities are designed, delivered, governed, and sustained. The strong preference is for solutions that are reusable across multiple mission and business areas, reduce delivery timelines, improve user experience, and increase operational resilience and security. Enterprise applicability is the theme. A tool that solves one system's problem is far less compelling than a pattern that can be adopted across many systems.

• Digital Service Delivery Acceleration: Prototypes that shorten time-to-capability through repeatable delivery patterns such as standardized environments, automated pipelines, release orchestration, and operational readiness practices that work across diverse systems.

• Cloud and Infrastructure Modernization as an Enabler: Solutions that simplify adoption and operation of modern hosting through automation, resilience, performance optimization, and cost transparency, with a focus on enterprise applicability rather than single-system optimization.

• Modular Architecture and Incremental Modernization: Prototypes aligned with MOSA principles that promote modular, replaceable components, enable stepwise modernization, reduce vendor lock-in, and integrate with existing systems.

• Operational Excellence and Continuous Compliance: Efforts that build in observability, configuration management, incident readiness, and continuous compliance so modernized capabilities operate securely and reliably at scale.

2. Data Integration and Advanced Analytics

This priority sits at the center of DCSA's mission, because personnel vetting and industrial security are fundamentally data and risk problems.

• Data-Driven Decision Making: Enhancing data understanding, delivery, and management so DCSA can make faster and more accurate risk determinations in personnel and industrial security.

• AI and Machine Learning: Implementing AI capabilities that analyze large volumes of data, identify anomalies, and calculate potential risk, while keeping human judgment at the center of trust decisions. That last phrase matters. Concepts that fully automate a trust or clearance decision will not land well. Concepts that surface, rank, and explain risk for a human adjudicator will.

• Automated Data Ingestion: Tools that automatically ingest data to improve the speed and quality of background investigations.

3. Cyber and Industrial Security

• Securing the Defense Industrial Base: Protecting cleared facilities and IT systems from cyber attacks, foreign insider threats, and vulnerabilities.

• Behavioral Threat Analysis Capability (BTAC): Enhancing the ability to detect insider threats through advanced behavioral monitoring.

• Zero Trust Architecture: Strengthening cyber posture through modern, secure IT solutions that protect sensitive national security information.

4. Digital Workforce and Governance

• Digital Skills Training: Building a skilled digital workforce, including expanded AI experience and cybersecurity awareness.

• IT Governance: Establishing enterprise-wide IT, data, and cybersecurity governance to ensure compliance and efficiency.

What Counts as a Prototype Project

Under 10 U.S.C. 4022, a prototype project is defined broadly, which is helpful for software and services companies. It includes a proof of concept, model, or process (including a business process), reverse engineering to address obsolescence, a pilot or novel application of commercial technology for defense purposes, agile development activity, the creation, design, development, or demonstration of operational utility, or any combination of these. Adapting an existing commercial product to a DCSA use case qualifies. You do not need to invent something new from scratch.

Who Is Eligible: OTA Eligibility Rules Explained

Prototype OTAs have statutory eligibility conditions. Under 10 U.S.C. 4022, the awardee must meet at least one of the following three conditions.

• (A) Nontraditional participation: At least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participates to a significant extent in the prototype project.

• (B) All small or nontraditional team: All significant participants other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses in a program under section 9 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 638) or nontraditional defense contractors.

• (C) One-third cost share: At least one third of total project cost is paid from non-federal sources.

What Is a Nontraditional Defense Contractor?

A nontraditional defense contractor is an entity that is not currently performing, and has not performed for at least one year prior to the solicitation, any DoD contract or subcontract subject to full coverage under the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS). In plain terms, most commercial startups, most venture-backed companies, and most small businesses qualify automatically. If your company has never held a large cost-type DoD contract with full CAS coverage, you are almost certainly nontraditional, and condition (A) or (B) is satisfied without any cost share.

Security Requirements and Foreign Participation

Each Innovation Call specifies whether non-U.S. organizations or individuals may participate and what controls or security regulations apply. Some calls will require a facility clearance or cleared personnel, and some will not. If foreign participation is allowed under a given call, all forms of it must be clearly and fully disclosed in the proposal. For controlled unclassified information (CUI) and classified submissions, that includes disclosing and mitigating any Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) issues before the submission is transmitted to DCSA. Foreign investors on your cap table are not automatically disqualifying, but they must be disclosed and mitigated, and they should be addressed early rather than discovered during negotiation.

Administrative Requirements Before Award

These are checked before an agreement can be executed, not at concept paper stage, but you should start them now because they take time.

• Active SAM.gov registration with a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)

• A CAGE code

• Any facility or personnel security clearances required by the specific Innovation Call

• Registration and active status in the prescribed government invoicing system, such as the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE)

• Not suspended or debarred, and not prohibited by law or Executive Order from receiving an award

• A responsibility determination by the Agreements Officer

• Any Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) addressed and mitigated

Funding Allowance, Cost Share, and What to Put in Your ROM

The Innovation Gateway itself does not publish a dollar ceiling or a fixed award size. This is intentional. Award value is established through your Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) and then negotiated during Phase 3, and individual Innovation Calls may state their own funding parameters or target ranges.

• You set the number. The Solution Concept Paper requires a total ROM plus a high-level cost estimate broken into major phases where applicable, showing project phase, estimated duration, and estimated cost range.

• Affordability is a scored criterion. DCSA evaluates whether the ROM is within an acceptable range for a prototype effort. A ROM that is too high for the scope described is a real rejection risk, and so is one that is obviously too low to deliver what you promised.

• Cost share is generally not required. Cost sharing is not required as a rule. OTs for prototypes require cost share only if the team fails the nontraditional or all-small-business conditions. If the proposing team does not meet those conditions, it must provide at least one third of total cost from its own funds unless a waiver is granted, and waivers are not common and require significant justification.

• Voluntary cost share is encouraged where there is commercial upside. DCSA encourages cost sharing where there is a reasonable probability of commercial application related to the effort. Any cost sharing arrangement should be noted in both the Solution Concept Paper and the Full Project Proposal.

• The real money is often downstream. Under 10 U.S.C. 4022(f), a successful prototype can transition to a follow-on production contract or transaction without further competition, covering additional units, scaling of the prototype technology, or implementation of the solution.

Scope your ROM to what can credibly be demonstrated as a prototype, phase it, and treat the prototype as the on-ramp to the production OTA rather than the end state.

How the Process Works: Three Phases

Phase 1: Solution Concept Paper

Vendors submit a 6-page Solution Concept Paper in response to a specific Innovation Call. DCSA reviews every concept paper submitted. Important nuance: this initial review may serve as the sole and entire evaluation. After review, the Government may select the most promising vendors and go straight to Phase 3, invite a limited number of vendors into Phase 2, or decide that no submission is suitable and make no selections.

Phase 2: Full Project Proposal (Optional, Invitation Only)

Selected vendors may receive an official invitation to a second evaluation phase. The invitation defines what is required, and it could be a Full Project Proposal, a technical demonstration, an oral presentation, or some combination. This phase is optional and is conducted only if the Government deems it necessary. Plan for the possibility that your 6 pages are the only thing DCSA ever reads.

Phase 3: Negotiation and Award

Vendors selected from either Phase 1 or Phase 2 proceed to collaborative negotiation. The goal is to jointly establish the framework for the prototype project, which includes refining the technical approach, developing a detailed Statement of Work, establishing well-defined milestones and deliverables, establishing a fair and reasonable price, and agreeing on mutual terms and conditions. The Agreements Officer is the only individual with authority to enter into, modify, or execute a binding agreement on behalf of the Government. Selection does not guarantee an award, and the Government may cancel at any point prior to execution.

Timeline and Key Dates

• June 23, 2026: DCSA Innovation Gateway published. The Gateway is the umbrella announcement, not a submission deadline.

• Ongoing through June 22, 2031: Individual Innovation Calls are published on SAM.gov at various times during the open period, each referencing the Gateway. Each call carries its own problem statement, submission email, deadline, security requirements, and timelines.

• Concept paper window: Set by each Innovation Call. These windows are typically short, which is why preparation before a call drops matters more than reaction speed after it.

• Within 24 hours of submission: All submissions are acknowledged with an email confirmation.

• At 48 hours: If you have not received confirmation, follow up to confirm delivery. DCSA is not responsible for email malfunctions or undeliverable email.

• After Phase 1 review: DCSA notifies vendors of results, including a Phase 2 invitation if applicable. No debriefs or feedback are provided on Phase 1 submissions.

• Phase 3: Negotiation timing varies with scope and complexity, and award occurs when collaborative and administrative activities are complete and funds are available.

The single most useful planning move is to monitor SAM.gov for Innovation Calls referencing HS0021-26-CSO-DCSA, and to have your company information, OTA eligibility certification, IP posture, and ROM structure drafted in advance so that only the problem-specific content needs to be written when a call opens.

What Goes in the 6-Page Solution Concept Paper

Proposers must use the Solution Concept Paper Template (Attachment 1). Any concept paper that does not use the required template will not be considered for review.

Format Rules You Cannot Change

• Page size 8.5 x 11 inches, 1 inch margins, single spacing

• Calibri Light, 11 point, black font in the final document

• Sections 1 through 6 are limited to 6 pages total

• Graphics and illustrations are allowed and are not subject to the format restrictions

• Tables are allowed but are subject to the format restrictions

• An acronym list or glossary is allowed outside the page count

• All grey instruction text in the template must be replaced or deleted before submission

• Altering template settings such as font, font size, line spacing, or margins is prohibited

• Do not include detailed project plans, formal quotes, or team resumes. The concept paper is not a full proposal, and the focus is meant to be exclusively on the quality of the concept.

• Email subject line format: DCSA - Innovation Call [insert #] - Concept Paper [insert Company Name]

Cover Page Contents (Outside the 6-Page Limit)

• Gateway number HS0021-26-CSO-DCSA, Innovation Call number and title

• A descriptive Solution Concept Paper title. Do not simply copy the Innovation Call title.

• Lead organization name, organization type, address, TIN or EIN, UEI, CAGE code, and NAICS code

• Subcontractors with name, email, business type, and CAGE code

• Technical POC (program manager or principal investigator) and administrative POC with full contact details

• Total ROM

• OTA eligibility certification under 10 U.S.C. 4022, with initials next to each applicable condition

• Proprietary data statement and page markings, if you are restricting data

• A table of contents

The Six Required Sections

• 1. Problem Understanding. Clearly describe your understanding of DCSA's operational problem and the desired end state for the user. This is where most commercial companies lose. Generic mission language reads as unfamiliarity. Name the workflow, the user, and the consequence of the status quo.

• 2. Proposed Concept and Vision. A one-page narrative describing your big idea, focused on the unique approach, the user experience, and the strategic value delivered. A simple concept diagram is encouraged, and since graphics are exempt from format restrictions, a strong visual buys you page space.

• 3. High-Level Technical Approach. Briefly outline your technical philosophy and explain why you recommend a particular technology stack, architectural style such as modular or open source, or development methodology such as Agile or DevSecOps for this specific problem. The emphasis is on rationale, not specifications.

• 4. Intellectual Property and Data Rights. State your data rights and licensing posture across three categories. Background IP: identify pre-existing software or algorithms delivered as proprietary background IP and state the specific license terms and user rights granted to the Government to run, integrate, and maintain it. Foreground IP: list proposed rights and license terms for custom software, code adapters, interfaces, or configurations developed under the effort. Dependencies: disclose third-party software, libraries, or data feeds required to sustain the prototype. This section is scored under Concept Viability, so a vague IP answer is a scored weakness, not a formality.

• 5. Risk and Opportunity Spotlight. Identify the single biggest technical or programmatic risk that could jeopardize the project, and the single biggest opportunity the Government might be overlooking. Answer both honestly. A paper that claims no meaningful risk reads as inexperienced.

• 6. Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM). A high-level cost estimate broken into major phases where applicable, with project phase, estimated duration, and estimated cost range, plus any cost share discussion.

How DCSA Evaluates Concept Papers

Concept papers are evaluated on their own merit against the Innovation Call and the criteria below, not against other concept papers submitted to the same call. This is a meaningful advantage. You are not fighting for a fixed number of slots against incumbents. You are clearing a bar.

• Concept Viability: Is the idea innovative, technically sound, and compelling? Are the proposed data rights and licensing viable for long-term integration?

• Mission Alignment: Does the vendor deeply understand the problem and its operational impact?

• Affordability: Is the ROM within an acceptable range for a prototype effort?

Note the phrase in Concept Viability about data rights being viable for long-term integration. DCSA is explicitly screening for lock-in risk. A restrictive license that leaves the Government unable to run, integrate, or maintain the capability can sink an otherwise strong technical concept.

Restrictive Markings, Proprietary Data, and FOIA

Data subject to use restrictions may be included in concept papers but must be clearly marked. You must identify and mark proprietary data intended for Government use only, and identify any technical data or computer software provided with use restrictions. In the absence of that identification, the Government will assume unlimited rights to all technical data and computer software in the concept paper. DCSA intends to treat concept papers as procurement sensitive before award and to disclose contents only to Government employees or designated support contractors for procurement related activities. Classified, sensitive, or critical technology information should not be included in a concept paper. Proposers are cautioned that portions may be subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.

Non-Government advisors under signed NDAs may participate in evaluation of concept papers, full proposals, and negotiations. Submitting an offer constitutes a grant of authority for their use in all phases.

After Award: How Prototype OTAs Actually Run

• Iterative by design. Gateway OTAs are awarded with the intent to use an iterative development approach. The Government and the vendor may mutually agree to modify scope, objectives, and technical requirements during performance.

• Scope can expand without recompete. The agreement allows adapting the prototype based on technical discoveries and test results, expanding scope to address new or refined operational requirements, and implementing those changes within the existing OT without a new competitive action.

• Multiple paths to success. A prototype is successfully completed upon written determination that it met at least one of the following: fulfilled the key technical goals in the Statement of Work, satisfied the objective success metrics in the OT agreement, or achieved a favorable or unexpected result that provides significant operational utility and justifies transition to production.

• Partial completion is allowed. DCSA may declare a specific component successfully completed before the full effort concludes, which lets the Government transition valuable capabilities into production while other parts are still in development.

• Follow-on production without recompete. Under 10 U.S.C. 4022(f), a follow-on production contract or transaction may be awarded to prototype participants without further competition, contingent on successful completion to the Government's satisfaction.

Is the DCSA Innovation Gateway Right for Your Startup?

Strong fit signals:

• You sell commercial software, data infrastructure, AI and analytics, identity, or cybersecurity capability that can be adapted to a vetting, insider threat, or industrial security workflow

• You are a small business or nontraditional defense contractor, so no cost share is triggered

• Your architecture is modular and integrates with existing systems rather than requiring a rip and replace

• You can offer the Government license terms that support long-term integration and sustainment

• You want a path into DoD that does not require winning a full FAR-based competition first

Weaker fit signals:

• Hardware-heavy concepts with no clear digital or data integration tie to the four priority areas

• Fully automated trust or adjudication decisions that remove the human from the loop

• Highly proprietary, closed licensing that creates vendor lock-in

• Concepts that solve a single system's problem with no reuse potential across the enterprise

• Companies that cannot meet a clearance requirement if a specific Innovation Call imposes one

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the DCSA Innovation Gateway?

The DCSA Innovation Gateway (HS0021-26-CSO-DCSA) is a five-year competitive solicitation from the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency that results in the award of prototype projects through Other Transaction Agreements under 10 U.S.C. 4022. It announces DCSA's general areas of interest and the criteria for selecting Solution Concept Papers. Specific requirements are issued separately through Innovation Calls published on SAM.gov.

How do I apply to the DCSA Innovation Gateway?

You do not apply to the Gateway directly. You respond to a specific Innovation Call published on SAM.gov under the Gateway by emailing a 6-page Solution Concept Paper, using the required template, to the address named in that call, with the subject line format DCSA - Innovation Call [number] - Concept Paper [company name].

Can I submit an unsolicited proposal to DCSA under the Gateway?

No. The Government will only accept proposals submitted in response to an Innovation Call. Unsolicited proposals that are not in response to an Innovation Call will not be reviewed.

How much funding can I receive through a DCSA prototype OTA?

The Gateway does not publish a fixed award ceiling. You propose a total Rough Order of Magnitude cost in the concept paper, broken into phases with estimated durations and cost ranges, and the final value is negotiated during Phase 3. Affordability is an evaluation criterion, so the ROM must be defensible for a prototype effort. Individual Innovation Calls may specify their own funding parameters.

Is cost sharing required for a DCSA prototype OTA?

Cost sharing is not required in most cases. Prototype OTs require cost share only when the team does not include a significantly involved nontraditional defense contractor and is not composed entirely of small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors. In that case, at least one third of total cost must come from non-federal funds unless a waiver is granted, and waivers are uncommon and require significant justification. Voluntary cost share is encouraged where commercial application is likely.

Can a startup with no prior DoD contracts qualify?

Yes, and that is the intent. A nontraditional defense contractor is an entity that is not currently performing, and has not performed for at least one year prior to the solicitation, any DoD contract or subcontract subject to full Cost Accounting Standards coverage. Most commercial startups and small businesses meet that definition, which satisfies OTA eligibility without any cost share.

Do I need a security clearance to submit a concept paper?

It depends on the Innovation Call. Each call specifies its own security requirements, including whether facility or personnel clearances are required and whether non-U.S. organizations or individuals may participate. Clearance requirements are verified before award, so read the specific call carefully before investing in a submission.

Can a foreign-owned or foreign-invested company participate?

Each Innovation Call states whether non-U.S. organizations or individuals may participate. Where participation is allowed, all forms of foreign participation must be clearly and fully disclosed in the proposal, and for CUI or classified submissions any Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence issues must be disclosed and mitigated before the submission is transmitted to DCSA.

How long is the Solution Concept Paper and what format is required?

Sections 1 through 6 are limited to 6 pages, in Calibri Light 11 point, single spaced, with 1 inch margins on 8.5 x 11 inch pages. The required template (Attachment 1) must be used, and a concept paper that does not use the template will not be considered for review. Graphics are exempt from format restrictions, and an acronym list or glossary does not count against the page limit.

What are the evaluation criteria for a Solution Concept Paper?

Three criteria: Concept Viability, meaning whether the idea is innovative, technically sound, and compelling, and whether the proposed data rights and licensing are viable for long-term integration; Mission Alignment, meaning whether the vendor deeply understands the problem and its operational impact; and Affordability, meaning whether the ROM is within an acceptable range for a prototype effort. Papers are judged on their own merit, not against competing submissions.

Will DCSA give me feedback if my concept paper is not selected?

No. DCSA notifies vendors of concept paper evaluation results, but debriefs and feedback on Phase 1 submissions are not provided.

Is Phase 2 guaranteed if my concept paper is strong?

No. The Phase 1 review may serve as the sole and entire evaluation. DCSA may select the most promising vendors and proceed directly to Phase 3 negotiation and award, invite a limited number of vendors to Phase 2, or make no selections at all. Phase 2 is optional and occurs only if the Government deems it necessary.

What happens after a successful prototype project?

Under 10 U.S.C. 4022(f), a follow-on production contract or transaction may be awarded to prototype participants without further competition, contingent on successful completion to the Government's satisfaction. Follow-on production may include procurement of additional units, scaling of the prototype technology, or implementation of the solution.

How is this different from SBIR or STTR?

SBIR and STTR are structured research programs with fixed phase sizes, set topic cycles, and statutory small business eligibility. The Innovation Gateway is an Other Transaction vehicle with negotiated scope, negotiated price, negotiated terms, no fixed award size, and a non-competitive path to production. The trade-off is that terms and IP are negotiated rather than standardized, so preparation on data rights matters more. Many companies pursue both, using SBIR for technology maturation and an OTA for mission integration.

What administrative registrations do I need before award?

An active SAM.gov registration with a Unique Entity Identifier, a CAGE code, registration in the prescribed Government invoicing system such as PIEE, any clearances required by the Innovation Call, no suspension or debarment, a favorable responsibility determination by the Agreements Officer, and mitigation of any organizational conflicts of interest.

How BW&CO Helps Companies Win DCSA Prototype OTAs

BW&CO is a non-dilutive funding advisory firm that has helped clients secure more than $350M in government funding. For the DCSA Innovation Gateway, the work starts well before an Innovation Call is published: positioning your technology against the four technical priority areas, confirming your OTA eligibility path, building a defensible ROM and phasing structure, and settling your background and foreground IP posture so that the data rights section strengthens your score instead of weakening it. When a call drops, the window is short, and companies that prepared in advance are the ones that submit something worth reading.

Innovation Funding Simplified. If you are evaluating the DCSA Innovation Gateway or any other defense prototype pathway, contact BW&CO for a funding fit assessment.

North Carolina SBIR/STTR Phase I Incentive Funds Program: Complete FY 2026-2027 Solicitation Guide

Executive Summary

The One North Carolina Small Business Program reimburses North Carolina companies for up to $12,000 of the money they spend preparing and submitting a federal SBIR or STTR Phase I proposal. It is not a competitive grant, it is a reimbursement. If your company is eligible, your proposal was received by a participating federal agency, and your paperwork is complete, you get paid. You do not have to win the federal award to qualify.

The FY 2026-2027 solicitation (Funding Opportunity Number NCBSTI-FY2627I) was released on September 14, 2026 by the North Carolina Board of Science, Technology & Innovation. It covers qualifying federal Phase I proposals submitted from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, and it is funded at $210,000 total. Awards are made on a rolling, first-come, first-served basis until that money runs out.

At a Glance

• Program name: One North Carolina Small Business Program, SBIR/STTR Phase I Incentive Funds Program

• Funding Opportunity Number: NCBSTI-FY2627I

• Administering agency: North Carolina Board of Science, Technology & Innovation, supported by the Office of Science, Technology & Innovation at the N.C. Department of Commerce

• Authorizing statute: N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143B-437.80

• Release date: September 14, 2026

• Solicitation period: July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027

• Closing date: June 30, 2027 at 11:59 p.m. EST, or earlier if funds are exhausted

• Total funds available: $210,000

• Maximum award: $12,000 per company

• Reimbursement rate: 75 percent of eligible costs in Development Tier 1 and Tier 2 counties, 50 percent in Tier 3 counties

• Award basis: Rolling, first-come, first-served, non-competitive

• Submission system: CyberGrants, with online applications available as of September 14, 2026

What the Incentive Program Actually Does

Writing a competitive SBIR or STTR Phase I proposal is expensive before a single dollar of federal money arrives. Companies spend real cash on consultants, staff time, literature searches, dedicated lab or prototyping space, and supporting materials, and they spend it with no guarantee that the agency will fund the work. Federal SBIR success rates at most agencies sit well under 20 percent, so most of that spend is a sunk bet.

North Carolina created the Incentive Funds Program to take some of that risk off the table. The state reimburses a percentage of documented proposal preparation costs, which lowers the cost of entering the competition and makes it rational for a company to submit more proposals, to more agencies, at higher quality. The program goals written into the solicitation are explicit: increase the number and quality of North Carolina Phase I applications, pull in applicants from economically distressed counties, and raise the state's presence at federal agencies where North Carolina is underrepresented in Phase I awards, with the Department of Defense named as the specific example.

The practical effect for a founder is straightforward. Your out of pocket cost to run a serious federal proposal effort drops by half or by three quarters, capped at $12,000, and the check arrives whether or not the agency funds you.

Who Is Eligible

Company requirements

To qualify, an applicant must certify under oath, signed by an authorized official, that all of the following are true:

• The applicant is a for-profit small business with its principal place of business in North Carolina

• The applicant has not received concurrent funding from another source that duplicates the purpose of the Incentive award

• The applicant will conduct at least 51 percent of the activities described in the Phase I proposal in North Carolina, and will maintain significant North Carolina operations for the entire Phase I project if the federal award is made

• The applicant has a formal written policy addressing conflicts of interest

• The applicant has no overdue tax debts at the federal, state, or local level

The company must also have been registered with the North Carolina Secretary of State either before it submitted the federal SBIR or STTR application, or at least 90 days before it applies to the Incentive Program. Companies on the state's Suspension of Funding list are not eligible, and previous One NC Small Business Program recipients must be current on all prior award reporting.

Proposal requirements

• The proposal must be a Phase I or Fast Track SBIR or STTR proposal submitted to a participating federal agency

• The federal agency must have issued official notification of receipt during the solicitation period, meaning between July 1, 2026 and June 30, 2027

• Proposals submitted between July 1, 2026 and the September 14, 2026 release date are still accepted, as long as all other eligibility requirements are met and funding remains available

What does not qualify

• Direct to Phase II applications

• Phase II applications

• Proposals received by the federal agency outside the solicitation period

For STTR applications, the Board will only reimburse the fraction of expenses directly incurred by the small business applicant in the collaboration, not costs borne by the research institution partner.

Funding Allowance: How Much You Get Back

Reimbursement rates by county tier

Your reimbursement percentage depends on the North Carolina Development Tier designation of the county where your business is located. Tier designations are updated by the Department of Commerce every November and take effect the following January, so verify your county's current tier before you apply.

• Development Tier 1 and Tier 2 counties: 75 percent of eligible documented expenses, capped at $12,000

• Development Tier 3 counties: 50 percent of eligible documented expenses, capped at $12,000

What that looks like in practice

A company in a Tier 1 or Tier 2 county that documents $16,000 in eligible proposal preparation expenses receives the full $12,000, because $16,000 multiplied by 0.75 equals $12,000.

A company in a Tier 3 county needs to document $24,000 in eligible expenses to reach the same ceiling, because $24,000 multiplied by 0.50 equals $12,000.

If you document less than those thresholds, you receive the applicable percentage of whatever you actually documented. A Tier 3 company with $8,000 in documented eligible expenses receives $4,000.

Resubmissions

If a proposal that already received an Incentive award is revised and resubmitted, that resubmission is eligible for one additional award of up to $6,000, which is 50 percent of the statutory maximum. Eligible expenses on a resubmission are narrower than on an original: only additional data collection beyond what was gathered for the first proposal, and proposal preparation consulting fees paid to others.

Award limits

• One Incentive award per company during this solicitation period

• Ten Incentive awards per company over its lifetime

• A grant to a business partnered with a North Carolina public institution of higher education does not count against the lifetime maximum, subject to budget constraints

Eligible and Ineligible Expenses

Reimbursable costs

• Proposal preparation consulting fees paid to others. This is the single most important line item for most applicants. Fees paid to an outside grant consulting firm to develop and write the Phase I proposal are explicitly reimbursable

• Salaries paid to individuals directly involved in preparing the Phase I proposal, not to exceed the rate stated in the federal proposal budget, with proof of payment required

• Typing and word processing services

• Project related supplies and postage

• Database search fees for project related literature searches

• Rental of space or equipment directly related to preparing the federal proposal, such as dedicated lab space or a prototyping facility

• Educational program fees directly related to preparing the federal proposal

• USPTO utility patent application filing, search, examination, issue, and maintenance fees, for patents submitted within 36 months of the Phase I proposal submission and directly related to it

Non-reimbursable costs

• Travel

• Equipment purchases over $300

• Facility or leasehold improvements

• Legal fees, including legal fees associated with preparing a patent

• Fringe benefits

• Indirect costs, including rent paid for general operations

• In-kind services or deferred salaries

Documentation standards

Expenses that are incurred but not properly documented will not be reimbursed. Every receipt, invoice, or service contract must show that it was billed to the applicant with the applicant's address, the vendor name and address, the invoice date, a unique invoice number, quantity and description of the item or service with reference to the applicable SBIR or STTR proposal, unit price where applicable, total amount, and terms or due date.

Salary reimbursement requires proof of payment. That means pay stubs showing employee name, pay period dates, hours worked, rate of pay, total paid, and date and method of payment. In place of a pay stub or payroll service report, you can submit bank statements confirming the transaction plus the front and back of cleared company checks. If the hours you are claiming are less than the total hours on the pay stub, you must also submit a work log or certified statement identifying the hours that were directly related to federal proposal preparation.

USPTO receipts require payer name, payment date, payment amount, patent number, application number, fee code, fee code name, and attorney docket number.

Timeline and Key Dates

• July 1, 2026: Start of the eligible solicitation period. Federal Phase I and Fast Track proposals received by an agency on or after this date can qualify

• September 14, 2026: FY 2026-2027 Incentive solicitation released and online applications opened in CyberGrants

• Rolling, from September 14, 2026 forward: Complete applications are reviewed and approved first-come, first-served as they arrive

• Within 15 days of any request: Deadline to return supplemental materials requested by the Board or OSTI staff, or the application may be rejected without further review

• June 30, 2027 at 11:59 p.m. EST: Final deadline, or earlier if the $210,000 is exhausted before that date

• Within 30 days of federal Phase I award or denial notification: Final Report due in CyberGrants

• Three months after your fiscal year end: State Grant Compliance reporting due for the fiscal year in which you received or expended the award

Note that a separate FY 2027 Matching Funds Program solicitation is listed by N.C. Commerce with a December 14, 2026 release date. That is a different program with a different application. See the section below.

How to Apply

All applications are submitted electronically through CyberGrants, the Board's grant management system, linked from the One North Carolina Small Business Program page on the N.C. Commerce website. The system assigns an Application Reference Number when you begin. Applications missing any required response, document, or piece of information are considered incomplete and will not be funded.

The state requires DocuSign for electronic signatures. If you do not want to use DocuSign, you must use a wet signature. In-state virtual notarization is acceptable if it complies with the North Carolina Remote Electronic Notarization Act.

Required Application Documents

• A completed Grant Application and Agreement, generated by CyberGrants, including the sworn and signed eligibility attestation

• A Certificate of Existence or Certificate of Authorization from the North Carolina Secretary of State, issued no more than 90 days before your application date. This is the Certificate of Good Standing from the Secretary of State, not from the Department of Revenue, and first-time requesters need to create an Online Services account to obtain it

• A copy of the relevant pages of the federal SBIR or STTR Phase I solicitation showing the topic description, closing date, and topic reference number. A link to the solicitation does not satisfy this requirement

• A copy of the entire Phase I or Fast Track federal proposal, including the SF424 where applicable, submission cover, abstract, budget pages, key personnel, facility and performance site information, and the SBIR/STTR information page

• Evidence that the federal agency received your proposal, such as written or electronic confirmation showing the date of receipt

• A Supplier Electronic Payment Request Form with bank account verification

• A completed Certified Expense Table with supporting documentation in CyberGrants

• Copies of all receipts and supporting documents for every expense you are claiming

If your federal proposal contains proprietary or classified material that is not relevant to your Incentive eligibility, you may exclude it, but you must submit a notarized statement from an authorized official attesting that the excluded material is proprietary or classified and that economic harm or a violation of federal classification rules would result from submitting it. Applications that attempt to restrict dissemination of large amounts of information may be rejected.

How Applications Are Reviewed

There is no scoring panel and no competitive ranking. Applications are checked for compliance with the solicitation requirements and approved on a rolling, first-come, first-served basis through the end of the period or until funds are exhausted. Incomplete or non-compliant applications are rejected without further review, though the Board or OSTI staff may at their discretion request supplemental materials, which must come back within 15 days.

Once approved, the state issues payment electronically to the account listed on your Supplier Electronic Payment Form. If this is the first state payment your company has received, it may arrive as a paper check.

Reporting Requirements After Award

Recipients file a Final Report through CyberGrants within 30 days of being notified that the federal Phase I contract was awarded or denied. The report asks for the award date and contract amount if funded, an explanation if the contract was awarded but not accepted, whether the company will continue the research with its own resources if it was not funded, what material effect the Incentive award had on the firm, general comments on the program, and a summary of progress toward the original aims with significant results and any related publications.

Recipients that receive, use, or expend less than $1,000,000 in state funds in their fiscal year must also file State Grant Compliance reports within three months of fiscal year end, including a certification sworn by the treasurer and one other authorized officer, a State Grants Compliance report, and a Schedule of Grantee Receipts and Expenditures on a cash basis. Reporting delinquency is grounds for placement on the State Suspension of Funding list, which blocks future awards.

How Competitive Is It, Really

The program is non-competitive in the sense that applications are not scored against each other. The real constraint is the money. At $210,000 total and a $12,000 ceiling, this solicitation funds as few as 17 companies if applicants max out their awards.

Recent Incentive Program history gives a sense of the pace:

• FY 2026: 18 awards totaling $116,553

• FY 2025: 51 awards totaling $418,863

• FY 2024: 49 awards totaling $317,316

• FY 2023: 48 awards totaling $345,562

• FY 2022: 50 awards totaling $358,986

Across every year the Incentive Program has operated, 306 awards totaling roughly $1.8 million have gone out. Historical average awards have run well below the $12,000 ceiling, which means more than 17 companies will likely be funded this cycle. It also means companies that documented their expenses thoroughly captured substantially more than average. The two variables you control are how early you file and how completely you document.

What Comes Next: the Matching Funds Program

The Incentive Program is one half of the One North Carolina Small Business Program. The other half is the SBIR/STTR Phase I Matching Funds Program, authorized under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143B-437.81, which awards matching funds to North Carolina companies that have actually received a federal SBIR or STTR award. Its purpose is to bridge the funding gap between the final Phase I payment and the first Phase II payment, and to let companies intensify the Phase I research so they compete better for Phase II.

The Matching program is dramatically larger. In FY 2026 it made 32 awards totaling $2,368,507, and since 2006 it has made 662 awards totaling more than $42 million. Since its inception, the combined One NC Small Business Program has funded 525 North Carolina small businesses.

The sequence for a North Carolina company is therefore: submit your federal Phase I proposal, file for Incentive reimbursement of your proposal costs, and if you win the federal award, file for Matching funds. These are separate applications with separate solicitations and deadlines.

Common Mistakes That Cost Companies the Award

• Waiting. First-come, first-served with a hard funding cap means a complete application in October is worth more than a perfect one in May

• Thin receipts. An invoice without a unique invoice number, a vendor address, or a reference to the specific SBIR proposal is an invoice that does not get reimbursed

• Unproven salary claims. Claiming founder or staff time without pay stubs, cleared checks, or bank records, and without a work log separating proposal hours from other hours

• A stale Certificate of Existence. It expires for these purposes at 90 days, and first-time requests take time to process

• Submitting the wrong proposal type. Direct to Phase II and Phase II applications are not eligible, no matter how strong they are

• No conflict of interest policy on file. The solicitation includes a sample policy in its appendix. There is no reason to be missing this one

• Missing the 15 day supplemental materials window after the Board requests additional information

How BW&CO Helps

BW&CO Consulting is a non-dilutive federal funding advisory firm that has helped clients secure more than $350 million in government funding across NIH, NSF, DoD, NASA, DOE, and ARPA-H. Innovation Funding Simplified is not a slogan for us, it is the workflow.

For North Carolina companies, the two programs stack in a way that is worth being deliberate about. Proposal preparation consulting fees paid to an outside firm are an explicitly reimbursable expense under this solicitation, which means the state will cover 50 to 75 percent of what you spend on professional proposal development, up to the $12,000 cap.

When a company engages BW&CO to develop its federal SBIR or STTR Phase I proposal, we prepare and submit the North Carolina Incentive Funds application on your behalf at no additional cost. You focus on the science and the federal submission. We handle the expense table, the receipts package, the Certificate of Existence timing, the attestations, and the CyberGrants filing, and we file it early enough to matter.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the One North Carolina SBIR/STTR Phase I Incentive Funds Program?

It is a North Carolina state reimbursement program that pays qualified North Carolina small businesses back for a portion of the costs they incurred preparing and submitting a federal SBIR or STTR Phase I proposal. It is authorized under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143B-437.80 and administered by the North Carolina Board of Science, Technology & Innovation. The FY 2026-2027 solicitation number is NCBSTI-FY2627I.

How much money can my company receive?

Up to $12,000. Companies in Development Tier 1 and Tier 2 counties are reimbursed 75 percent of eligible documented expenses, and companies in Tier 3 counties are reimbursed 50 percent. To hit the $12,000 ceiling, a Tier 1 or Tier 2 company needs $16,000 in documented eligible expenses and a Tier 3 company needs $24,000.

What is the deadline for the FY 2026-2027 solicitation?

June 30, 2027 at 11:59 p.m. EST, or earlier if the available funds are exhausted first. Because awards are made first-come, first-served against a $210,000 pool, the practical deadline is whenever the money runs out.

Do I have to win the federal SBIR award to get this money?

No. Reimbursement is triggered by proof that a participating federal agency received your qualifying Phase I or Fast Track proposal, not by whether the agency funds it. You do have to file a Final Report within 30 days of learning whether the federal award was made or denied.

Are SBIR consulting fees reimbursable under this program?

Yes. Proposal preparation consulting fees paid to others are the first item on the solicitation's list of reimbursable costs. Fees paid to an outside grant writing or proposal development firm qualify, as long as they are properly invoiced and documented.

Are Direct to Phase II or Phase II proposals eligible?

No. The FY 2026-2027 Incentive solicitation covers Phase I and Fast Track proposals only. Direct to Phase II and Phase II applications are explicitly excluded.

Is a Fast Track proposal eligible?

Yes. Fast Track proposals are eligible alongside standard Phase I proposals, provided the federal agency issued official notification of receipt during the solicitation period.

What proposals fall inside the eligible window?

Proposals for which a participating federal agency issued official notification of receipt between July 1, 2026 and June 30, 2027. Proposals submitted between July 1, 2026 and the September 14, 2026 release date are still accepted if all other eligibility requirements are met and funding remains available.

How do I find out which Development Tier my county is in?

The N.C. Department of Commerce publishes current County Distress Rankings, also called Tier designations. Tiers are recalculated each November and take effect the following January, so confirm your county's current designation before applying rather than relying on a prior year.

How many times can my company apply?

Once during this solicitation period, and no more than ten times over the life of the company. Awards to a business partnered with a North Carolina public institution of higher education do not count toward that lifetime limit, subject to budget constraints.

What if my proposal was declined and I want to resubmit?

A single resubmission of a proposal that already received an Incentive award can receive one additional award of up to $6,000. Eligible expenses on the resubmission are limited to additional data collection beyond what was gathered for the original proposal, plus proposal preparation consulting fees paid to others.

What expenses are not reimbursable?

Travel, equipment purchases over $300, facility or leasehold improvements, legal fees including patent preparation legal fees, fringe benefits, indirect costs such as general operating rent, and in-kind services or deferred salaries.

Do I need to be registered with the North Carolina Secretary of State?

Yes. Your company must have been registered with the North Carolina Secretary of State either before you submitted the federal SBIR or STTR application, or at least 90 days before you apply to the Incentive Program. Your application must include a Certificate of Existence or Certificate of Authorization issued no more than 90 days before the application date.

How is this different from the NC SBIR/STTR Matching Funds Program?

The Incentive Program reimburses what you spent writing the proposal and does not require a federal win. The Matching Funds Program, authorized under N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 143B-437.81, awards matching money to companies that have already received a federal SBIR or STTR award, to bridge the gap between Phase I and Phase II. They are separate programs with separate solicitations, and a company can use both in sequence.

How competitive is the program?

Applications are not scored against each other, so there is no competitive review. The constraint is the $210,000 funding pool and the first-come, first-served rule. Historically the Incentive Program has made between 18 and 51 awards per year, with average awards well under the $12,000 cap.

When should I apply?

As soon as you have official confirmation that the federal agency received your Phase I proposal and you have assembled complete expense documentation. Because funds are awarded in the order complete applications arrive, filing early in the period is a meaningful advantage over filing in spring.

Talk to Us Before You Spend the Money

The companies that capture the full $12,000 are the ones that decided how they would document the spend before they started spending. If you are a North Carolina company planning a federal SBIR or STTR Phase I submission this cycle, or you have already submitted one since July 1, 2026, we can tell you quickly whether you qualify and what your reimbursement is likely to be.

2027 NIA Start-Up Challenge and Accelerator: Complete Guide for Startups

Executive Summary

The 2027 NIA Start-Up Challenge and Accelerator is a prize competition from the National Institute on Aging (NIA), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), that awards up to $994,000 in non-dilutive cash prizes plus a five month entrepreneurial accelerator to early-stage innovators building technologies that improve the health and well-being of older adults. Submissions are accepted from December 1, 2026 through 11:59 p.m. ET on January 15, 2027. Up to 21 Stage 1 finalists each receive $24,000 and a seat in the accelerator, and up to 7 Stage 2 winners each receive an additional $70,000.

This is the fourth cycle of the Start-Up Challenge. It is run by the NIA Office of Strategic Extramural Programs under the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, as amended (15 U.S.C. 3719). It is designed for researchers and innovators who are new to entrepreneurship, and it is explicitly built as a runway into the NIA SBIR and STTR programs.

Key facts at a glance

• Sponsor: National Institute on Aging (NIA), NIH, within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• Program type: Prize competition and accelerator, not a grant or contract

• Total prize pool: Up to $994,000

• Stage 1 award: $24,000 each to up to 21 finalists, plus accelerator participation

• Stage 2 award: $70,000 each to up to 7 winners selected from the finalist pool

• Equity taken: None. Prize money is fully non-dilutive

• Submission window: December 1, 2026 to January 15, 2027 at 11:59 p.m. ET

• Informational webinar: December 3, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. ET

• Accelerator period: June 2027 through November 2027

• Who it is for: First-time or aspiring entrepreneurs with science-driven aging and healthspan technologies

• Key disqualifier: You cannot be the principal investigator on an active NIH SBIR or STTR award as of the close of the submission period

• Award Approving Official: NIA Director Richard J. Hodes, M.D.

Who should apply to the 2027 NIA Start-Up Challenge?

NIA is targeting a specific profile, and understanding that profile is the single largest driver of a competitive submission. The Challenge invites submissions from researchers and innovators who are new to entrepreneurship or actively seeking to pursue it, and who propose innovative, science-driven technologies with the potential to improve the health and well-being of older adults.

Unusually for a federal funding opportunity, the scoring rewards need as heavily as it rewards technical merit. Half of the Stage 1 score, 50 of 100 points, is allocated to the impact the Challenge would have on the submitter and the impact the submitter would have on NIA's small business research portfolio. A strong submission therefore has to make two arguments at once: that the technology is compelling, and that the applicant lacks the entrepreneurial training, mentorship, network, and capital that the Challenge provides.

Strong candidate profiles include:

• Academic investigators, postdocs, and clinician scientists with aging-relevant technology who have never commercialized

• Founders of very early stage companies with no prior NIH SBIR or STTR award as PI

• Teams with deep scientific expertise and acknowledged gaps in business, regulatory, or reimbursement strategy

• Innovators whose caregiving experience, clinical practice, or lived experience informs a differentiated approach to aging

• Individuals or teams planning to form a U.S. owned and operated small business ahead of an SBIR or STTR submission

Poor fits include established SBIR awardees, teams that already have institutional venture backing and full commercialization support, and applicants whose product is a modest variation on something already commercialized or already funded through the NIA SBIR and STTR programs.

What is NIA looking for? Detailed technology overview

NIA is seeking innovative tools, technologies, and interventions that prevent, diagnose, treat, monitor, or slow the progression of aging-related diseases and conditions, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias. The scope also extends well beyond disease treatment into the mechanics of daily life for older adults.

Core areas of interest

• Aging-related disease and condition management: prevention, diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and slowing of progression, with explicit emphasis on Alzheimer's disease and AD-related dementias

• Healthy aging and healthspan: solutions that promote healthy aging across the population rather than treating a single endpoint

• Aging in place of choice: technologies that let older adults remain in the living setting they prefer

• Care delivery improvement: tools that improve how care is coordinated, delivered, and measured

• Caregiver burden reduction: solutions that reduce the practical, cognitive, and emotional load on formal and informal caregivers

Artificial intelligence is a stated priority

This cycle carries a particular interest in solutions leveraging artificial intelligence, including data-driven and machine learning approaches. NIA names four AI application areas specifically:

• Early detection of aging-related disease and decline

• Risk prediction and stratification

• Personalized interventions

• Rapid drug discovery and development

This interest is tied to a broader HHS priority to advance digital tools for the prevention of disease and to improve health status and health outcomes. If your technology has a credible AI or machine learning component, name it plainly and tie it to one of these four functions rather than describing AI as a generic feature.

Evidence, accessibility, and population reach

NIA asks submitters to prioritize evidence-based solutions that are broadly accessible and effective across the aging population. Reviewers expect you to account for the range of factors that determine whether a solution actually works in the field, including biological, social, behavioral, economic, environmental, and regional factors. A product that only performs for a narrow, well-resourced, technologically fluent subset of older adults will score poorly on reach.

Two differentiation requirements you cannot skip

Submissions must address both of the following, and weak submissions routinely ignore the second:

• Differentiation from existing commercialized products. Describe how your solution is substantially different from what is already on the market, not incrementally better.

• Expansion of the NIA SBIR and STTR portfolio. Describe how your approach would expand the types of technologies and approaches NIA already funds. NIA points applicants to the NIH RePORTER database to review existing and active NIA SBIR and STTR awards. Doing this research and referencing it directly is one of the cheapest ways to pick up points under the portfolio impact criterion.

Where this Challenge sits in the federal innovation pipeline

NIA positions the Start-Up Challenge as a bridge that prepares participants to pursue other programs, and it names several by way of context: the ACL Caregiver AI Challenge, FDA's READI-Home Innovation Challenge, a2 Collective pilot awards, and the NIA SBIR and STTR programs. Prior cohorts have gone on to raise follow-on venture capital, launch pilot studies, and win SBIR and STTR grants.

Funding allowance: how much money is available and how it can be used

NIA will award up to $994,000 in total cash prizes across two stages, alongside an accelerator program delivered at no cost to participants.

Stage 1: up to 21 finalists at $24,000 each

Up to twenty one Stage 1 finalists are selected from the initial submission pool. Each finalist receives a $24,000 cash prize and a seat in the five month accelerator. The prize is disbursed within three months of the start of the accelerator program, meaning cash typically lands during the summer of 2027.

The Stage 1 prize is intended to support critical early-stage business and product development activities identified during the program. At their discretion, finalists may also use a portion of the funds to cover participation in the two in-person events, including travel expenses.

Stage 2: up to 7 winners at $70,000 each

Up to seven Stage 2 winners are selected from the Stage 1 finalist pool, and each receives an additional $70,000 cash prize. Stage 2 is a closed competition among finalists, so no new applicants enter at this point. A single team that advances through both stages can therefore receive up to $94,000 in total prize money.

How prize money differs from grant funding

Because this is a prize competition rather than an assistance award, the money behaves differently from an SBIR or STTR grant. Points worth planning around:

• No line item budget or budget justification is submitted or approved

• No indirect cost rate, no fringe calculations, and no cost accounting requirements attach to the prize itself

• Prizes may be subject to federal income taxes. HHS and NIH comply with IRS withholding and reporting requirements where applicable, so plan for the tax treatment of the award

• Payment is by electronic funds transfer. Participants are encouraged, though not required, to obtain a free Unique Entity ID (UEI) through SAM.gov to expedite payment

• No equity, warrants, or repayment obligation. The award is fully non-dilutive

• Registration costs for both in-person events are covered by the program, but travel-related costs are paid by the participant

• NIH reserves the right to cancel, suspend, or modify the Challenge, and to decline to award prizes if no submissions are deemed worthy

What the accelerator program includes

The accelerator is arguably worth more than the Stage 1 cash prize for a first-time founder. It runs for approximately five months from June 2027 through November 2027 and is delivered at no cost to finalists.

• Weekly virtual education sessions led by industry experts

• One-to-one mentorship from experienced founders and investors

• Guidance on the NIH SBIR and STTR application process, requirements, and resources

• Business and regulatory guidance at no cost to the finalist

• In-depth pitch coaching

• A three-day entrepreneur bootcamp in June 2027, in person

• A three-day health innovation and investment conference in November 2027, in person

• Virtual and in-person networking with key industry partners

Time commitment

Finalists should expect to commit 6 to 8 hours per week for approximately five months, covering virtual education sessions, mentor meetings, and the two in-person events. This is a real operational load. Teams should decide in advance who will carry it.

Stage 1 learning objectives

By the end of the accelerator, participants should be able to:

• Assess the target market opportunity for the problem they have identified

• Develop a value proposition that solves an identified unmet need

• Create a scalable go-to-market strategy

• Evaluate applicable intellectual property, regulatory, and reimbursement pathways

• Generate basic pro forma financial projections and understand the principles of valuation

• Determine the legal and governance structure best suited to their venture

• Prepare and deliver a compelling 2 minute elevator pitch and 7 minute pitch presentation

• Understand the NIA SBIR and STTR grant application process, requirements, and resources

2027 NIA Start-Up Challenge timeline and key dates

• September 1, 2026: Challenge launched

• December 1, 2026: Registration and submission portal opens

• December 3, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. ET: Informational webinar, registration required

• January 15, 2027 at 11:59 p.m. ET: Submission deadline. Late submissions will not be accepted

• By May 2027: All submissions that reach technical review receive a brief summary of reviewer feedback

• May 2027: Stage 1 finalists announced

• June 2027: Accelerator begins, three-day in-person entrepreneur bootcamp

• June to November 2027: Stage 1 accelerator program, 6 to 8 hours per week

• By November 1, 2027: Stage 2 deadline to form an SBIR or STTR eligible company and meet with an NIH program officer

• November 2027: Three-day health innovation and investment conference, plus final Stage 2 submission and pitch due

• January 2028: Stage 2 winners announced

Practical planning note: the full arc from submission to Stage 2 award runs roughly thirteen months. Founders should treat the December 2026 to January 2027 window as the only entry point for this cycle.

Eligibility rules: who can win a prize

To be eligible to win a prize, a participant, whether an individual, a group of individuals, or an entity, must satisfy all of the following.

• Registered to participate under the rules published in the official Challenge announcement, and complied with all requirements set forth in it

• May not be the principal investigator on an NIH SBIR or STTR award that is active as of the submission period end date

• May not have been a finalist in a previous version of the NIA Start-Up Challenge

• Private entities must be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States

• Individuals, whether competing alone or in a group, must be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident

• Non-U.S. citizens and non-permanent residents may participate as team members on an otherwise eligible team, but are not eligible to win a monetary prize in whole or in part. Their participation on a winning team may be recognized when results are announced

• May not be a federal entity or a federal employee acting within the scope of employment

• May not be an HHS employee, from any HHS component, acting in a personal capacity

• Employees of federal agencies other than HHS should consult an agency ethics official to determine whether federal ethics rules limit or prohibit accepting a prize

• May not be a Challenge judge, or any other party involved in the design, production, execution, or distribution of the Challenge, or an immediate family member of such a party, meaning spouse, parent, step-parent, child, or step-child

• Must be 18 years of age or older at the time of submission

Participation rules and federal funding restrictions

The small business formation commitment

By participating, each individual, group, or entity certifies that they have either already formed a U.S. owned and operated small business, or intend to form one by November 1, 2027, that meets the eligibility requirements to apply for NIH SBIR and STTR funding. You do not need an incorporated company at the time of submission, but you are committing to stand one up on that timeline.

Use of federal funds

• Participants may not use federal grant or cooperative agreement funds to develop a submission or to fund efforts supporting a submission unless that use is consistent with the purpose, terms, and conditions of the award

• Participants intending to use federal grant or cooperative agreement funds must register and participate as an Entity on behalf of the awardee institution or organization, not as an individual

• If federal grant or cooperative agreement funds are used and the participant wins, the prize must be treated as program income under the original award in accordance with 2 CFR 200

• Federal contractors may not use federal contract funds to develop a submission or fund supporting efforts

• Using federal facilities or consulting federal employees does not make a participant ineligible, provided those facilities and employees are available to all participants on an equitable basis

Risk, insurance, and compliance

• Participants assume all risks and waive claims against the federal government and related entities, except in cases of willful misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits arising from participation

• No liability insurance, demonstration of financial responsibility, or indemnification agreement is required to participate in this Challenge

• Participants must follow all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies

• Participation constitutes full and unconditional agreement to abide by the Challenge rules, and winning is contingent on fulfilling all requirements

• Finalists and winners must complete and submit all requested winner verification and payment documents within 3 business days of formal notification. Missing that window can disqualify an otherwise winning submission

How to enter the 2027 NIA Start-Up Challenge

The registration and submission link opens December 1, 2026 on the official NIH Challenges page for this competition. Plan to register and submit by 11:59 p.m. ET on January 15, 2027.

Confidentiality warning

Do not include any confidential or proprietary information in your submission materials. By submitting, you agree to allow NIA to publish all or parts of your submission materials on nia.nih.gov. This has real consequences for intellectual property strategy. File provisionals before you describe protectable subject matter, and write the submission to be publishable.

For teams

Each team must identify a Team Lead who registers and submits on behalf of the team. The Team Lead manages all communication with Challenge sponsors and, if a cash prize is won, receives the full amount of the prize. The Team Lead must be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to be eligible to receive a cash prize. If a dispute over the Team Lead's identity cannot be resolved to NIH's satisfaction, the submission is considered ineligible. Teams should settle internal allocation of prize funds in writing before submitting.

For entities

Each entity must identify a Point of Contact who registers and submits on its behalf and handles all communications. If a prize is won, payment goes to the entity, not to the Point of Contact. The entity must be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States. Submitters intending to use federal grant or cooperative agreement funds must participate as an Entity on behalf of the awardee institution or organization.

Submission requirements

• Multiple submissions are allowed, but only one submission from each individual, team, or entity will be selected for participation as a finalist

• Late submissions will not be accepted

How submissions are scored

The four step review process

• Eligibility and programmatic review. NIA program staff review every submission for eligibility and programmatic relevance, conduct a preliminary evaluation, and assign an initial score. Only submissions with a competitive preliminary score advance

• Technical review. Submissions are individually evaluated and scored by reviewers with expertise in aging research, life science entrepreneurship and investment, business development, and product development, drawn from federal government, academia, industry, and other sectors

• Final evaluation by federal judges. A panel of federal employees reviews the submissions and technical evaluations, assigns a final score, and recommends top-performing teams for a screening call with NIA Challenge staff

• Screening and finalist selection. After screening calls, NIA Challenge staff recommend up to 21 finalists for approval by the Award Approving Official

Stage 1 evaluation criteria, 100 points total

• Significance, 0 to 15 points. How strong is the product's potential to address a significant unmet need in the older adult population, and to what extent does the scientific premise support the merits of the idea

• Innovation, 0 to 15 points. How novel is the idea, and what is the potential competitive advantage or the potential to refine the product to improve that advantage

• Commercialization, 0 to 10 points. How effectively is commercial potential explained, is there a clearly defined market, and does the business strategy have high potential for success

• Submitter or team, 0 to 10 points. Level of demonstrated commitment and collaboration, and relevant expertise each person brings

• Challenge Impact on the Submitter, 0 to 25 points. Does the submitter describe a scientific, technical, professional, or personal background, such as lack of access to resources and networks, that demonstrates a need for the training and resources the Challenge provides, and how they will significantly benefit at their stage of product development

• Challenge Impact on NIA Research and Development, 0 to 25 points. To what extent will participation enhance the impact and reach of NIA-funded small business research and development

The portfolio impact criterion, and how to earn it

For the 25 point Challenge Impact on NIA Research and Development criterion, submissions are evaluated on their potential to achieve at least two of the following:

• The submission addresses an underfunded area relevant to NIA small business research priorities. Active NIA SBIR and STTR awards can be reviewed in NIH RePORTER

• The product addresses a unique challenge or unmet need for older adults

• The individual or team brings relevant background, experience, or perspectives that would broaden and strengthen aging-related research and development

On that third point, NIA states that the race, ethnicity, or sex of the submitter may not be considered as part of any evaluation criteria. Permissible considerations named in the announcement include experience as a caregiver for older adults, including individuals with Alzheimer's disease or AD-related dementias; training or research experience that offers a complementary or innovative perspective; and lived experiences involving challenges or barriers that inform a unique approach to aging-related research and innovation.

Stage 2 requirements for finalists

To compete for the $70,000 Stage 2 prize, finalists must meet all of the following by the established deadlines:

• Form a company eligible to apply for an NIH SBIR or STTR grant, and meet with an NIH program officer to discuss the aims and objectives of a potential proposal, by November 1, 2027

• Successfully complete a comprehensive entrepreneurship training program and demonstrate proficiency in presenting the business concept to a wide public audience, including prospective partners and investors. Finalists are strongly encouraged to attend the in-person bootcamp and conference, but may propose an alternative comparable program with prior approval

• Submit a one-page document outlining the potential prize impact on advancing the business and innovation and on furthering the NIA mission

• Submit a 7-minute pitch video addressing the product's potential and the strength of the team

Stage 2 evaluation criteria, 100 points total

The Stage 2 panel is composed of NIA program staff, and it evaluates the one-page document, the 7 minute pitch, and a mentor assessment that offers an expert view on the anticipated impact of the prize based on the mentor's technical expertise and experience advising the finalist.

Mentor assessment and one-page document, 45 points:

• Prize Impact on Innovation Advancement, 0 to 30 points. Is there a clear, strong plan for how prize funds will play a critical role in accelerating development, through means including expanding the team, collecting pilot data, securing customers, and raising funds

• Prize Impact on NIA Research and Development, 0 to 15 points. Do the materials describe in detail at least one of the portfolio impact factors listed above

7-minute pitch video, 55 points:

• Significance, 0 to 15 points

• Innovation, 0 to 15 points

• Commercialization, 0 to 10 points, including strength of value proposition and clarity of the defined market

• Submitter or team, 0 to 10 points, including whether significant expertise gaps exist and how strong the plan is to fill them

• Pitch Delivery, 0 to 5 points, covering clarity of verbal delivery and visual slides

How to build a competitive submission

The scoring rubric rewards a specific kind of narrative. Based on how the criteria are weighted, the highest-leverage moves are:

• Lead with the unmet need in the older adult population, not the technology. Significance is scored on the need first and the scientific premise second

• Do the NIH RePORTER homework and cite it. Two separate criteria, one in each stage, reward showing that your approach sits in an underfunded area of the NIA SBIR and STTR portfolio. Very few applicants actually run this analysis

• Make the need for the Challenge explicit and specific. Twenty five points hinge on it. Name the gaps: no commercialization experience, no investor network, no regulatory or reimbursement expertise, no capital for pilot data. Vagueness is expensive here

• Tie AI claims to one of NIA's four named AI functions. Early detection, risk prediction, personalized interventions, or rapid drug discovery and development

• Address accessibility and population reach directly. Show that the solution works across the biological, social, behavioral, economic, environmental, and regional variation in the aging population

• Answer the differentiation question twice. Once against commercialized products, once against the existing NIA SBIR and STTR portfolio

• Write for publication. Since NIA may publish submission materials and confidential information is prohibited, sequence your IP filings before you submit

• Plan the operational load. Name who on the team will carry 6 to 8 hours per week from June through November 2027, and budget for travel to two three-day in-person events

How this fits a broader non-dilutive funding strategy

The Start-Up Challenge is best understood as an on-ramp rather than a destination. The $24,000 Stage 1 prize is real money for pilot data and formation costs, but the durable value is the SBIR and STTR readiness the accelerator builds and the Stage 2 requirement that you form an eligible company and meet with an NIH program officer by November 1, 2027. That program officer conversation is a standard precursor to a competitive NIH SBIR or STTR submission.

Two important caveats. First, NIA is explicit that Challenge participation or selection as a winner has no impact on grant funding decisions by NIA or any other NIH component. All grant applications remain subject to competition, peer review, and all other application and award requirements. Second, grant application technical assistance is not exclusive to Challenge participants. NIH resources are available to any entrepreneur through the NIH SEED program.

For teams that are already SBIR-ready, or whose PI holds an active NIH SBIR or STTR award and is therefore ineligible, the better path is to go directly at the NIA SBIR and STTR omnibus solicitations rather than at this Challenge.

Frequently asked questions

Is the NIA Start-Up Challenge a grant?

No. It is a prize competition authorized under the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, as amended (15 U.S.C. 3719). There is no budget justification, no indirect cost rate, and no cost accounting requirement attached to the prize. Prize funds may be subject to federal income taxes, unlike most grant funds.

How much money can a startup win?

A single team can win up to $94,000, consisting of a $24,000 Stage 1 finalist prize and a $70,000 Stage 2 winner prize. NIA will award up to $994,000 in total across up to 21 finalists and up to 7 winners.

Does NIA take equity in exchange for the prize?

No. The prize money is fully non-dilutive. There is no equity, warrant, revenue share, or repayment obligation.

Do I need to have a company formed before I apply?

No. You may apply as an individual, a team, or an entity. By participating you certify that you have already formed a U.S. owned and operated small business or intend to form one by November 1, 2027 that meets NIH SBIR and STTR eligibility requirements.

Can I apply if I already have an NIH SBIR or STTR award?

Not if you are the principal investigator on an NIH SBIR or STTR award that is active as of the submission period end date of January 15, 2027. That is a hard eligibility bar.

Can previous NIA Start-Up Challenge finalists reapply?

No. Anyone who was a finalist in a previous version of the NIA Start-Up Challenge is not eligible to win a prize in this cycle.

Can international founders and non-U.S. citizens participate?

Non-U.S. citizens and non-permanent residents can participate as members of a team that otherwise meets eligibility requirements, and their participation on a winning team may be recognized publicly. They are not eligible to win a monetary prize in whole or in part. Individual participants must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and participating entities must be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States.

When does the submission window open and close?

The submission portal opens December 1, 2026 and closes at 11:59 p.m. ET on January 15, 2027. Late submissions will not be accepted. An informational webinar is scheduled for December 3, 2026 at 1:00 p.m. ET.

How many submissions can I make?

Multiple submissions are allowed, but only one submission from each individual, team, or entity will be selected for participation as a finalist.

How much time does the accelerator require?

Participants should expect to commit 6 to 8 hours per week for approximately five months, from June through November 2027. That includes weekly virtual education sessions, mentor meetings, and two three-day in-person events.

Are travel costs to the in-person events covered?

Registration costs for both in-person events are covered by the program, but travel-related costs are paid by the participant. Finalists may use a portion of the $24,000 Stage 1 prize to cover travel.

Do I have to attend the in-person events?

Finalists are strongly encouraged to attend the June 2027 entrepreneur bootcamp and the November 2027 health innovation and investment conference. Finalists may propose an alternative, comparable training program or conference for prior approval.

Can I use federal grant funds to prepare my submission?

Only if that use is consistent with the purpose, terms, and conditions of the grant or cooperative agreement. If you do, you must register and participate as an Entity on behalf of the awardee institution, and any prize won must be treated as program income under the original award in accordance with 2 CFR 200. Federal contractors may not use federal contract funds for this purpose.

Does winning improve my chances of receiving an NIH SBIR or STTR award?

No. NIA states that Challenge participation or selection as a winner has no impact on funding decisions by NIA or any other NIH component. All grant applications remain subject to competition, peer review, and standard award requirements. Grant application technical assistance is also available to any entrepreneur through NIH SEED, not only to Challenge participants.

Is the prize money taxable?

Prizes awarded under this Challenge may be subject to federal income taxes. HHS and NIH comply with IRS withholding and reporting requirements where applicable. Prizes are paid by electronic funds transfer, and participants are encouraged though not required to obtain a free Unique Entity ID through SAM.gov to expedite payment.

What happens if I am not selected as a finalist?

All submissions that reach the technical review step will receive a brief summary of reviewer feedback by May 2027. That feedback is useful input for a future SBIR or STTR application.

Can I include confidential or proprietary information in my submission?

No. Confidential and proprietary information must be excluded. By submitting, you agree to allow NIA to publish all or parts of your submission materials on nia.nih.gov, so intellectual property filings should be sequenced before submission.

Who receives the prize money for a team submission?

For teams, the Team Lead receives the full amount of the prize and must be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. For entities, the prize is paid directly to the entity rather than to the Point of Contact. Teams should document internal allocation of any prize funds in writing before submitting.

Official resources and next steps

• Challenge page: nih.gov/challenges/2027-nia-start-challenge-accelerator

• NIA program page: nia.nih.gov/research/sbir/start-challenge

• Challenge team email: niastartupchallenge@nih.gov

• Portfolio research: NIH RePORTER, to identify active NIA SBIR and STTR awards and underfunded areas

• Entity registration: sam.gov, to obtain a free Unique Entity ID

If you are weighing this Challenge against a direct NIA SBIR or STTR submission, or you want help building the portfolio gap analysis and need narrative that the scoring rubric rewards most heavily, reach out to our team. We help deep-tech, biotech, and medtech founders win non-dilutive federal funding, and we can tell you quickly whether this Challenge is the right entry point for your company or a detour.

FY2026 Reconstructive Transplant Research Program (RTRP): What Startups Need to Know

Executive Summary

The FY2026 Reconstructive Transplant Research Program (RTRP) is a Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs (CDMRP) funding opportunity that supports research to advance the science and clinical practice of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA). The FY2026 appropriation is $12 million, and the program is soliciting applications through two separate award mechanisms: the Concept Award (up to $200,000 over 18 months) and the Investigator-Initiated Research Award (up to $1 million over 3 years). A Letter of Intent is required for both, due October 21, 2026, with full applications due November 4, 2026.

This is non-dilutive federal grant funding. Awards are made as grants under 31 USC 6304, so there is no equity, no repayment, and no cost sharing requirement. For-profit companies, including early-stage startups, are explicitly eligible.

What Is the Reconstructive Transplant Research Program?

Congress initiated the RTRP in 2012 to support research of high potential impact and exceptional scientific merit that refines approaches for, and increases access to, reconstructive transplants and state-of-the-art immunotherapy. Appropriations from FY2012 through FY2024 totaled $153 million. The FY2026 appropriation is $12 million.

VCA refers to the transplantation of multiple tissues such as muscle, bone, nerve, and skin as a functional unit, for example a hand or a face, from a deceased donor to a recipient with a severe injury. The program's stated goal is to return injured Service Members to duty and restore their quality of life, while also improving access, safety, and outcomes for Veterans and the American public.

Administratively, the program sits inside the CDMRP, which is located within Defense Health Agency Research and Development (DHA R&D), part of the Department of Defense. Both FY2026 announcements refer to DOD using the secondary title Department of War (DOW), so applicants will see "DOW" used throughout the solicitation documents. The Defense Health Agency Contracting Activity (DHACA) is soliciting applications under the delegated authority of 10 USC 4001. The Assistance Listing Number is 12.420.

The Two FY2026 RTRP Award Mechanisms

Both mechanisms share the same focus areas, the same deadlines, and the same submission process. They differ in eligibility, budget, duration, page limits, and, most importantly, whether preliminary data is allowed.

Concept Award (HT942526RTRPCA)

• Maximum funding: $200,000 in total costs for the entire period of performance, including direct and indirect costs

• Maximum period of performance: 18 months

• Expected awards: CDMRP expects to allot roughly $0.6 million to fund approximately 3 awards

• Eligible PI: Investigators at or above the level of postdoctoral fellow

• Preliminary data: Not allowed. Applications must instead demonstrate the ability to achieve interpretable results and provide a clear rationale

• Project Narrative: 2-page limit

• Clinical trials: Not allowed

• Announcement type: Modified. Version code CD26_01d

• Historical competitiveness: First offered in FY2015. Since then the program has received 196 Concept Award applications and recommended 26 for funding, a success rate of roughly 13 percent

The Concept Award exists to fund highly innovative new concepts or untested theories. It is designed for high-risk work that could reveal entirely new avenues of investigation, not the logical next step in an established research program. Innovation is the primary scored consideration, and research that represents an incremental advance on published data is explicitly not considered innovative.

Because the Concept Award is built for preliminary investigation, projects involving human subjects or human anatomical substances will not be supported unless they are exempt under 32 CFR 219.104(d) or eligible for expedited review under 32 CFR 219.110 or 21 CFR 56.110. Studies that do not qualify for exempt status or expedited review will be administratively withdrawn.

Investigator-Initiated Research Award (HT942526RTRPIIRA)

• Maximum funding: $1 million in total costs for the entire period of performance, including direct and indirect costs

• Maximum period of performance: 3 years

• Expected awards: CDMRP expects to allot roughly $8.0 million to fund approximately 8 awards

• Eligible PI: Independent investigators at all career levels

• Preliminary data: Required. Preliminary and/or published data relevant to reconstructive transplantation that support the rationale for the proposed work must be included

• Project Narrative: 10-page limit

• Clinical trials: Not allowed, although correlative studies associated with an existing clinical trial are permitted

• Announcement type: Initial. Version code CD26_01d

• Historical competitiveness: First offered in FY2016. Since then the program has received 253 applications and recommended 43 for funding, a success rate of roughly 17 percent

The Investigator-Initiated Research Award supports studies with the potential to make an important contribution to reconstructive transplant research, patient care, and quality of life. Applications may focus on any phase of research from basic through translational, including preclinical studies in animal models and clinical research in human subjects or human anatomical substances. Every project must demonstrate solid scientific rationale with military-relevant utility, a rigorous study design, and a statistical plan with appropriate power analysis.

FY2026 RTRP Deadlines and Timeline

Both award mechanisms follow the identical schedule. Note that the Concept Award deadlines were extended on August 11, 2026 so that both mechanisms share one receipt cycle.

• Pre-Application (Letter of Intent) deadline: October 21, 2026, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time

• Full application deadline: November 4, 2026, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time

• End of application verification period: November 9, 2026, 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time

• Peer review: January 2027

• Programmatic review: March 2027

• Funding recommendations posted to eBRAP: typically within 6 weeks after programmatic review

• Awards made: no later than September 30, 2027

• FY2026 funds expire for use: September 30, 2032

There are no grace periods. DHACA cannot make allowances or exceptions for submission problems encountered by the applicant, so registrations and portal access need to be resolved well ahead of October.

Who Is Eligible to Apply

Organizations: Extramural and intramural DOW organizations are eligible, including foreign and domestic organizations, for-profit and nonprofit organizations, and public or private entities. Awards are made to organizations, not to individuals.

Principal Investigators: Eligibility is set by mechanism. The Concept Award requires an investigator at or above the level of postdoctoral fellow. The Investigator-Initiated Research Award requires an independent investigator, and all career levels qualify. In both cases, eligibility applies regardless of ethnicity, nationality, or citizenship status, and PIs do not need to be affiliated with an academic organization.

Application limits: An investigator may be named as PI on no more than two Concept Award applications and no more than two Investigator-Initiated Research Award applications in FY2026. If more than two are received naming the same PI for a given mechanism, only the first two received will be accepted.

Cost sharing: Not required for either mechanism.

FY2026 RTRP Focus Areas: What the Program Is Looking For

Applications to either mechanism must address at least one focus area along with at least one of its accompanying sub-bullets. This is a compliance requirement, not a suggestion, and the focus areas are identical across both awards.

1. Improve or optimize VCA immunosuppression

• Define the unique targets and mechanisms of VCA immunogenicity and its regulation

• Develop novel tolerogenic agents or approaches for VCA immunosuppression

• Develop less toxic or personalized regimens for maintenance immunosuppression

2. Identify or validate biomarkers, methods, or tools for monitoring VCA graft rejection and immunosuppression

• Identify or validate reliable biomarkers for predicting and monitoring acute and chronic VCA rejection in the clinic, meaning in human clinical samples

• Develop assays, devices, or technology for clinical graft monitoring using biomarkers, with proposed devices accounting for human use factors unique to VCA recipients

• Identify or validate reliable approaches to measuring and monitoring in vivo or clinical immunosuppression levels

3. Advance VCA preservation strategies

• Develop promising static preservation strategies, active perfusion modalities, or other technologies for translation to the clinic

• Develop mitigation strategies for preservation-mediated injury, including immune activation or ischemia reperfusion injury

4. Develop tools for measuring VCA outcomes

• Performance or function-based measures

• Patient-reported measures

• Neurocognitive measures

Leveraging solid organ transplant findings

The RTRP explicitly allows applicants to bring novel findings from solid organ transplant research into a VCA setting, provided the rationale and benefits are justified. The solicitation offers three acceptable framings: explain why the anticipated result might be different in VCA, why it is important to confirm the result is the same in VCA, or why repeating the study in a VCA setting could produce new mechanistic insight into the unique aspects of VCA. If your company's platform was developed for kidney, liver, or heart transplant, this is the language to build your rationale around.

Funding Allowance and Budget Rules

Total cost caps include both direct and indirect costs. If your organization has a negotiated indirect cost rate, indirect costs must be budgeted in accordance with that rate. Collaborating organizations budget their own indirect costs at their own negotiated rates. All direct and indirect costs of any subaward or contract must be included in the direct costs of the primary award.

An applicant may request the full maximum funding amount even if the proposed period of performance is shorter than the maximum allowed. Budget appropriateness is assessed during peer review.

Travel that must be budgeted: Costs for the PI to present project information or disseminate results at one DOW-sponsored meeting, such as the Military Health System Research Symposium, during the period of performance. For planning purposes, assume the meeting will be held in the Central Florida area. For the Investigator-Initiated Research Award, assume this occurs in Year 2. This is in addition to allowable annual scientific meeting travel.

Travel that may be budgeted: Travel in support of multi-institutional collaborations, and costs for one investigator to attend one scientific or technical meeting per year in addition to the required DOW-sponsored meeting.

Costs that must not be requested: Travel beyond the limits above, and any clinical trial costs.

Separately, an organization may, at its own risk and without prior government approval, incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the start date of the initial budget period of a new award.

How to Submit: A Two-Step Process

Submission requires both a pre-application and a full application, and they go through different portals depending on your organization type.

Step 1: Pre-Application (Letter of Intent) through eBRAP

All pre-application components must be submitted by the PI through eBRAP. The Letter of Intent has a one-page limit and must provide a brief description of the research to be conducted along with the FY2026 RTRP Focus Area under which the application will be submitted.

eBRAP assigns each pre-application a unique log number. That log number is required for full application submission and must be entered in Block 4a, Federal Identifier, of the SF424 Research and Related form. The log number, application title, and all information for the PI, Business Officials, performing organization, and contracting organization must remain consistent across both submissions.

Two things worth understanding about the LOI: pre-applications are used for program planning purposes only, such as reviewer recruitment, and will not be screened. CDMRP will not issue an invitation to submit a full application. Applicants are encouraged to develop the pre-application and full application concurrently and submit the full application after the LOI has been successfully submitted. However, failure to submit the LOI results in automatic rejection of the full application.

Step 2: Full Application

• Extramural organizations, including startups and companies: must submit through Grants.gov Workspace

• Intramural DOW organizations only: may submit through eBRAP

An application from an extramural organization received through eBRAP may be administratively withdrawn, so the portal choice matters.

Step 3: Verify in eBRAP

Regardless of portal, the submitted application is transmitted to and processed in eBRAP, which can take up to 48 hours. The PI and organizational representatives then receive an email instructing them to log in, review, modify, and verify the submission. The Project Narrative and Research and Related Budget Form cannot be changed after the application deadline. Other components, including subaward budgets and justifications, may be changed until the verification period ends on November 9, 2026. Nothing can be modified after that.

Required registrations

Active SAM.gov, eBRAP.org, and Grants.gov registrations are required. Registration for each can take several weeks or longer. The applicant organization must be registered in SAM with an Active status and a Unique Entity Identifier before submitting through Grants.gov, and must maintain active SAM registration for as long as it has an active federal award or an application under consideration.

Application Components by Mechanism

Every attachment must be uploaded as an individual file using the exact filename specified, following the formatting guidelines in the General Application Instructions, version CD26_01.

Concept Award attachments

• Attachment 1: Project Narrative, 2-page limit, ProjectNarrative.pdf. Structured as Innovation, Hypothesis and Rationale, Aims and Objectives, Research Strategy, and Relevance

• Attachment 2: Supporting Documentation, Support.pdf. Includes References Cited, list of abbreviations, facilities and equipment, publications and patents, letters of support, Sex as a Biological Variable Strategy, Intellectual and Material Property Plan with optional Commercialization Strategy, and Research Sharing Plan

• Attachment 3: Statement of Work, 3-page limit, SOW.pdf

• Attachment 4: Innovation Statement, 1-page limit, Innovation.pdf

• Attachment 5: Post-Award Transition Plan, 1-page limit, Transition.pdf

• Attachment 6: Representations, Grants.gov submissions only, RequiredReps.pdf

• Attachment 7: Suggested Intragovernmental or Intramural Budget Form if applicable, IGBudget.pdf

Investigator-Initiated Research Award attachments

• Attachment 1: Project Narrative, 10-page limit, ProjectNarrative.pdf. Structured as Background, Rationale and Readiness, Hypothesis and Objective, Specific Aims, and Study Design and Feasibility

• Attachment 2: Supporting Documentation, Support.pdf. Same components as above, plus the Inclusion Enrollment Report if clinical research is proposed and, new for FY2026, a letter signed by the animal vendor or provider describing cost and timeline of availability for any proposed animal model

• Attachment 3: Technical Abstract, 1-page limit, TechAbs.pdf

• Attachment 4: Lay Abstract, 1-page limit, LayAbs.pdf

• Attachment 5: Statement of Work, 3-page limit, SOW.pdf

• Attachment 6: Impact Statement, 1-page limit, Impact.pdf

• Attachment 7: Military Relevance Statement, 1-page limit, MilRel.pdf

• Attachment 8: Animal Research Plan, 5-page limit, AnimalResPlan.pdf, required only for applications proposing animal studies

• Attachment 9: Post-Award Transition Plan, 1-page limit, Transition.pdf

• Attachment 10: Representations, Grants.gov submissions only, RequiredReps.pdf

• Attachment 11: Suggested Intragovernmental or Intramural Budget Form if applicable, IGBudget.pdf

Both mechanisms also require the Research and Related Senior/Key Person Profile with Biographical Sketches and Current and Pending Support, the Research and Related Budget, Project and Performance Site Locations, and subaward budget attachments where applicable.

How Applications Are Reviewed

All applications go through a two-tier review conducted by scientists, clinicians, and consumers. Peer review assesses technical merit against established criteria, with each application judged on its own merit. Programmatic review then compares high-merit applications for programmatic relevance. The highest-scoring applications from peer review are not automatically recommended for funding.

Concept Award review criteria, in decreasing order of importance

These criteria contribute to the overall evaluation but are not individually scored: Innovation, Relevance, Research Strategy and Feasibility, Personnel, Transition Plan, Research Sharing Plan, Budget, Environment, and Application Presentation.

Investigator-Initiated Research Award review criteria, in decreasing order of importance

Scored criteria: Study Design and Feasibility, Statistical Plan, Impact, Personnel, Transition Plan, and Research Sharing Plan. Unscored criteria that still contribute to the overall evaluation: Budget, Environment, and Application Presentation.

Programmatic review criteria for both mechanisms

• Ratings and evaluations of peer reviewers

• Adherence to the intent of the funding opportunity

• Program portfolio composition

• Programmatic relevance to military health and at least one FY2026 focus area

• Relative innovation for the Concept Award, or relative impact for the Investigator-Initiated Research Award

Compliance Traps That Sink Applications

CDMRP applies administrative actions mechanically. These are the failure modes to design around.

Automatic rejection: a missing Project Narrative, a missing Budget, or a Letter of Intent that was never submitted.

Automatic modification: pages exceeding stated limits are removed before review, and documents that were not requested are removed. Reviewers see what is left.

Possible administrative withdrawal:

• Including any URL outside the References Cited and Publications or Patents sections

• Proposing a clinical trial

• Submitting essentially the same research project to different funding opportunities within the same program and fiscal year

• Including classified research data, or proposing research that may produce classified outcomes or outcomes deemed sensitive to national security

• A PI who does not meet the eligibility criteria

• Involving a member of the FY2026 RTRP Programmatic Panel in concept design, application development, budget preparation, or supporting documentation. Panel members may only provide letters confirming PI eligibility and access to space, equipment, or resources as part of their regular institutional role

• Naming personnel from the CDMRP peer review or programmatic review contractors where conflicts cannot be mitigated

• Contacting persons involved in review or approval to obtain protected evaluation information or influence the process

• An extramural application received through eBRAP instead of Grants.gov

• Failing to conform to the program announcement description

• For the Concept Award only, human subjects or specimen work that does not qualify for exempt status or expedited review

Additional restrictions: Under Section 732 of the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act, CDMRP does not support painful research in USDA pain category D or E involving domestic cats or dogs, except studies relating to military or service animals. Under National Security Presidential Memorandum-33, all applicant organizations must disclose foreign affiliations of every named key person. Failure to disclose leads to withdrawal of funding recommendations.

Post-Award Requirements

• Annual technical progress reports and quad charts, plus a final technical progress report and quad chart, prepared in accordance with the Research Performance Progress Report format

• A data management plan compliant with DoD Instruction 3200.12 will be requested if recommended for funding

• For the Concept Award, a Technical Abstract will be requested prior to award

• Annual In-Progress Review meetings held virtually, where award recipients may be invited to present progress to the Programmatic Panel

• For the Investigator-Initiated Research Award, an Award Expiration Transition Plan submitted with the final progress report, and PHS Inclusion Enrollment reporting if clinical research is proposed

• Research involving animals, human data, human specimens, human subjects, or human cadavers must be approved by the DHA R&D Office of Research and Regulatory Compliance in addition to local IACUC, IRB, or Ethics Committee review

• PI changes on a Concept Award are not allowed except under extenuating circumstances evaluated case by case. On the Investigator-Initiated Research Award, PI and organization changes are generally allowed case by case provided the intent of the mechanism is met

• Organizational transfer of an award is not allowed in the last year of the original period of performance or any extension

• New awards will not be issued to an organization with delinquent technical reporting on existing DHA or U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command awards

Which Award Should a Startup Pursue?

Choose the Concept Award if your idea is novel but unproven, you have no preliminary data to show, and you need a small, fast award to generate the first interpretable results. At $200,000 over 18 months it functions as a de-risking step, and preliminary data is not merely unnecessary, it is prohibited. Innovation carries the most weight in review, so a genuinely new mechanism, target, or measurement approach matters more than a polished development plan. Early-career investigators are encouraged to apply.

Choose the Investigator-Initiated Research Award if you already have preliminary or published data supporting your rationale, your study design is mature enough to withstand scrutiny on controls, power analysis, blinding, and randomization, and you can articulate short-term and long-term impact. At $1 million over 3 years with roughly 8 awards expected, this is the mechanism that funds a real program of work. If you are developing a device, the application should explain how the design would support a regulatory filing with FDA or an international equivalent.

A note on pursuing both: the mechanisms have separate PI application limits, so a single investigator can be named on up to two applications in each. What is prohibited is submitting essentially the same research project to different funding opportunities within the same program and fiscal year. Two distinct projects, one high-risk and one data-backed, is a viable strategy. The same project dressed up twice will be withdrawn.

For both mechanisms, note that a Commercialization Strategy is an allowable component of the Intellectual and Material Property Plan, covering intellectual property, market size, financial analysis, strengths and weaknesses, barriers to market, competitors, and management team. Companies should use it. Multidisciplinary collaborations among academia, industry, DOW, and the Department of Veterans Affairs are highly encouraged, and collaboration with military researchers and clinicians is encouraged though not required.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the FY2026 RTRP deadlines?

The Letter of Intent is due October 21, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and the full application is due November 4, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. The application verification period in eBRAP ends November 9, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Both award mechanisms share these dates.

Is a Letter of Intent required?

Yes. A Letter of Intent is required for both the Concept Award and the Investigator-Initiated Research Award, and an application whose LOI was never submitted is administratively rejected. The LOI is limited to one page, is submitted by the PI through eBRAP, and must state the focus area being addressed. It is used for program planning only and is not screened, and no invitation to submit a full application will be issued.

Can a startup or for-profit company apply to the RTRP?

Yes. For-profit and nonprofit organizations, public and private entities, and foreign and domestic organizations are all eligible to apply to both FY2026 RTRP mechanisms. Awards are made to organizations rather than individuals, and the PI does not need to be affiliated with an academic institution.

How much funding can I request?

The Concept Award allows up to $200,000 in total costs over a maximum 18-month period of performance. The Investigator-Initiated Research Award allows up to $1 million in total costs over a maximum 3-year period of performance. Total costs include both direct and indirect costs, and all subaward direct and indirect costs must be carried in the direct costs of the primary award.

Do I need preliminary data?

It depends entirely on the mechanism. The Concept Award prohibits preliminary data, requiring instead a clear rationale and a demonstrated ability to achieve interpretable results. The Investigator-Initiated Research Award requires preliminary and/or published data that are relevant to reconstructive transplantation and support the rationale for the proposed work.

Are clinical trials allowed?

No. Neither FY2026 RTRP mechanism permits clinical trials, and proposing one may result in administrative withdrawal. Clinical trial costs must not be requested in the budget. The Investigator-Initiated Research Award does allow correlative studies associated with an existing clinical trial.

Is cost sharing required?

No. Cost sharing is not an eligibility requirement for either FY2026 RTRP award mechanism.

How many RTRP applications can one investigator submit?

An investigator may be named as PI on up to two Concept Award applications and up to two Investigator-Initiated Research Award applications in FY2026. If more than two are received for a given mechanism naming the same PI, only the first two received are accepted and the rest are administratively withdrawn. Submitting essentially the same project to more than one funding opportunity within the program in the same fiscal year is prohibited.

Can foreign organizations apply?

Yes. Foreign and domestic organizations are both eligible, and PI eligibility applies regardless of ethnicity, nationality, or citizenship status. All applicant organizations must disclose the foreign affiliations of every named key person under National Security Presidential Memorandum-33, and failure to disclose leads to withdrawal of any funding recommendation.

How competitive is the FY2026 RTRP?

CDMRP expects to fund approximately 3 Concept Awards from roughly $0.6 million and approximately 8 Investigator-Initiated Research Awards from roughly $8.0 million. Historically the Concept Award has received 196 applications and recommended 26 for funding, about 13 percent, while the Investigator-Initiated Research Award has received 253 applications and recommended 43 for funding, about 17 percent.

Where do I submit the LOI versus the full application?

The Letter of Intent is always submitted through eBRAP by the PI. Full applications from extramural organizations, including companies, must be submitted through Grants.gov Workspace. Only intramural DOW organizations may submit full applications through eBRAP, and an extramural application received through eBRAP may be administratively withdrawn.

Can I bring solid organ transplant research into an RTRP application?

Yes. The RTRP explicitly allows leveraging novel findings from solid organ transplant research for testing in a VCA setting, provided the rationale and benefits are explained and justified. Acceptable justifications include explaining why the result might differ in VCA, why confirming the same result in VCA matters, or why repeating the study in VCA could yield new mechanistic insight.

What happens if my application exceeds a page limit?

Pages exceeding the specified limits are removed before reviewers see any documents, and documents that were not requested are also removed. Including URLs anywhere other than the References Cited and Publications or Patents sections may result in administrative withdrawal.

When will FY2026 RTRP awards be made?

Peer review occurs in January 2027 and programmatic review in March 2027, with funding recommendations typically posted to eBRAP within 6 weeks after programmatic review. Awards supported with FY2026 funds will be made no later than September 30, 2027, and those funds expire for use on September 30, 2032.

What if my project involves animal studies?

Applications to the Investigator-Initiated Research Award proposing animal studies must include an Animal Research Plan of up to five pages addressing model justification, availability and access, procedures, controls, randomization and blinding, sample size with power calculations, and data handling. New for FY2026, the Supporting Documentation must also include a letter from the animal vendor or provider stating the cost and timeline for availability. CDMRP does not support painful research in USDA pain category D or E involving domestic cats or dogs, except for studies relating to military or service animals.

Next Steps

The FY2026 RTRP rewards applications that are technically strong and administratively flawless, and the compliance requirements alone remove a meaningful share of the competition before review begins. With the Letter of Intent due October 21, 2026 and the full application due November 4, 2026, the practical constraint is time: SAM.gov, eBRAP, and Grants.gov registrations can take weeks, and the Project Narrative and budget lock at the deadline.

BW&CO helps deep-tech, biotech, medtech, and dual-use companies pursue non-dilutive federal funding, with more than $350 million in funding secured for clients. Innovation Funding Simplified. If you are evaluating whether the Concept Award or the Investigator-Initiated Research Award fits your program, or you want a compliance review before you submit, reach out to start the conversation.

DOE ASPECT Funding Opportunity (DE-FOA-0003647): Executive Summary for Startups

The U.S. Department of Energy has released Accelerating Scale-up and Pre-piloting of Emerging Chemical Technologies (ASPECT), funding opportunity number DE-FOA-0003647, offering up to $58 million to advance chemical production technologies that use domestically sourced biomass and waste feedstocks. The opportunity is issued by the Alternative Fuels and Feedstocks Office (AFFO) within DOE's Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation (CMEI) organization.

ASPECT is built for companies that have moved past proof of concept and need capital to validate, de-risk, and scale a chemical process. Awards are cooperative agreements, cost share is required, and a concept paper is mandatory. If you do not submit a concept paper by October 9, 2026, you cannot submit an application at all.

ASPECT at a Glance

• Funding opportunity number: DE-FOA-0003647

• Agency: U.S. Department of Energy, CMEI, Alternative Fuels and Feedstocks Office (AFFO)

• Total available funding: up to $58,000,000

• Funding instrument: cooperative agreements (DOE has substantial involvement, including go/no-go authority)

• Assistance listing: 81.087, Renewable Energy Research and Development

• Announcement type: Research, Development, and Demonstration

• Individual awards: $2,000,000 to $10,000,000 under Topic Area 1; $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 under Topic Area 2

• Expected number of awards: 0 to 7 under Topic Area 1; 0 to 3 under Topic Area 2

• Minimum cost share: 20 percent for R&D tasks, 50 percent for demonstration and commercial application tasks

• Project period: 24 to 48 months (Topic Area 1); 24 to 60 months (Topic Area 2)

• Application process: required concept paper, then Stage 1 by invitation, then Stage 2 by invitation

• Submission portal: DOE eXCHANGE (eere-exchange.energy.gov)

• Program email: ASPECT@doe.gov

Key Dates and Deadlines

• NOFO issued: September 4, 2026

• Informational webinar: September 11, 2026, 1:00 p.m. ET

• Concept paper deadline (required): October 9, 2026, 5:00 p.m. ET

• Stage 1 application deadline: December 1, 2026, 5:00 p.m. ET

• Stage 2 application deadline: February 12, 2027, 5:00 p.m. ET

• Anticipated selection notification: April 8, 2027

• Anticipated award date: April 12, 2027

All deadlines are 5:00 p.m. ET. DOE will not extend deadlines for server congestion or upload problems, and applicants are advised to submit at least 48 hours early. SAM.gov registration alone can take several weeks, so registration work should start now rather than in October.

What DOE Is Actually Trying to Fund

ASPECT exists because U.S. chemical production has fallen more than 8 percent since 2017 while global production grew more than 17 percent. DOE's stated intent is to re-shore chemical manufacturing, reduce import reliance, strengthen domestic supply chains, and build out biomanufacturing capacity using America's biomass and waste resources.

Practically, that means DOE wants processes that convert an approved biomass or waste feedstock into a chemical with a real commercial advantage, backed by techno-economic analysis and an industrial partner who confirms the product is marketable. Two categories of target chemical qualify:

• Conventional chemicals that already have a market, provided the proposed pathway offers an additional advantage such as strengthening domestic supply chains, reducing imports, lowering cost, reducing pathway toxicity, or enabling significant market growth.

• Bio-advantaged chemicals that offer advantages in function, cost, or trade and national security benefits, such as enhanced durability, higher production efficiency, or decreased toxicity.

DOE also named two specific areas of interest under Topic Area 1: technologies that can be scaled by using or modifying existing U.S. ethanol fermentation infrastructure, and technologies that produce 3-hydroxypropionic acid. These are not exclusive, but they signal where reviewers expect strong fits.

Key Requirements That Apply to Every Application

• Justify the target chemical. It must be a conventional or bio-advantaged chemical, with the specific advantage explicitly articulated.

• Market size. Target chemicals should have annual U.S. production of at least 1 million metric tons. Smaller volumes may be considered with justification, but applications targeting small, niche, or fine chemical markets are specifically not of interest.

• Industrial partner. An industrial partner such as a chemical manufacturer is required on every project team, under both topic areas. Applications under both topic areas must include at least one for-profit industry entity as either the prime recipient or a subrecipient. If the industrial partner is not the prime applicant, a letter of commitment is required with the application.

• Approved feedstock. The primary feedstock must appear on the acceptable feedstock list in Appendix A of the NOFO.

• Verification process. All applicants selected for award negotiations must participate in a third-party verification process led by a non-conflicted DOE verification team.

• Peer review participation. Attendance and participation at the AFFO Biennial Peer Review Meeting is required.

• Domestic performance. The project must be located in the United States, and all work must be performed in the United States absent an approved waiver.

• Analysis. Preliminary techno-economic analysis (TEA) and life cycle analysis (LCA) are required, and Subtopic Area 1b requires detailed TEA and LCA rather than preliminary.

Topic Area 1: Bench ASPECT

Topic Area 1 supports research and development of new chemical production technologies, moving them beyond proof of concept toward bench and pre-pilot scale. Approximate total funding for this topic area is up to $28,000,000, with 0 to 7 awards, individual awards of $2,000,000 to $10,000,000, a 20 percent minimum cost share, project periods of 24 to 48 months, and budget periods of 12 to 24 months.

Subtopic Area 1a: Bench-Scale Technologies

Subtopic 1a is for technologies beyond proof of concept and ready for additional bench-scale process development and optimization at TRL 2. Each project is eligible for up to $5,000,000 in federal funding with a minimum 20 percent cost share. The envisioned structure is Budget Period 1 for verification of application data, a go/no-go decision, then Budget Period 2 for bench-scale work, across 12 to 24 months.

One caution specific to 1a: applications that use model compounds instead of real feedstocks after Budget Period 1 are specifically not of interest.

Subtopic Area 1b: Bench-Scale and Unit Operation Pre-piloting

Subtopic 1b combines bench-scale R&D in Phase 1 (TRL 2) with pre-piloting of one or more unit operations in Phase 2 (TRL 3 or TRL 4). Each project is eligible for up to $10,000,000 in federal funding, structured as up to $5,000,000 for Phase 1 and up to an additional $5,000,000 for Phase 2, with a minimum 20 percent cost share throughout.

The envisioned schedule runs Phase 1 across 18 to 30 months (verification, go/no-go, bench-scale work, pre-pilot design, then a stage gate approving the pre-pilot performance baseline) and Phase 2 across 12 to 18 months (procurement and construction, then commissioning and operations).

Additional 1b requirements include detailed TEA and LCA, the ability to demonstrate during initial verification that the unit operations of interest are at TRL 3 or TRL 4, proof that you can produce the final targeted chemical when the advantaged property appears only in the finished product, and Phase 2 downstream unit operations sized for the process streams produced from 0.5 dry tons per day (DTPD) of feedstock.

Specifically not of interest under 1b: work on heterogeneous catalysts in powder form for thermocatalytic processes, strain discovery for biochemical processes, development of electrocatalytic cells, and use of model compounds instead of real feedstocks in any budget period.

Topic Area 1 Expected Outcome

By the end of the performance period, projects must produce a sufficient quantity of the target chemical at a purity level appropriate for product or formulation testing. The quantity must be defined and justified for the specific chemical and application, and the performance metrics and purity requirements must be established in partnership with a manufacturer so the resulting material is actually marketable.

Topic Area 2: Pre-pilot ASPECT

Topic Area 2 funds the design, construction, and operation of pre-pilot scale facilities that convert alternative feedstocks into chemicals. Approximate total funding is up to $30,000,000, with 0 to 3 awards, individual awards of $10,000,000 to $20,000,000, project periods of 24 to 60 months, and budget periods of 12 to 24 months.

The minimum baseline is TRL 4, with a maximum of TRL 5 at project conclusion. Projects must build an integrated pre-pilot system capable of processing at least 0.5 DTPD of feedstock, and applicants must justify the chosen scale using sound engineering principles, prior-scale data, and scaling factors. DOE offers scaling to roughly 1/100th of a commercial-scale process for continuous operation as an example of an appropriate target.

Note the eligibility restriction here: institutions of higher education can participate in Topic Area 2 only as subrecipients, not as prime recipients.

Subtopic Area 2a: Unit Operation Pre-piloting and Pre-pilot System Integration

Subtopic 2a is for technologies with one or two unit operations that need further investigation on industrially relevant equipment before the integrated system can be designed. Each project is eligible for up to $20,000,000 in federal funding, with no more than $5,000,000 in Phase 1 and up to $15,000,000 in Phase 2. Cost share is 20 percent for Phase 1 activities and 50 percent for Phase 2 activities.

Phase 1 runs 18 to 24 months and covers verification of prior-scale data, unit operation pre-piloting, verification of unit operation results and system data correlation, and pilot design basis definition, with go/no-go decisions between steps. Phase 2 runs 24 to 36 months and covers planning and final design, final design approval, procurement and construction, then commissioning and operations.

Subtopic Area 2b: Pre-pilot System Integration Only

Subtopic 2b is for technologies already at TRL 5, supported by all necessary prior-scale data, and ready to begin design of the 0.5 DTPD pre-pilot facility. Each project is eligible for up to $15,000,000 in federal funding with a minimum 50 percent cost share. Phase 1 is roughly 12 months (verification and design basis definition, with a stage gate approving the pre-pilot performance baseline), and Phase 2 runs 24 to 36 months (final design, design approval, procurement and construction, commissioning and operations).

Topic Area 2 Time-on-Stream Requirements

By project conclusion, Topic Area 2 projects are expected to meet minimum operating hours:

• Subtopic 2a: 500 cumulative hours per unit operation and 1,500 cumulative hours on the pre-pilot system; 100 continuous hours per unit operation and 1,000 continuous hours on the pre-pilot system.

• Subtopic 2b: 1,500 cumulative hours and 1,000 continuous hours on the pre-pilot system.

Topic Area 2 applications must also include a block flow diagram (BFD) and supplemental data sheet using the DOE templates on eXCHANGE, and all major equipment in the pre-pilot plant must match the equipment type planned for the eventual commercial facility. If the commercial system uses a fluidized bed, the pre-pilot system must use a fluidized bed. Recipients will also be required to provide anonymized input to DOE's design cases to refine program TEA and LCA models.

Cost Share Requirements

Cost share is calculated as a percentage of total project cost, which includes the government share, FFRDC costs if applicable, and your recipient share. Minimum cost share by subtopic area:

• Subtopic 1a: 20 percent

• Subtopic 1b: 20 percent

• Subtopic 2a: 20 percent for Phase 1, then 50 percent for Phase 2

• Subtopic 2b: 50 percent

Applications that do not meet the minimum required cost share are deemed ineligible during the initial compliance review. Cost share must come from nonfederal sources unless otherwise allowed by law, and it can be cash, cash equivalents, or in-kind contributions that are verifiable at the time of submission.

Sources that cannot be used include federal funds or federally owned property, cost share derived from programs executed by the Office of Energy Dominance Financing, revenues or royalties from operations beyond the project period, proceeds from the prospective sale of an asset, expenditures reimbursed under another federal program, contributions already counted toward another federal project, and existing data donated as an in-kind contribution. Contractors may not provide cost share, and partial donations of goods or services count as discounts rather than cost share.

Who Is Eligible to Apply

The following domestic entities are eligible as prime recipients and subrecipients: institutions of higher education, for-profit organizations, nonprofit organizations, state and local government entities, and Indian Tribes. To qualify as a domestic entity, the organization must be legally formed in the United States and have a physical location for business operations in the United States.

Participation limits to note:

• Institutions of higher education may be prime recipients or subrecipients under Topic Area 1, but only subrecipients under Topic Area 2.

• DOE and non-DOE FFRDCs and other federal agencies and instrumentalities may participate only as subrecipients. The National Energy Technology Laboratory may participate only as a subrecipient.

• FFRDC effort in aggregate must not exceed 50 percent of total project cost, and FFRDC participation requires written authorization plus a CRADA or technical assistance agreement.

• Foreign entities are generally not eligible as recipients or subrecipients. A foreign entity may be included only with an explicit written waiver request submitted with the application, and DOE's decision is final and not appealable.

• Ineligible participants include debarred or suspended entities, entities on the OFAC Specially Designated Nationals list, and 501(c)(4) organizations that engaged in lobbying after December 31, 1995. Entities of Concern are prohibited from participating.

You may submit multiple concept papers if each addresses a distinct and scientifically unique project concept. DOE will consider only one Stage 1 application per eligible concept paper.

Acceptable Feedstocks

Applications proposing a feedstock not on DOE's acceptable list will not be considered. Acceptable feedstocks under ASPECT include:

• Lignocellulosic feedstocks, including crops, trees, forest residues, and agricultural residues not grown for food

• Algae, defined as eukaryotic microalgae, macroalgae, and cyanobacteria

• Organic wet waste, including municipal wastewater sludge and biosolids, food wastes, organic-rich industrial wastewaters, and manure slurries

• Sorted municipal solid waste, meaning the organic and plastic constituents of the landfill-bound stream

• Food waste from industrial, commercial, and residential sources

• Biogas

• Grain starch from yellow dent feed corn, wheat, and grain sorghum or milo

• Oilseed crops such as soybeans, cottonseed, sunflower, canola, rapeseed, peanuts, camelina, carinata, and pennycress

• Construction and demolition waste

• Waste carbon dioxide from fermentation, biomass combustion, biopower, or other anthropogenic utility and industrial sources

• Biointermediates, meaning stable intermediate products derived from another acceptable feedstock

Carbon dioxide captured from ambient air is not an acceptable feedstock under this NOFO.

Applications Specifically Not of Interest

DOE will not review these, and the determination cannot be appealed:

• Applications outside the technical parameters in the program purpose and topic areas

• Technologies not based on sound scientific principles

• Applications proposing primary products used solely as fuels

• Processes targeting food or protein (amino acids excepted) or biomass as the primary product

• Applications proposing ethanol as a final product

• Applications proposing pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, food additives, or cosmetics as final products

• Applications using model compounds instead of real feedstocks, excluding Subtopic 1a proposals

• Applications that do not use an allowable feedstock from Appendix A

• Technology that is already operating commercially

• Applications without an industrial entity as applicant or partner

• Processes targeting small, niche, or fine chemical markets, or potential markets under 1 million metric tons per year, absent justification

The Three-Stage Application Process

Stage 0: Concept Paper (Required)

The concept paper is required for every applicant and is limited to 5 total pages at no smaller than 12-point font. DOE provides a custom abbreviated template on eXCHANGE, and while the template is not mandatory, every element it requests must be addressed. The recommended allocation is 1 page for administrative information and 4 pages for characteristics of the proposed project. Anything beyond 5 pages will not be reviewed and may disqualify the submission.

Concept papers are scored on a single criterion at 100 percent weight: overall NOFO responsiveness and viability of the project. Reviewers confirm that the applicant meets eligibility requirements, that all key requirements and topic-area-specific requirements are addressed, and that the concept does not fall into an area specifically not of interest. Encouraged applicants are invited to submit a Stage 1 application. Decisions are final with no appeal.

Stage 1 Application (By Invitation Only)

Stage 1 is the technical review package. Technical volume page limits by subtopic area:

• Subtopic 1a: 15 pages

• Subtopic 1b: 25 pages

• Subtopic 2a: 30 pages

• Subtopic 2b: 25 pages

Page limits include the cover page, table of contents, citations, charts, graphs, photos, and all graphics. Required Stage 1 components include the SF-424, technical volume, block flow diagram (Topic Area 2 only, 5 pages), budget justification workbook, a biosketch and current and pending support disclosure for each Covered Individual, a digital persistent identifier such as ORCID for each Covered Individual, research security training certification, and Transparency of Foreign Connections disclosures for the applicant and each subrecipient.

Covered Individuals include the PI, project director, co-PI, co-project director, project manager, and anyone functionally performing those roles. Submitting a biosketch and disclosure for a person acknowledges that DOE designates them as a Covered Individual, which creates an ongoing disclosure obligation for the life of the award.

Stage 2 Application (By Invitation Only)

Stage 2 is the full application, requested only from proposals deemed meritorious in Stage 1. It adds letters of commitment (one page each), a Statement of Project Objectives (10 pages), a Project Management Plan (5 pages), SF-424A and subrecipient budget justifications, FFRDC work proposals and authorizations if applicable, foreign entity waivers if applicable, Impacted Indian Tribes documentation if applicable, a potentially duplicative funding notice, locations of work, an environmental questionnaire, lobbying forms, a one-page public summary, a one-slide summary, a pre-award information sheet, indirect cost rate documentation, and the most recent independent audit.

Documents already submitted at Stage 1 must be resubmitted at Stage 2 if anything has changed.

How Applications Are Scored

Stage 1 applications are evaluated against weighted technical review criteria, with all sub-criteria weighted equally.

Topic Area 1 Criteria

• Technical Merit, Innovation, and Impact: 40 percent

• Project Demonstration and Market Transformation Plan: 40 percent

• Team and Resources: 20 percent

Topic Area 2 Criteria

• Technical Approach and Impact: 30 percent

• Financial and Market Viability: 25 percent

• Management and Organization: 25 percent

• Workplan: 20 percent

The weighting tells you where to spend your pages. Under Topic Area 1, commercialization and market transformation carry the same weight as the science, so a technically brilliant application with a thin market plan will not score well. Under Topic Area 2, technical merit accounts for less than a third of the score, while financial viability, management capability, and workplan discipline together account for 70 percent. Reviewers at that level are assessing whether your team can actually build and operate a plant on schedule.

Beyond technical review, all applications undergo a Research, Technology, and Economic Security (RTES) due diligence review, and DOE may also conduct pre-selection interviews, pre-selection clarifications, entity risk assessments, and financial capability reviews. DOE's decisions on due diligence reviews are not appealable.

What Happens After Selection

Awards are cooperative agreements, which means DOE shares responsibility for project direction and can intervene, redirect, or stop funding at go/no-go decision points. Several post-award mechanics deserve attention during planning:

• Verification. Every selectee participates in an initial verification during months 0 to 3, conducted by a non-conflicted third-party team, to confirm the baseline data in your application. This must appear in your scope as Task 1, separated from the rest of the work by a go/no-go decision point, with roughly three months allocated. Intermediate verifications occur at go/no-go points, and a final verification occurs within three months of closeout.

• Go/no-go reviews and program down-select. Continuation funding depends on technical progress, appropriations, reporting compliance, RTES assessment, and DOE approval of a continuation application. Some projects will not receive funding past a decision point even when they are meeting predefined metrics.

• Milestones. Workplans require at least one milestone per quarter and at least one SMART technical milestone per year, each with a stated verification method.

• Davis-Bacon Act requirements apply to awards under this NOFO, including certified weekly payrolls and use of LCPtracker.

• Buy America Preference applies to infrastructure projects under this NOFO, though it does not apply to prime recipients that are for-profit entities. Equipment and supplies should be American made to the greatest extent practicable.

• Award negotiation takes at least 60 days, and pre-award costs require written approval from the Grants Officer.

• Audits. A for-profit recipient expending $1,000,000 or more in DOE awards in a fiscal year requires an annual independent compliance audit. Budget for it.

• Intellectual property. Small businesses, universities, and nonprofits may elect to retain title to subject inventions under Bayh-Dole. DOE has issued a class patent waiver covering domestic large businesses under this NOFO. The government retains a paid-up nonexclusive license and march-in rights, and U.S. manufacturing commitments apply.

Required Registrations

• SAM.gov registration with an active Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). This can take several weeks.

• DOE eXCHANGE account at eere-exchange.energy.gov, with a designated primary and backup point of contact.

• Grants.gov registration, which requires a Login.gov account, to receive NOFO modification notices.

• FedConnect registration, required to receive the executed award package. Registration can take up to three days.

How to Position a Competitive ASPECT Concept Paper

The concept paper is a gate, not a beauty contest. It is scored entirely on responsiveness and viability, which means most rejections at this stage are self-inflicted. A strong submission does five things clearly in five pages:

• Names the target chemical and its advantage in specific terms. Not "a platform chemical with sustainability benefits," but the molecule, the incumbent pathway, the annual U.S. production volume, and the measurable advantage in cost, performance, supply chain, or trade and national security.

• Names the feedstock from Appendix A. If your process runs on something outside the list, the concept paper will be screened out regardless of technical quality. Ambient-air carbon dioxide is explicitly excluded.

• Names the industrial partner. A chemical manufacturer on the team who will confirm purity and performance requirements is a requirement, not a differentiator. Missing it is a rejection criterion.

• Picks the right subtopic honestly. Overreaching into Topic Area 2 without TRL 4 data, or into 2b without complete prior-scale data, invites a bad review. Choosing 1a or 1b with a realistic phase plan is usually the better path for an early-stage company, and 1b provides an on-ramp to pre-pilot work without waiting for a new solicitation.

• Shows the cost share is real. Cost share must be verifiable at submission. A 50 percent match on a $15,000,000 Subtopic 2b project is a substantial commitment, so the source needs to be identified early, and letters of commitment will be required from third-party contributors.

The two most common reasons strong technologies lose here are structural rather than scientific: a target market under 1 million metric tons per year without a justification, and a commercialization plan that reviewers cannot connect to a specific customer. Both are fixable before October 9.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the DOE ASPECT funding opportunity?

ASPECT stands for Accelerating Scale-up and Pre-piloting of Emerging Chemical Technologies. It is a DOE Alternative Fuels and Feedstocks Office funding opportunity offering up to $58 million for research, development, and pre-pilot testing of technologies that produce chemicals from domestically sourced alternative and waste feedstocks.

What is the ASPECT funding opportunity number?

The funding opportunity number is DE-FOA-0003647. Applications are submitted through DOE eXCHANGE at eere-exchange.energy.gov, and the program contact is ASPECT@doe.gov.

How much funding is available through ASPECT?

Up to $58,000,000 total. Topic Area 1 (Bench ASPECT) has up to $28,000,000 across 0 to 7 awards, and Topic Area 2 (Pre-pilot ASPECT) has up to $30,000,000 across 0 to 3 awards.

When are ASPECT concept papers due?

Concept papers are due October 9, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. ET. Stage 1 applications are due December 1, 2026, and Stage 2 applications are due February 12, 2027, both at 5:00 p.m. ET.

Is a concept paper required for ASPECT?

Yes. A concept paper is required from every applicant, and it is limited to 5 pages. If you do not submit a concept paper by the deadline, you cannot submit a Stage 1 application. Stage 1 and Stage 2 are both by invitation only.

Who is eligible to apply for ASPECT?

Eligible domestic entities include institutions of higher education, for-profit organizations, nonprofit organizations, state and local government entities, and Indian Tribes. FFRDCs and federal agencies other than DOE may participate only as subrecipients.

Can a university be the prime applicant on ASPECT?

A university can be the prime recipient under Topic Area 1 only. For Topic Area 2, institutions of higher education are eligible to participate solely as subrecipients.

Does ASPECT require an industry partner?

Yes. Every application under both topic areas must include at least one for-profit industry entity, such as a chemical manufacturer, either as the prime recipient or as a subrecipient. If the industrial partner is not the prime applicant, a letter of commitment must accompany the application. Applications without an industrial entity are specifically not of interest.

What is the cost share requirement for ASPECT?

Minimum cost share is 20 percent of total project costs for research and development tasks under Subtopics 1a, 1b, and Phase 1 of 2a. It rises to 50 percent for demonstration and commercial application tasks under Phase 2 of Subtopic 2a and all of Subtopic 2b. Applications below the minimum are ineligible at compliance review.

How large can an individual ASPECT award be?

Subtopic 1a is eligible for up to $5,000,000 in federal funding, Subtopic 1b up to $10,000,000, Subtopic 2a up to $20,000,000 with no more than $5,000,000 in Phase 1, and Subtopic 2b up to $15,000,000.

What feedstocks are acceptable under ASPECT?

Acceptable feedstocks include lignocellulosic biomass, algae, organic wet waste, sorted municipal solid waste, food waste, biogas, grain starch, oilseed crops, construction and demolition waste, waste carbon dioxide, and biointermediates. Carbon dioxide captured from ambient air is not acceptable. Applications using a feedstock outside the list will not be considered.

What kinds of chemicals is DOE looking for?

DOE is looking for conventional chemicals that offer added advantages such as stronger domestic supply chains, reduced imports, lower cost, reduced pathway toxicity, or market growth, and for bio-advantaged chemicals offering advantages in function, cost, or trade and national security, such as greater durability, higher production efficiency, or lower toxicity.

Does my target chemical need 1 million metric tons of annual U.S. production?

Target chemicals should have annual U.S. production of at least 1 million metric tons. Lower volumes may be considered with justification, but applications targeting small, niche, or fine chemical markets are specifically not of interest.

What technology readiness level is required for ASPECT?

Subtopic 1a targets bench-scale work at TRL 2. Subtopic 1b covers TRL 2 bench work in Phase 1 and TRL 3 or TRL 4 unit operation pre-piloting in Phase 2. Topic Area 2 requires a minimum baseline of TRL 4 with a maximum of TRL 5 at project conclusion.

What is the pre-pilot scale requirement under ASPECT?

Pre-pilot unit operations and integrated systems must be sized to handle the process streams produced from at least 0.5 dry tons per day of feedstock. DOE cites scaling to roughly 1/100th of a commercial-scale continuous process as an example of an appropriate target scale.

What applications will DOE reject outright?

DOE will not review applications proposing fuels as the primary product, ethanol as a final product, food or protein (other than amino acids), pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, food additives, or cosmetics, technologies already operating commercially, applications using model compounds instead of real feedstocks (except Subtopic 1a), applications without an approved feedstock, and applications without an industrial partner.

How are ASPECT applications scored?

Concept papers are scored on one criterion, overall NOFO responsiveness and viability, at 100 percent weight. Topic Area 1 Stage 1 applications are scored on technical merit, innovation, and impact (40 percent), project demonstration and market transformation plan (40 percent), and team and resources (20 percent). Topic Area 2 is scored on technical approach and impact (30 percent), financial and market viability (25 percent), management and organization (25 percent), and workplan (20 percent).

What is the ASPECT verification process?

Every applicant selected for award negotiations must participate in a verification process led by a non-conflicted third-party team identified by DOE. An initial verification occurs in months 0 to 3 to confirm baseline data from the application, intermediate verifications support go/no-go decisions, and a final verification occurs near closeout. Applicants must include the initial verification as Task 1 in their scope and allow roughly three months for it.

How long are ASPECT projects?

Topic Area 1 project periods run 24 to 48 months and Topic Area 2 project periods run 24 to 60 months, with budget periods of 12 to 24 months. Awards are structured with multiple budget periods and go/no-go decision points, and continuation funding is not guaranteed.

Can a foreign company participate in an ASPECT project?

Foreign entities are generally not eligible as recipients or subrecipients. Participation requires an explicit written waiver request submitted with the application, and DOE's determination is final and cannot be appealed. All work must also be performed in the United States absent a separate approved foreign work waiver.

Are cooperative agreements different from grants under ASPECT?

Yes. ASPECT awards are cooperative agreements, which means DOE has substantial involvement in directing the technical work, participates in major project decisions, and can redirect or stop funding at go/no-go decision points.

Talk to BW&CO Before the October 9 Concept Paper Deadline

ASPECT is a competitive, non-dilutive path to fund pre-pilot scale-up without giving up equity, and the concept paper gate rewards preparation over polish. BW&CO has helped deep tech and industrial innovators secure more than $350M in federal funding by getting the strategy, teaming, and compliance right before the first submission.

If you are evaluating ASPECT, we can help you confirm topic area fit, pressure test your target chemical and market justification, structure your cost share and industrial partnership, and build a concept paper that survives responsiveness review. Innovation Funding Simplified.

NIH Highlighted Topic: Health and Extreme Weather: Advancing Critical Research to Address the Direct and Indirect Health Impacts of Weather-Related Natural Disasters and Emerging Weather-Related Harms

Executive Summary

The National Institutes of Health has published a Highlighted Topic titled "Health and Extreme Weather: Advancing Critical Research to Address the Direct and Indirect Health Impacts of Weather-Related Natural Disasters and Emerging Weather-Related Harms." It is issued under the NIH Health and Extreme Weather Program, led by NIEHS, and eleven NIH Institutes award grants under it while four additional offices participate without awarding.

For a small business, the practical translation is this: there is no new application portal and no new deadline attached to this topic. A Highlighted Topic is a demand signal, not a Notice of Funding Opportunity. You capture the funding by submitting to the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement, requesting assignment to one of the eleven awarding Institutes, and aligning your Specific Aims to that Institute's stated interests.

Say the hard part first. This is the least small-business-native NIH Highlighted Topic in the current cycle. The great majority of what is described is epidemiology, cohort analysis, natural experiments, community-engaged research, and implementation science, all of which belong in R01 and related mechanisms rather than SBIR or STTR. A company that reads the topic broadly and writes a proposal to match will lose a cycle.

That said, there are real product lanes, and they are unusually concrete where they exist. NIAMS names wearable devices and environmental sensors for personal exposure assessment. NIDDK names the health effects of care discontinuity from lack of medications or electricity-dependent treatments. The topic purpose names methods to advance the aggregation, linking, accessibility, and interpretation of health and weather-related data. NHLBI names integration of environmental and health datasets, NIMH names measurement methods and data sharing methods, and NIAID names vector-borne and waterborne pathogen behavior including changes in susceptibility to anti-infective interventions. Those are sensors, diagnostics, medical device resilience, and data platforms, all of which a company can own and sell.

The topic was posted on September 1, 2026 and expires on May 1, 2028, which is a notably short window and makes April 5, 2028 the last available submission cycle. NIEHS is the only Institute that made both available funding statements, saying it may dedicate available funds and may give special consideration.

At a Glance

• Topic title: Health and Extreme Weather

• Program: NIH Health and Extreme Weather (HEW) Program, with a published HEW Strategic Framework available on the NIH site

• Issuing agency: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• Awarding Institutes: NIEHS, NCCIH, NCI, NHLBI, NIA, NIAID, NIAMS, NIDDK, NIMH, NIMHD, and NINR

• Non-awarding participating offices: OBSSR, ODP, ORWH, and THRO

• Central scientific contact: Ashlinn Quinn, ashlinn.quinn@nih.gov, who is also the NIEHS contact

• Type: NIH Highlighted Topic. This is not a Notice of Funding Opportunity.

• Post date: September 1, 2026

• Expiration date: May 1, 2028. Shorter than the usual two-year window.

• Recommended small business mechanism: NIH SBIR (R43 and R44) or NIH STTR (R41 and R42) parent announcement

• Current parent announcements: PA-27-100 for SBIR, PA-27-102 for STTR, PA-27-101 for the Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, and PAR-27-098 for the Commercialization Readiness Pilot

• Standard annual due dates: January 5, April 5, and September 5

• SBA statutory guidelines this cycle: $323,090 Phase I, $2,153,927 Phase II, $4,191,495 CRP

• Institute limits vary widely and several published Institute pages still show older SBA figures. Use the current guideline for the dollar amount and treat Institute pages as authoritative for policy.

• Clinical trials: NIAMS accepts none under either parent. NIAID, NIDDK, and NIMHD do not accept them under STTR. NIDDK accepts them under SBIR. NCCIH restricts efficacy and effectiveness trials at Phase I. NIAID directs small business clinical trials to a separate cooperative agreement. Confirm before designing.

• Cost share: none for Phase I or Phase II. Phase IIB requires 100 percent third-party matching funds.

• Equity dilution: none. This is non-dilutive federal funding.

• Profit or fee: allowable, must be in the budget at submission, and normally will not exceed 7 percent of total costs

• Funding signals: NIEHS stated both that it may dedicate available funds and that it may give special consideration. NIMHD stated it may dedicate available funds. NCCIH, NIDDK, and NINR each stated they may give special consideration. NCI, NHLBI, NIA, NIAID, NIAMS, and NIMH made no statement.

• Initiative alignment: none stated. This topic is not issued under the Make America Healthy Again initiative, so there is no policy framing to reference.

What This Opportunity Actually Is

An NIH Highlighted Topic is a published statement of scientific interest from one or more NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. It tells the research community that an area of science is a priority without creating a separate funding announcement, deadline, or review process. There is no topic-specific number to search on Grants.gov, and applications are not scored against other applications to the topic.

This one is unusual in being tied to a standing NIH program rather than a one-off priority statement. The Health and Extreme Weather Program has its own Strategic Framework published on the NIH site, and NIEHS effectively runs it, supplying both the central scientific contact and its own Institute contact in the same person. That matters practically: reading the Strategic Framework before writing gives you the program's own language, and a single call to the central contact can help route you among eleven Institutes.

Six Institutes went on record with a funding advantage. NIEHS is the only one making both available statements, which is consistent with it being the lead. NIMHD stated it may dedicate available funds. NCCIH, NIDDK, and NINR each stated they may give special consideration. The remaining six made no statement.

Note also what is absent. Most NIH Highlighted Topics in this cycle are issued under the Make America Healthy Again initiative and list named policy alignments. This one does not, despite the obvious thematic overlap with chronic disease and environmental health. Do not reference an initiative alignment the topic does not claim.

Is This Topic a Fit for a Small Business?

For most companies, no. For a specific set, yes and clearly so. This section is the most useful part of the page, and it is worth being blunt.

Work in this topic that is not a small business fit. Assessing short and long-term health risks across the life course. Analysis of NIA-supported cohorts, which NIA strongly encourages. Natural experiments evaluating naturally occurring events, which NINR names. Epidemiological and mechanistic studies of disease development and progression. Community-engaged research where the company would be a subcontractor. Health disparities characterization. Training and capacity building across disciplines. Research translation and collaboration as ends in themselves. All of this is wanted by NIH and none of it is an SBIR project, because the deliverable is knowledge rather than a commercial product with unresolved technical risk that a company will own and sell.

Work in this topic that is a genuine small business fit.

• Wearables and environmental sensors for personal exposure assessment. NIAMS names this explicitly, asking for studies using personal exposure assessment methodologies including wearable devices and environmental sensors to provide stronger causal evidence linking extreme weather and other environmental exposures to disease outcomes. This is the single clearest product invitation in the topic and it comes with a stated scientific rationale you can quote.

• Exposure biomarkers. NIAMS asks for biomarkers of environmental exposures such as temperature extremes, air pollution, and wildfires that are associated with worsened disease status, naming flares in psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and lupus. An assay or panel is a product.

• Care continuity and medical device resilience. NIDDK names observational studies and clinical trials addressing health effects of care discontinuity from lack of medications or electricity-dependent treatments. The topic body separately names patients using electricity-dependent equipment as a heightened-risk population, and NCI asks about effects on healthcare delivery among patients undergoing cancer treatment. Backup power, portable or off-grid therapy delivery, medication cold chain, and treatment-interruption management tools all sit here.

• Health and environmental data linkage platforms. The topic purpose names methods to advance aggregation, linking, accessibility, and interpretation of health and weather-related data. NHLBI names integration of environmental and health-related datasets. NIMH names data sharing methods supporting rigorous and reproducible findings. NCCIH names integrating health and environmental data. Five separate parts of this topic ask for the same category of software product, which is a strong signal.

• Measurement instruments and methods. NIMH asks for methods to accurately measure short and long-term mental illness attributable to extreme weather events. A validated instrument, screener, or digital assessment is a product with a customer.

• Digital and remote intervention delivery. NIMH names intervention development and testing to reduce weather-related mental health sequelae and evidence-based practices in real-world settings including communities and schools. NIA names interventions and educational resources for specific older adult populations including within care facilities. NCCIH names multicomponent whole-person interventions and scalable delivery.

• Infectious disease diagnostics and anti-infective susceptibility tools. NIAID names zoonotic, food, water, and vector-borne pathogens with respect to reproductive capacity, transmissibility, epidemiology, and virulence, including changes in susceptibility to anti-infective interventions. Detection, surveillance, and resistance testing are products.

• In vitro and in silico models. The topic purpose names in vivo, in vitro, and in silico models to understand mechanistic underpinnings. A company with a modeling platform, organ-on-chip system, or computational exposure model has a lane, and this overlaps directly with the NIH New Approach Methodologies push.

The pattern is worth naming: the fundable products here are instruments, assays, sensors, devices, and software. Where the topic asks for understanding, it is asking academics. Where it asks for measurement, detection, linkage, or delivery, it is describing something a company can build.

Which Institute Should You Target?

Eleven awarding Institutes makes the assignment request the highest-leverage decision on the application. Group by what you sell.

Sensors, wearables, and exposure assessment: NIAMS is the primary door and the only Institute naming wearables and environmental sensors outright. NIEHS is the natural second, given its interest in identifying, characterizing, and quantifying the influence of weather and natural disasters on environmental exposures and how weather-related exposures contribute to the exposome across the life course. NHLBI for cardiopulmonary and sleep outcomes.

Data platforms and analytics: NHLBI for integration of environmental and heart, lung, blood, and sleep datasets. NIMH for measurement methods and data sharing. NIEHS for computational studies. NCCIH for integrating health and environmental data. NIA for economic and systems research on healthcare preparedness and health services delivery.

Care continuity, devices, and treatment delivery: NIDDK is the clearest, naming care discontinuity from lack of medications or electricity-dependent treatments, plus acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and kidney stones. NCI for effects on healthcare delivery and outcomes among patients undergoing cancer treatment and survivors. NIA for healthcare preparedness and interventions within care facilities.

Diagnostics and infectious disease: NIAID for airway disease, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, autoimmune and autoinflammatory disease under pollutant, heat, and humidity exposure, and separately for zoonotic, food, water, and vector-borne pathogens including anti-infective susceptibility.

Behavioral health and community intervention: NIMH for mental health measurement, intervention, and resilience. NCCIH for complementary and integrative health interventions targeting stress-related, multisystem, and chronic consequences. NINR for community and organization-level interventions. NIMHD for interventions in populations experiencing disparities, subject to its specific requirement below.

A requirement specific to NIMHD. NIMHD states that projects must focus on NIH-designated populations experiencing disparities and must include validated behavioral, clinical, or biomedical outcomes. That is written as a requirement rather than a preference. It also emphasizes academic-community partnerships and names outdoor workers and rural or coastal residents as example high-risk communities. If you cannot satisfy both the population focus and the validated outcome requirement, target a different Institute.

Quick reference: awarding Institutes, funding signals, and contacts

• NIEHS. Lead Institute. Environmental exposures associated with weather phenomena, exposome, epidemiology, mechanistic and computational studies, and interventions including implementation science. May dedicate available funds and may give special consideration, the only Institute making both statements. Contact: Ashlinn Quinn, ashlinn.quinn@nih.gov

• NCCIH. Complementary and integrative health interventions for stress-related, multisystem, and chronic consequences, whole-person interventions, community partnership, data integration. May give special consideration. Restricts efficacy and effectiveness trials at Phase I. Contact: NCCIHDERFunding@nih.gov

• NCI. Weather-related exposures and cancer etiology and outcomes, susceptibility of patients and survivors, and effects on healthcare delivery during treatment. No stated signal. Contact: Curt Dellavalle, Ph.D.

• NHLBI. Cumulative exposures and heart, lung, blood, and sleep health, naming sickle cell disease, anemias, asthma, COPD, heart failure, myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, and hypertension, with emphasis on children, older adults, and pregnant women. No stated signal. Contact: nhlbihighlightedtopics@mail.nih.gov

• NIA. Older individuals and caregivers, aging-related processes, pace of aging, functional and cognitive ability, preparedness behavior, healthcare preparedness economics, and interventions in care facilities. Analysis of NIA-supported cohorts strongly encouraged. No stated signal. Contact: Emerald Nguyen, Ph.D., and three additional program contacts

• NIAID. Airway and allergic disease, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, autoimmune and autoinflammatory disease, and zoonotic, food, water, and vector-borne pathogens. No stated signal. Directs small business clinical trials to a separate cooperative agreement. Contacts: Adriana Costero-Saint Denis for microbiology and infectious diseases, Patrice Becker for allergy, immunology, and transplantation

• NIAMS. Arthritis, musculoskeletal, and skin disease onset, severity, and treatment response, with explicit interest in wearable devices, environmental sensors, and exposure biomarkers. No stated signal. Accepts no clinical trials under either parent. Contact: Rebecca Lenzi, PhD

• NIDDK. Care discontinuity from lack of medications or electricity-dependent treatments, plus acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and kidney stones. May give special consideration. Accepts clinical trials under SBIR but not STTR. Contact: Susan Mendley, M.D.

• NIMH. Mental health measurement, children and adolescents, intervention development, risk and resilience in at-risk populations, real-world evidence-based practices, and data sharing methods. No stated signal. Contact: Laura Thomas, Ph.D.

• NIMHD. Solution-oriented disparities research with a mandatory focus on NIH-designated populations experiencing disparities and validated outcomes. May dedicate available funds. Does not accept clinical trials under STTR. Contact: NIMHDDIBBSScientificTeam@mail.nih.gov

• NINR. Community and organization-level interventions, conditions of daily life such as housing stability and neighborhood environments, and natural experiments. Explicitly welcomes scientists from any discipline. May give special consideration. Contact: CDR Nadra Tyus, DrPH, MPH

Which NIH Mechanism Should a Small Business Use?

Small businesses should apply through the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement and request assignment to the Institute whose interests match. On this topic, resolve the clinical trial question before you choose either.

NIH Parent SBIR, currently PA-27-100 (R43 and R44). The default route. Accepts Phase I, Phase II, Direct to Phase II, and Fast-Track. Use it when your company performs the majority of the research and your Principal Investigator is primarily employed by the company.

NIH Parent STTR, currently PA-27-102 (R41 and R42). Requires a formal collaboration with a nonprofit research institution, with at least 40 percent of the research at the small business and at least 30 percent at a single partner institution. STTR permits the Program Director or Principal Investigator to be employed by either the small business or the partnering nonprofit while the award still goes to the small business, which is useful here because the exposure science, atmospheric science, and epidemiology expertise this topic calls for usually sits in universities. Note that companies more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination are not eligible for STTR.

The clinical trial picture for this topic. This is where applications become non-responsive.

• NIAMS accepts no clinical trials under either parent announcement, despite asking for causal-evidence studies using wearables and sensors. Design around this or use a NIAMS-specific announcement.

• NIDDK names clinical trials twice in its published interests for this topic and accepts them under the parent SBIR announcement but not under STTR. A project with an academic PI and a trial component cannot use STTR here.

• NIMHD does not accept clinical trials under STTR.

• NCCIH operates a Phase-specific policy: it will not support clinical trials aiming to test efficacy or effectiveness as part of an SBIR or STTR Phase I application, meaning a study powered on a primary clinical outcome. It does accept basic experimental studies in humans, human mechanistic studies, and pilot feasibility testing at Phase I, and accepts clinical trials of all types at Phase II and Fast-Track. Given that NCCIH's entire interest here is rigorous intervention evaluation, this shapes how you stage the work.

• NIAID requires direct confirmation. NIAID is not on the exclusion list in the parent SBIR announcement, but NIAID's own small business program guidance states that it supports clinical trial research performed by small businesses only through a separate NIAID SBIR Phase II Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement, and that other Institutes may fund small business clinical trials through the parent announcements while NIAID does not. These two sources point in different directions, so anyone planning a trial with NIAID must confirm the current position with NIAID program staff rather than relying on the parent announcement alone.

A distinction worth stating. NIH small business phases are separate from and not aligned with clinical trial phases. An SBIR Phase I is a feasibility award, not a clinical Phase I trial. Run the NIH clinical trial determination against your actual design first, then pick the Institute, then pick the announcement.

Direct to Phase II. Available if you already hold the feasibility data a Phase I would generate and never received a Phase I award for that project. SBIR only. For a sensor or software company with a validated product in another exposure context, this is often the fastest route into this topic.

Fast-Track. Phase I and Phase II submitted together, reviewed once. Poor fit where Phase I results would change the Phase II design. Note that Fast-Track is also the point at which NCCIH accepts trials of all types.

Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, currently PA-27-101 (R44). For companies that completed an NIH SBIR or STTR Phase II and need a commercialization bridge. Requires documentation of not less than 100 percent matching funds from new private capital or from a government source other than a Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award. Award periods must not exceed 4 years.

Commercialization Readiness Pilot, currently PAR-27-098 (SB1). Late-stage technical assistance and product development not fundable through Phase II or Phase IIB, including Investigational New Drug and Investigational Device Exemption enabling studies, independent replication of key studies, clinical studies, manufacturing costs, and regulatory assistance. Relevant here for a sensor, diagnostic, or device requiring regulatory clearance.

Funding Allowance

Layer one, the SBA statutory guidelines for the current cycle:

• Phase I: up to $323,090 in total costs, for a project period of 6 months to 2 years

• Phase II: up to $2,153,927 in total costs, for a project period of 1 to 3 years

• Commercialization Readiness Pilot: up to $4,191,495 in total costs, for a project period of up to 3 years

Total funding support means direct costs, indirect costs, and fee combined. A reasonable profit or fee is allowable but must be in the budget at submission and normally will not exceed 7 percent of total costs. NIH does not adjust budgets after submission, so a request at the wrong level cannot be corrected later.

A practical warning about published Institute figures. Several Institute small business pages, including NIDDK's and NIAID's, still display older SBA guideline amounts such as $314,363 for Phase I and $2,095,748 for Phase II, and some NIEHS-specific announcements reference figures older still. The SBA adjusts these annually. Use the current guideline for the dollar amount and treat Institute pages as authoritative for policy, waiver eligibility, and per-year constraints rather than for the headline number. When the two conflict, ask program staff.

Layer two, Institute-specific guidance for participants in this topic:

• Higher Phase I headroom. The participating component table in the parent SBIR announcement lists Phase I limits above the statutory guideline for several Institutes here, reaching $700,000 at the top tier, which includes NCI, NIA, NIAID, NIMH, and NCCIH. Others list $400,000 and some hold to the SBA guideline.

• NCI. Generally funds waiver-eligible Phase I up to $400,000 across up to 2 years and considers Phase II up to $2,250,000 across up to 3 years. NCI's separate Phase IIB Bridge Award, announced through its own solicitation, provides funding support up to $4,500,000 in total costs and accepts technologies previously funded under SBIR or STTR Phase II from any federal agency, which is a broader eligibility base than most bridge programs.

• NIAID. Applies a per-year constraint that reshapes budgets more than a total ceiling: NIAID will not generally allow Phase II or Phase IIB awards of any duration exceeding $1,000,000 in total costs per year. NIAID also notes that applicants are not limited to NIAID's own SBA-approved topic list, since all topics on the NIH list can be funded at a higher budget without a separate waiver request.

• NIDDK. Generally considers Phase I up to $350,000 across up to 2 years, Phase II up to $2,200,000 across up to 3 years, and Phase IIB up to $3,000,000, with Phase II and Phase IIB generally not exceeding $1,100,000 in any single year.

• NIEHS. Beyond the parent announcements, NIEHS runs targeted small business announcements that carry materially different terms, including some that accept Phase I applications only and some with substantially lower caps, such as its Superfund Research Program small business track. If NIEHS is your target, confirm which announcement you are applying under and what its budget language says before you build a budget, because the parent guideline may not apply.

• NCCIH, NHLBI, NIA, NIAMS, NIMH, NIMHD, NINR. Refer to the participating component table in the current parent announcement and confirm with program staff. These Institutes do not all maintain standing published SBIR budget pages, and NHLBI publishes its guidance through NOT-HL notices.

Two general cautions. A ceiling in a component table is not the number that gets awarded. BW&CO's analysis of a fiscal year 2026 NCI SBIR award slice found Phase I level awards ranging from roughly $305,000 to $404,000, with not one award in 44 records reaching the $700,000 headroom. And an Institute may reduce the recommended budget or shorten the award period for budgetary, administrative, or programmatic reasons even after a strong review score.

Timeline

The topic window runs from September 1, 2026 through May 1, 2028. That expiration is well short of the usual two years and sits between two standard due dates.

Standard annual due dates: January 5, April 5, and September 5. When a due date falls on a weekend or federal holiday, NIH moves it to the next business day. Applications are due by 5:00 p.m. local time of the applicant organization.

Cycles available under this topic:

• September 2026 cycle: the September 5, 2026 date shifted to Tuesday, September 8, 2026 because of the weekend and the Labor Day holiday. Since the topic posted on September 1, this cycle is not realistically available.

• January 5, 2027: the first realistic cycle for a company beginning preparation now.

• April 5, 2027

• September 5, 2027

• January 5, 2028

• April 5, 2028, the final cycle. The topic expires May 1, 2028, before the September 2028 date.

What the runway looks like: plan on roughly 9 months from submission to funds in the door. An application submitted in the January 2027 cycle typically reaches an earliest possible start date in the fall of 2027. Council decisions for the September and January cycles are often handled together, so deferring a cycle is not costless. With five cycles remaining and a May 2028 expiration, the effective planning horizon here is shorter than on most topics.

Work backwards from your target date:

• 16 to 18 weeks out: read the HEW Strategic Framework, identify your target Institute, run the NIH clinical trial determination, confirm the Institute's clinical trial policy for your chosen mechanism, contact program staff, and start or verify federal registrations

• 12 weeks out: lock the Specific Aims page and circulate to program staff

• 8 weeks out: complete the research strategy, commercialization plan, community or Tribal partnership documentation if applicable, data use agreements for any linked datasets, letters of support, and human subjects planning

• 4 weeks out: full internal review, budget finalization, and subaward paperwork for any STTR or academic partner

• 1 week out: submit early to leave room for eRA Commons error correction

Registrations are the most common cause of a missed deadline. You need SAM.gov with a Unique Entity ID, the SBA Company Registry, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov. eRA Commons access depends on the SBA Company Registry being complete first. Allow six weeks or more and begin before you write.

Also note the current SBIR parent, PA-27-100, closes in early April 2027, before this topic expires, so applicants targeting later cycles must confirm the active announcement number at submission.

Detailed Overview of What NIH Is Looking For

Program aims and scope

The HEW Program aims to support research increasing understanding of how extreme weather, including weather-related natural disasters and emerging weather-related harms, affects human health. Beyond mechanistic processes, the program prioritizes research to develop, test, implement, and evaluate interventions and prevention strategies protecting the health of communities and those at heightened risk for mortality, chronic disease, and lifelong health risks. It also prioritizes research connecting health and environmental data, training and capacity building, community engagement, research translation, and collaboration, and aims to promote collaborative science across biological sciences, atmospheric science, health economics, implementation science, and other disciplines.

The defined scope of extreme weather is broad and worth quoting in your Significance section because it is wider than most applicants assume. It covers extremes in temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind velocity, and other meteorological variables; wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, floods, heatwaves, harmful algal blooms, snowpack loss, and extreme storms; and weather's downstream influence on other environmental exposures and health-relevant outcomes.

That third element is the most useful for a company. A product that addresses a downstream exposure, air quality after wildfire smoke, waterborne pathogens after flooding, algal toxins, or heat-driven changes in medication stability, is in scope even if the product never measures weather directly.

The translational continuum

The topic states that projects may sit at different nodes on the translational continuum and names three application types: using in vivo, in vitro, and in silico models to understand mechanistic underpinnings; assessing short and long-term health risks across the life course and among populations at heightened risk; and developing, testing, implementing, and evaluating evidence-based interventions to prevent or reduce impacts.

It then adds two further categories: methods to advance the aggregation, linking, accessibility, and interpretation of health and weather-related data, and efforts to provide training and build capacity across disciplines. Community engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration, and research translation are encouraged throughout.

For a small business, the first and third of the named application types plus the data methods category are where products live. The second, risk assessment across populations, is epidemiology.

Priority populations, and why the list matters commercially

The topic names an unusually specific set of populations at heightened risk: children, people with chronic pre-existing medical conditions, pregnant women, newborns, agricultural and other outdoor workers, older adults, military personnel and veterans, first responders, patients using electricity-dependent equipment, residents of rural and urban areas, and those with limited economic resources.

Several of these are also identifiable customers or channels, which is unusual. Outdoor and agricultural workers imply an employer purchaser and an occupational health channel. First responders and military personnel imply institutional procurement and a possible bridge to Department of Defense funding. Patients using electricity-dependent equipment imply a payer, a durable medical equipment channel, and a device manufacturer partner. Care facilities, which NIA names directly, imply a facility purchaser. A commercialization plan that connects your named priority population to the entity that would actually pay is doing something most applications on this topic will not.

Institute reads worth acting on

NIAMS is the most product-friendly language in the topic. It asks for personal exposure assessment using wearable devices and environmental sensors specifically to provide stronger causal evidence, and adds that research advancing beyond associations and integrating cutting-edge exposure assessments, mechanistic insights, and longitudinal designs is encouraged. It names concrete disease endpoints, flares in psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and lupus, which gives a sensor company a measurable clinical outcome to anchor to rather than a vague exposure metric. The constraint is that NIAMS accepts no clinical trials under either parent announcement, so the study design must stay observational, mechanistic, or technical.

NIDDK offers the clearest device and logistics problem. Care discontinuity from lack of medications or electricity-dependent treatments is a defined failure mode with identifiable products attached: backup power, off-grid or portable therapy delivery, cold chain integrity, and interruption management. NIDDK also names acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, and kidney stones, where heat and dehydration effects are well established. NIDDK stated it may give special consideration and accepts clinical trials under SBIR.

NIEHS is the lead and made the strongest funding statements, but its interests are the most academic. Exposome characterization, epidemiology, and mechanistic and computational studies dominate. The intervention bullet, studies focused on interventions to reduce health impacts of environmental exposures driven or exacerbated by weather including implementation science approaches, is the one to write against if NIEHS is your target. Also confirm which NIEHS announcement applies, since its targeted tracks carry different terms.

NIMH offers a measurement product opportunity that is easy to miss. Its first bullet asks for methods to accurately measure short and long-term mental illness attributable to extreme weather events. That is instrument development, not intervention research, and it is a distinct product category from the intervention bullets that follow. NIMH also names data sharing methods to support rigorous and reproducible findings.

NIAID splits into two very different lanes. The allergy and airway lane concerns immune responses under pollutant, heat, and humidity exposure across asthma, allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, respiratory viral susceptibility, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and autoimmune or autoinflammatory disease. The infectious disease lane concerns zoonotic, food, water, and vector-borne pathogens, their reproductive capacity, transmissibility, epidemiology, and virulence, including changes in susceptibility to anti-infective interventions. That last clause is a resistance and susceptibility testing product. NIAID lists separate contacts for each lane, so call the right one.

NINR is the most discipline-open. It states that it supports research aligned with its mission conducted by scientists from any discipline, which is a lower barrier than most Institutes present, and it stated it may give special consideration. Its interest in conditions of daily life such as housing stability and neighborhood environments shaping resilience and recovery is largely academic, but community and organization-level intervention development and evaluation can support a delivery product.

What the non-awarding offices add

Four offices participate without awarding: OBSSR, ODP, ORWH, and THRO. Your application must be relevant to the objectives of at least one of the eleven awarding Institutes, and their interests function as additional strength.

ODP is the most directly useful to a product company, naming projects that develop, test, and implement preparedness, prevention, and recovery interventions, particularly for populations at heightened risk, and projects that evaluate strategies to prevent disruptions to screening and healthcare services following extreme weather events. That second bullet pairs precisely with the NIDDK care continuity and NCI healthcare delivery interests, and screening disruption is a defined operational problem.

ORWH gives priority to multidisciplinary studies using sex-disaggregated data, and names how extreme weather affects chronic conditions in women with risk varying by age, reproductive stage, and menopausal status; evaluation of disaster preparedness plans addressing women's mental health, chronic disease management, and reproductive health needs; resilience among women in rural and medically underserved communities; and effects of environmental displacement and changed living conditions. Sex-disaggregated analysis is a low-cost design decision that most applications will handle minimally.

THRO supports research on how extreme weather affects the health of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples, encouraging studies exploring Tribe and community-specific weather exposures, focusing on AI/AN people at heightened risk such as those who work outside or live in areas with severe weather, tapping existing resources and strengths, employing culturally grounded research approaches and health measures, and including AI/AN participants, practices, and ways of knowledge as much as possible. Claiming THRO alignment requires documented Tribal partnership, not an assertion of intent.

OBSSR participates without publishing specific interests for this topic.

Eligibility Requirements

To apply for an NIH SBIR or STTR award, your company must meet the core SBA criteria:

• Organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United States, and the primary research performed in the United States

• More than 50 percent directly owned and controlled by one or more individuals who are U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, by other for-profit small business concerns each majority owned by such individuals, or by a combination. Certain venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity structures may qualify for SBIR under specific conditions, but companies more than 50 percent owned by multiple such firms in combination are not eligible for STTR. Complex cap tables should be checked against 13 CFR Part 121.

• No more than 500 employees including all affiliates. A subsidiary counts its parent's employees.

• For SBIR, the Principal Investigator's primary employment must be with the small business at the time of award and for the duration of the project. For STTR, the PD/PI may be primarily employed by either the small business or the partnering nonprofit research institution, with the award still made to the small business.

• For SBIR Phase I, the small business must perform at least two thirds of the research or analytical effort. For SBIR Phase II, at least half. For STTR, the small business performs at least 40 percent and a single partner nonprofit research institution performs at least 30 percent.

Additional constraints. NIH will not accept similar applications with essentially the same research focus from the same applicant organization, including derivative applications proposing a single product applicable to multiple purposes with non-substantive modification, which is a live risk on a topic where one sensor or data platform could plausibly be pitched to five Institutes. You may not simultaneously submit identical or essentially identical applications under both parent announcements, and duplicate or highly overlapping applications under simultaneous review are not accepted. Applicants must disclose overlapping federal work under the essentially equivalent work rule. Companies with a substantial award history should confirm they meet the Phase I to Phase II Transition Rate and commercialization benchmarks. Heightened screening of foreign ownership and foreign influence applies under the 2026 reauthorization.

What a Competitive Application Looks Like

1. A product, stated plainly, in the first paragraph. Most applications to this topic will propose research. Reviewers assigned to a small business application are looking for a commercial product with unresolved technical risk. Make the product unmistakable early, because the surrounding topic language invites drift toward a study.

2. A named priority population that maps to a payer. The topic lists eleven heightened-risk populations, several of which come with an obvious purchaser: employers for outdoor workers, institutions for first responders and military personnel, durable medical equipment channels and payers for patients using electricity-dependent equipment, facilities for older adults in care settings. Connecting the population to the payer is a commercialization argument almost no competing application will make.

3. Causal evidence, not association. NIAMS asks for stronger causal evidence and for research advancing beyond associations. NIMHD requires validated behavioral, clinical, or biomedical outcomes. If your product generates exposure data, state what clinical outcome it is validated against and how.

4. Data linkage handled as engineering, not aspiration. Five parts of this topic ask for health and environmental data integration. Naming the specific datasets, the linkage method, the spatial and temporal resolution problem, and the data use agreements you will need reads as a technical plan rather than a wish.

5. The clinical trial determination resolved before the mechanism is chosen. Five participating Institutes carry restrictions and NIAID's position requires direct confirmation.

6. The HEW Strategic Framework read and reflected. The program publishes its own framework. Using its language is free and most applicants will not bother.

7. Program officer contact before writing. Eleven Institutes, six different funding signals, five clinical trial complications, and a central contact who can route you. This call is worth more here than on almost any topic.

Common Reasons Applications Miss

• Treating the Highlighted Topic as a NOFO and searching Grants.gov for a topic-specific number that does not exist

• Bringing an epidemiology, cohort analysis, or natural experiment project to a small business mechanism, where the deliverable is knowledge rather than a product the company will own and sell

• Proposing a clinical trial to NIAMS, which accepts none under either parent announcement

• Proposing a clinical trial to NIDDK or NIMHD through STTR, which neither accepts, when SBIR would have worked at NIDDK

• Proposing an efficacy or effectiveness trial to NCCIH at Phase I, which NCCIH does not support at that phase but does accept at Phase II and Fast-Track

• Planning a clinical trial with NIAID on the strength of the parent announcement alone, when NIAID's own guidance directs small business trials to a separate cooperative agreement

• Targeting NIMHD without a designated disparity population focus and validated behavioral, clinical, or biomedical outcomes, both of which NIMHD states as requirements

• Building a budget from an Institute page still displaying an older SBA guideline figure rather than the current amount

• Budgeting to the $700,000 Phase I ceiling rather than the roughly $400,000 that Institutes actually award, or concentrating Phase II costs in one year at NIAID, which will not generally allow more than $1,000,000 in total costs per year

• Applying to NIEHS under the parent guideline when a targeted NIEHS announcement with different terms and a lower cap actually governs

• Pitching one sensor or data platform to several Institutes at once, which runs into the prohibition on derivative applications proposing a single product applicable to multiple purposes

• Claiming THRO alignment without documented Tribal partnership, or community engagement without named partners and letters

• Referencing a Make America Healthy Again alignment that this topic, unlike most in the cycle, does not claim

• Starting federal registrations after drafting begins, then missing the receipt date on an eRA Commons validation error

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this a grant I can apply to directly?

No. This is an NIH Highlighted Topic, which is a statement of scientific priority rather than a Notice of Funding Opportunity. You apply through a broad NIH announcement, and for small businesses that means the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement, requesting assignment to one of the eleven awarding Institutes.

Which funding opportunity number do I actually use?

For most small businesses it is PA-27-100, the NIH, CDC, and FDA Parent SBIR announcement covering R43 and R44 awards. If your project depends on a formal university or nonprofit research partner, use PA-27-102, the Parent STTR announcement covering R41 and R42. If NIEHS is your target, confirm whether a targeted NIEHS announcement governs instead, since its terms and caps can differ.

Is this topic actually a fit for a small business?

For most companies, no. The majority of the described work is epidemiology, cohort analysis, natural experiments, community-engaged research, and implementation science, which belong in R01 and related mechanisms. Genuine small business lanes include wearables and environmental sensors for personal exposure assessment, exposure biomarkers, care continuity and medical device resilience for electricity-dependent treatments, health and environmental data linkage platforms, mental health measurement instruments, digital and remote intervention delivery, infectious disease diagnostics and anti-infective susceptibility testing, and in vitro or in silico models.

Which of the eleven Institutes should I target?

Sensors and exposure assessment point to NIAMS first, then NIEHS and NHLBI. Data platforms point to NHLBI, NIMH, NIEHS, NCCIH, or NIA. Care continuity and devices point to NIDDK, then NCI and NIA. Diagnostics and infectious disease point to NIAID. Behavioral health and community intervention point to NIMH, NCCIH, NINR, or NIMHD. NIEHS leads the program and is the only Institute that made both available funding statements.

How much money can my company request?

The SBA statutory guidelines this cycle are $323,090 for Phase I and $2,153,927 for Phase II in total costs, including direct costs, indirect costs, and fee. Several participating Institutes list Phase I headroom to $700,000. NCI generally funds waiver-eligible Phase I near $400,000 and Phase II up to $2,250,000, and its separate Phase IIB Bridge Award provides up to $4,500,000. NIDDK publishes $350,000 and $2,200,000. NIAID applies a per-year constraint of $1,000,000 in total costs on Phase II and Phase IIB. Note that several Institute pages still display older SBA figures, so confirm the current amount.

When is the deadline?

There is no deadline specific to this topic. You submit on the NIH standard small business receipt dates of January 5, April 5, and September 5 each year, with dates falling on weekends or federal holidays moving to the next business day. The topic expires May 1, 2028, which is earlier than the usual two-year window and makes April 5, 2028 the final available cycle.

Can I include a clinical trial?

It depends on the Institute and the mechanism, and this topic has more complications than most. NIAMS accepts none under either parent announcement. NIDDK and NIMHD do not accept them under STTR, though NIDDK does under SBIR. NCCIH will not support efficacy or effectiveness trials at Phase I but accepts trials of all types at Phase II and Fast-Track. NIAID's own guidance directs small business clinical trials to a separate cooperative agreement, so confirm directly with NIAID before planning one. Run the NIH clinical trial determination against your design first.

How long until I receive funding?

Plan on approximately 9 months from submission to award start. An application submitted in the January 2027 cycle would typically have an earliest possible start date in the fall of 2027.

Do I have to give up equity or match the funds?

No. NIH SBIR and STTR Phase I and Phase II awards are non-dilutive and require no cost share. The exception is the Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, which requires not less than 100 percent matching funds from new private capital or from a government source other than a Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award.

What counts as extreme weather under this topic?

The defined scope is broad: extremes in temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind velocity, and other meteorological variables; wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, floods, heatwaves, harmful algal blooms, snowpack loss, and extreme storms; and weather's downstream influence on other environmental exposures and health-relevant outcomes. That third element means a product addressing a downstream exposure, such as post-wildfire air quality, post-flood waterborne pathogens, or algal toxins, is in scope even if it never measures weather directly.

Does my project have to involve a specific population?

Not universally, but the topic names eleven heightened-risk populations including children, people with chronic conditions, pregnant women, newborns, agricultural and other outdoor workers, older adults, military personnel and veterans, first responders, patients using electricity-dependent equipment, rural and urban residents, and those with limited economic resources. NIMHD, separately, requires a focus on NIH-designated populations experiencing disparities plus validated behavioral, clinical, or biomedical outcomes.

Does any Institute set aside dedicated funding for this topic?

Not guaranteed, but six made statements. NIEHS, the lead Institute, stated both that it may dedicate available funds and that it may give special consideration. NIMHD stated it may dedicate available funds. NCCIH, NIDDK, and NINR each stated they may give special consideration. NCI, NHLBI, NIA, NIAID, NIAMS, and NIMH made no statement. Treat these as a favorable tilt rather than a reserved pool.

I already have feasibility data. Do I still need a Phase I?

Not necessarily. SBIR Direct to Phase II allows a company that has demonstrated the scientific and technical merit and feasibility normally expected from a Phase I, without having received a Phase I award for that project, to apply directly for Phase II. This authority is available for SBIR only and is not available under STTR. A sensor or software product already validated in another exposure context is a common qualifying profile.

Does this topic align with the Make America Healthy Again initiative?

No. Unlike most NIH Highlighted Topics published in this cycle, this one lists no initiative alignment and no named policy efforts. It is instead tied to the NIH Health and Extreme Weather Program and its published Strategic Framework, which is what applicants should read and reference.

Do OBSSR, ODP, ORWH, and THRO award grants?

No. All four participate without awarding. Your application must be relevant to the objectives of at least one of the eleven awarding Institutes. ODP's interests are the most useful to a product company, particularly its focus on preventing disruptions to screening and healthcare services after extreme weather events.

What registrations do I need, and how long do they take?

SAM.gov with a Unique Entity ID, the SBA Company Registry, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov. eRA Commons access depends on completing the SBA Company Registry first, so the sequence matters. Allow at least six weeks, and start before you begin writing.

How BW&CO Helps

BW&CO is a non-dilutive federal funding advisory firm. We help deep-tech, biotech, medtech, and health technology founders convert agency priority signals like this one into funded awards.

On a topic this broad and this academically weighted, the first job is an honest fit assessment. If your project is research rather than product development, we will tell you so and point you at the right mechanism. If it is a sensor, diagnostic, device, or data platform, the work is Institute selection across eleven options with six different funding signals, resolving the clinical trial determination and the several Institute restrictions attached to it, confirming which NIEHS announcement governs, program officer engagement, Specific Aims development, full proposal build, budget and fee construction, commercialization planning that connects the priority population to an actual payer, and Phase IIB and CRP sequencing. Our team has helped clients secure more than $350 million in funding. Innovation Funding Simplified.

If you are building a product that measures, prevents, or manages the health effects of extreme weather and want a straight answer on whether this topic fits your company and whether you are competitive for the January 5, 2027 cycle, contact us for a fit assessment.

NIH Highlighted Topic: Next-generation Cellular Immunotherapy: Reprogramming Immune Cells Inside the Body

Executive Summary

The National Institutes of Health has published a Highlighted Topic titled "Next-generation Cellular Immunotherapy: Reprogramming Immune Cells Inside the Body." It signals that five NIH Institutes, NCI, NIAID, NIAMS, NIBIB, and NIDCR, want to fund basic research, preclinical development, and early clinical testing of in vivo immune cell engineering: approaches that reprogram T cells, natural killer cells, macrophages, and other immune cells inside the patient rather than extracting, modifying, and expanding them in a manufacturing facility.

The commercial thesis NIH lays out is unusually explicit. CAR-T therapies transformed treatment of hematologic malignancies, but current adoptive cellular therapies carry substantial practical barriers: lymphodepletion, leukapheresis, ex vivo cell modification and expansion, GMP manufacturing, specialized facilities, and weeks-long processing. NIH states that this complexity makes these therapies slow, costly, and inaccessible to many patients, and that in vivo engineering removes a major logistical bottleneck and offers true off-the-shelf cellular immunotherapy. That is a manufacturing and access argument as much as a scientific one, which makes this the most small-business-native Highlighted Topic NIH has published this cycle.

For a small business, the practical translation is this: there is no new application portal and no new deadline attached to this topic. A Highlighted Topic is a demand signal, not a Notice of Funding Opportunity. You capture the funding by submitting to the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement, requesting assignment to one of the five Institutes, and aligning your Specific Aims to that Institute's stated interests.

One structural fact should shape your plan before anything else. The topic explicitly invites early clinical testing, pilot clinical trials, and acceleration of clinical trials, yet only NCI among the five Institutes accepts clinical trial applications without restriction under the parent announcements. NIBIB accepts only early stage trials such as feasibility, first-in-human, and safety studies that inform early technology development. NIAID accepts clinical trials under SBIR but not under STTR. NIAMS and NIDCR accept no clinical trials under either parent announcement, despite NIAMS explicitly inviting clinical research. Matching your trial design to the wrong Institute or mechanism makes the application non-responsive and unreviewed regardless of scientific merit.

The topic was posted on September 2, 2026 and expires on September 2, 2028. If you build viral vectors, lipid nanoparticles or other synthetic nanocarriers, biodegradable nanomaterials, gene editing payloads, synthetic receptors or genetic circuits, biomaterials for immunotherapy, or microphysiological platforms for evaluating in vivo transduction, there is a well-signposted funding path here across multiple Institutes.

At a Glance

• Topic title: Next-generation Cellular Immunotherapy: Reprogramming Immune Cells Inside the Body

• Issuing agency: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• Awarding Institutes: NCI, NIAID, NIAMS, NIBIB, and NIDCR

• Non-awarding participating office: the Office of Autoimmune Disease Research in the Office of Research on Women's Health (OADR-ORWH)

• Type: NIH Highlighted Topic. This is not a Notice of Funding Opportunity.

• Post date: September 2, 2026

• Expiration date: September 2, 2028

• Recommended small business mechanism: NIH SBIR (R43 and R44) or NIH STTR (R41 and R42) parent announcement

• Current parent announcements: PA-27-100 for SBIR, PA-27-102 for STTR, PA-27-101 for the Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, and PAR-27-098 for the Commercialization Readiness Pilot

• Standard annual due dates: January 5, April 5, and September 5

• SBA statutory guidelines this cycle: $323,090 Phase I, $2,153,927 Phase II, $4,191,495 CRP

• Institute headroom: NCI and NIAID are among the components listing Phase I limits above the statutory guideline, up to $700,000. Limits differ by Institute and must be confirmed.

• Clinical trials: NCI accepts them. NIBIB accepts only early stage, feasibility, first-in-human, safety, or other small trials informing early technology development, and will not support pivotal, efficacy, or effectiveness trials. NIAID accepts under SBIR but not STTR. NIAMS and NIDCR accept none under either parent.

• Cost share: none for Phase I or Phase II. Phase IIB requires 100 percent third-party matching funds.

• Equity dilution: none. This is non-dilutive federal funding.

• Profit or fee: allowable, must be in the budget at submission, and normally will not exceed 7 percent of total costs

• Funding signal: NIDCR is the only participating Institute that stated it may give special consideration to meritorious applications in this topic area.

• Initiative alignment: none stated. Unlike most Highlighted Topics published this cycle, this one is not issued under the Make America Healthy Again initiative, so there is no policy framing to reference.

• Central contact: none designated. Each Institute lists its own scientific contact.

What This Opportunity Actually Is

An NIH Highlighted Topic is a published statement of scientific interest from one or more NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. It tells the research community that an area of science is a priority without creating a separate funding announcement, deadline, or review process. There is no topic-specific number to search on Grants.gov, and applications are not scored against other applications to the topic.

What it does do is identify which Institutes are receptive, which determines your assignment request and your program officer conversations, and supply the vocabulary program staff already use internally, which your Specific Aims should mirror. On this topic only NIDCR went on record with a funding advantage, stating it may give special consideration to meritorious applications in the topic area. The other four Institutes made no such statement. That is a thinner set of stated signals than most topics carry, and it means Institute selection here rests on scientific and mechanism fit rather than on declared preference.

It is also worth noting what this topic lacks. Most NIH Highlighted Topics published in this cycle are issued under the Make America Healthy Again initiative and list named policy alignments that applicants can reference in a Significance section. This one does not. Do not manufacture an initiative alignment that the topic does not claim.

Why This Topic Is a Strong Small Business Fit

Most NIH Highlighted Topics require careful triage to separate the academically fundable work from the commercially fundable work. This one requires less of that, because nearly every area of interest across the five Institutes describes a product: a delivery vehicle, a payload, an editing tool, a receptor design, a biomaterial, or an evaluation platform.

NIH's own background section makes the commercialization case for you. It names lymphodepletion, leukapheresis, ex vivo modification and expansion, GMP manufacturing, specialized facilities, and weeks-long processing times as the barriers, and states that in vivo engineering offers true off-the-shelf cellular immunotherapy for rapidly progressing diseases where patients often cannot afford the wait. Cost of goods, manufacturing complexity, time to treatment, and site-of-care requirements are all named or implied. A commercialization plan that quantifies the delta between an ex vivo process and your in vivo approach is arguing exactly the case NIH already made.

The clearest product lanes across the five Institutes:

• Delivery vehicles. Viral vectors including lentiviral and adeno-associated viral vectors, engineered viruses, lipid nanoparticles, synthetic nanocarriers, biodegradable nanomaterials, and artificial cells. Named by NCI, NIBIB, and NIDCR.

• Targeting and specificity. Technologies increasing the specificity and efficiency of immune cell targeting and transduction in vivo, plus tissue, antigen, and cell specificity for enhancing protective immunity or eliminating and reprogramming pathogenic subsets. Named in the topic purpose and by NIAID.

• Payloads and editing tools. CARs, TCRs, costimulatory domains, other functional elements, mRNA and siRNA cargos, CRISPR/Cas9, base and prime editing, nucleases and genome editors, and epigenetic reprogramming. Named by NCI, NIBIB, and NIDCR.

• Synthetic biology and control. Synthetic receptors, transmembrane chimeric antigen receptors, and synthetic genetic circuits for engineering T cells, NK cells, and macrophages. Named by NIBIB. Control and reversibility of therapeutic activity is named by NIAID.

• Biomaterials. Biomaterials for enhancing immunotherapy, named by NIBIB.

• Evaluation platforms. Novel platforms to engineer immune cells in vivo using microphysiological systems to model and evaluate targeting, transduction efficiency, and therapeutic function. Named by NIBIB, and a distinct product category rather than a research method.

• Preclinical safety and biomarker work. Preclinical toxicity and safety studies, biodistribution improvement, and pilot clinical trials informed by biomarkers. Named by NCI and echoed in NIAID's safety priorities.

• Computational and AI tools. Advanced data science, artificial intelligence and machine learning, and computational modeling to elucidate mechanisms of action and optimize design and performance. Named by NIDCR, with a parallel interest from OADR-ORWH in computational interrogation of clinical trial data.

The ordinary SBIR test still applies. There must be a commercial product with unresolved technical risk that your company will own and sell. On this topic that test is easier to pass than usual.

Which Institute Should You Target?

With five awarding Institutes, the assignment request drives review assignment, budget ceiling, and whether your clinical design is even reviewable. Group yourself by disease area first, then check the clinical trial constraint.

NCI, for oncology. NCI encourages development of in vivo immune cell engineering methods for testing in preclinical models and early clinical trials in both hematologic and solid tumors. Its named topics span viral vector delivery of DNA carrying tumor-specific CARs, TCRs, and costimulatory domains; nonviral delivery using LNPs or other synthetic nanocarriers for mRNA, siRNA, and other cargos; novel delivery vehicles including biodegradable nanomaterials; novel gene editing methods such as CRISPR/Cas9 and base or prime editing delivered with nanovehicles for genetic or epigenetic reprogramming; preclinical toxicity and safety studies and pilot clinical trials informed by biomarkers; and combination use with immune checkpoint blockade or agents modulating the tumor microenvironment. NCI is also the only one of the five that accepts clinical trials without restriction, which makes it the default target for any project with a clinical component.

NIAID, for infectious, autoimmune, and immune-mediated disease. NIAID encourages basic, translational, and early clinical research on engineered cellular therapies, including targeted modulation of protective or pathogenic immune responses that induce durable disease control while preserving protective immunity. Its three named strategies are improving tissue, antigen, and cell specificity for enhancing protective immunity or eliminating and reprogramming pathogenic immune subsets including autoreactive innate and adaptive cells; improving scalability, cost reduction, and expansion of access to off-the-shelf or in vivo approaches that minimize preconditioning; and improving safety, covering mitigation of off-target effects, unintended tissue injury, prolonged immune dysregulation, oncogenic risk, and improved control and reversibility of therapeutic activity. NIAID accepts clinical trials under SBIR but not under STTR.

Note how commercial NIAID's second bullet is. Scalability, cost reduction, and access are business metrics, and minimizing preconditioning is a direct attack on the lymphodepletion barrier. If your platform's advantage is that it removes preconditioning or lowers cost of goods, NIAID has invited that argument in its own words.

NIBIB, for platform and enabling technology. NIBIB is interested in technologies to engineer immune cells in vivo across a range of diseases, listing new types of engineered viruses and artificial cells for genetic material delivery; novel delivery methods using LNPs, nanocarriers, biodegradable nanomaterials, or other vehicles; novel gene editing methods, synthetic receptors, and transmembrane chimeric antigen receptors; nucleases and genome editors for DNA manipulation and regulation; synthetic genetic circuits for engineering T cells, NK cells, and macrophages for immune regulation and cancer therapy; biomaterials for enhancing immunotherapy; and development of novel platforms using microphysiological systems to model and evaluate targeting, transduction efficiency, and therapeutic function.

NIBIB is the right door for a company whose product is the enabling technology rather than a therapy for a named indication, since its framing is deliberately disease-agnostic. NIBIB's clinical trial policy is narrower than NCI's but well matched to this topic: it supports feasibility, first-in-human, safety, and other small trials that inform early stage technology development, and will not support pivotal trials, later-phase trials, or trials whose primary outcome is efficacy, effectiveness, or a post-market concern. Mechanistic trials are supported only where the primary focus of the project is technology development.

NIAMS, for rheumatic, autoimmune, autoinflammatory, and musculoskeletal disease. NIAMS encourages basic, translational, and clinical research advancing in vivo immune cell engineering-based cell therapy for rheumatic, autoimmune, autoinflammatory, and musculoskeletal and bone diseases and conditions. That is the entirety of its published language, which is notably brief relative to the other four. Critically, NIAMS accepts no clinical trials under either parent announcement, so its invitation to clinical research must be satisfied through work that does not meet the NIH clinical trial definition, or through a NIAMS-specific announcement designed for trials.

NIDCR, for dental, oral, and craniofacial disease. NIDCR seeks research and technology advancement for dental, oral, and craniofacial diseases and conditions, listing novel viral vector-based delivery platforms and nonviral approaches using LNPs and other synthetic nanocarriers for efficient targeted delivery of nucleic acids or protein cargos; innovative gene editing including CRISPR/Cas9 and base or prime editing for precise and durable genetic and epigenetic modification of immune cells in vivo; combination strategies integrating immune engineering with immune checkpoint blockade, autoantigen and antibody-based therapies, and cytokine and chemokine-mediated modulation; and advanced data science, AI and machine learning, and computational modeling to elucidate mechanisms of action and optimize design and performance. NIDCR is the only Institute here offering a stated funding advantage, and the only one naming protein cargo delivery alongside nucleic acids. It accepts no clinical trials under either parent.

Quick reference: awarding Institutes, clinical trial posture, and contacts

• NCI. Hematologic and solid tumors, delivery, editing, preclinical safety, combination therapy. Accepts clinical trials. No stated funding signal. Contact: Zhang-Zhi Hu, M.D., zhang-zhi.hu@nih.gov

• NIAID. Infectious, autoimmune, and immune-mediated disease, with emphasis on specificity, scalability and access, and safety. Accepts clinical trials under SBIR only, not STTR. No stated funding signal. Contact: Jeffrey Rice, Ph.D., Jeffrey.Rice@nih.gov

• NIAMS. Rheumatic, autoimmune, autoinflammatory, musculoskeletal and bone disease. Accepts no clinical trials under either parent. No stated funding signal. Brief published language, so a program officer call matters more here. Contact: Marie Mancini, Ph.D., Marie.Mancini@nih.gov

• NIBIB. Disease-agnostic enabling technology, synthetic biology, biomaterials, microphysiological evaluation platforms. Accepts early stage, feasibility, first-in-human, safety, and other small trials informing technology development only. No stated funding signal. Contact: Tuba Fehr, PhD, tuba.fehr@nih.gov

• NIDCR. Dental, oral, and craniofacial disease, delivery, editing, combination strategies, AI and computational modeling. Accepts no clinical trials under either parent. May give special consideration to meritorious applications. Contact: Zhong Chen, MD, PhD, nidcr-program@mail.nih.gov

Which NIH Mechanism Should a Small Business Use?

Small businesses should apply through the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement and request assignment to the Institute whose interests match. On this topic the mechanism choice interacts with the clinical trial question more than usual, so decide both together.

NIH Parent SBIR, currently PA-27-100 (R43 and R44). The default route. Accepts Phase I, Phase II, Direct to Phase II, and Fast-Track. Use it when your company performs the majority of the research and your Principal Investigator is primarily employed by the company. Under PA-27-100, NIAMS and NIDCR do not accept clinical trials, and an application proposing a clinical trial that aligns only with one of those missions is non-responsive and will not be reviewed.

NIH Parent STTR, currently PA-27-102 (R41 and R42). Requires a formal collaboration with a nonprofit research institution, with at least 40 percent of the research at the small business and at least 30 percent at a single partner institution. STTR permits the Program Director or Principal Investigator to be employed by either the small business or the partnering nonprofit while the award still goes to the small business, which matters in this field because much of the foundational vector, editing, and receptor work sits in academic labs and the inventor often holds a faculty appointment. Under PA-27-102, NIAID, NIAMS, and NIDCR do not accept clinical trials, so a project with an academic PI and a clinical component cannot use STTR at NIAID even though SBIR would work.

A distinction worth stating plainly. NIH small business phases are separate from and not aligned with clinical trial phases. An SBIR Phase I is a feasibility award, and it is not the same thing as a clinical Phase I trial. NIBIB's policy supports clinical Phase I and first-in-human studies, which can be proposed within an SBIR Phase II or Fast-Track application. Confusing the two numbering systems is a common and expensive error on topics like this one that invite early clinical work.

Direct to Phase II. Available if you already hold the feasibility data a Phase I would generate and never received a Phase I award for that project. SBIR only, not available under STTR. For a company with a validated delivery platform in one context and new in vivo transduction data in an immune cell context, this is often the fastest route.

Fast-Track. Phase I and Phase II submitted together and reviewed once. Poor fit when Phase I results would change the Phase II design, which is frequently the case here because the choice of vector, payload, or dosing regimen often depends on what the first biodistribution and specificity data show.

Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, currently PA-27-101 (R44). For companies that completed an NIH SBIR or STTR Phase II and need a commercialization bridge. Requires documentation of not less than 100 percent matching funds from new private capital or from a government source other than a Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award. Award periods must not exceed 4 years. Given the capital intensity of gene-modified cell therapy development, a Phase IIB matching plan should be sketched early rather than discovered later. Note that not all Institutes accept clinical trials through Phase IIB.

Commercialization Readiness Pilot, currently PAR-27-098 (SB1). This mechanism deserves particular attention on this topic. CRP supports later-stage work not typically fundable through Phase II or Phase IIB, and NIH names Investigational New Drug and Investigational Device Exemption enabling studies, independent replication of key studies, clinical studies, manufacturing costs, and regulatory assistance among eligible activities. For an in vivo immune cell engineering program, IND-enabling toxicology and manufacturing are precisely the expensive steps that fall between a successful Phase II and a first-in-human study. CRP permits substantial subcontracting, though the small business must maintain oversight and management of the research throughout.

Funding Allowance

The ceiling depends on two layers.

Layer one, the SBA statutory guidelines for the current cycle:

• Phase I: up to $323,090 in total costs, for a project period of 6 months to 2 years

• Phase II: up to $2,153,927 in total costs, for a project period of 1 to 3 years

• Commercialization Readiness Pilot: up to $4,191,495 in total costs, for a project period of up to 3 years

Total funding support means direct costs, indirect costs, and fee combined. A reasonable profit or fee is allowable but must be in the budget at submission and normally will not exceed 7 percent of total costs. NIH does not adjust budgets after submission, so a request at the wrong level cannot be corrected later.

Layer two, Institute-specific guidance. NIH holds SBA waivers permitting awards above the guideline for approved topics, and each Institute publishes its own limits.

• NCI. Among the components listing Phase I headroom above the statutory guideline, reaching $700,000 in the parent announcement's participating component table. NCI's own published guidance generally funds waiver-eligible Phase I applications up to $400,000 across up to 2 years and considers Phase II up to $2,250,000 across up to 3 years. NCI also runs a Phase IIB Bridge Award and caps its CRP support well below the government-wide figure.

• NIAID. Also listed in the higher Phase I tier, but NIAID publishes a per-year constraint that reshapes budgets more than a total ceiling does: NIAID will not generally allow Phase II or Phase IIB awards of any duration exceeding $1,000,000 in total costs per year. For a program with heavy vector manufacturing or toxicology costs concentrated in one year, this is a planning constraint worth designing around from the start.

• NIAMS, NIBIB, and NIDCR. Refer to the participating component table in the current parent announcement and confirm directly with program staff. These Institutes do not all maintain standing published SBIR budget pages, and NIBIB in particular has historically used targeted announcements with their own budget language for clinical work.

Two cautions. First, a ceiling in a component table is not the number that gets awarded. BW&CO's analysis of a fiscal year 2026 NCI SBIR award slice found Phase I level awards ranging from roughly $305,000 to $404,000, with not one award in 44 records reaching the $700,000 headroom. Budgeting to the ceiling budgets against an outcome that did not occur. Second, an Institute may reduce the recommended budget or shorten the award period for budgetary, administrative, or programmatic reasons even after a strong review score.

A candid note on capital adequacy. A Phase II at $2.15 million will not carry an in vivo gene-modified immunotherapy from concept to the clinic. The realistic financing picture is a Phase I or Direct to Phase II establishing specificity and transduction efficiency, a Phase II generating the preclinical package, CRP or Phase IIB covering IND-enabling studies and manufacturing, and private capital carrying first-in-human. Applications that show awareness of that full sequence read as commercially serious. Applications that imply a Phase II ends at an approved therapy do not.

Timeline

The topic window runs from September 2, 2026 through September 2, 2028.

Standard annual due dates: January 5, April 5, and September 5. When a due date falls on a weekend or federal holiday, NIH moves it to the next business day. Applications are due by 5:00 p.m. local time of the applicant organization.

Cycles available under this topic:

• September 2026 cycle: the September 5, 2026 date shifted to Tuesday, September 8, 2026 because of the weekend and the Labor Day holiday. Since the topic posted on September 2, this cycle is not realistically available.

• January 5, 2027: the first realistic cycle for a company beginning preparation now.

• April 5, 2027

• September 5, 2027

• January 5, 2028

• April 5, 2028, the last full cycle before the topic expires in September 2028.

What the runway looks like: plan on roughly 9 months from submission to funds in the door. An application submitted in the January 2027 cycle typically reaches an earliest possible start date in the fall of 2027. Council decisions for the September and January cycles are often handled together, so deferring a cycle is not costless.

Work backwards from your target date:

• 16 to 18 weeks out: identify your target Institute, run the NIH clinical trial determination against your actual design, confirm the Institute's clinical trial policy for your chosen mechanism, contact program staff, and start or verify federal registrations

• 12 weeks out: lock the Specific Aims page and circulate to program staff

• 8 weeks out: complete the research strategy, commercialization plan, vector or material sourcing agreements, institutional biosafety planning, letters of support, and any human subjects documentation

• 4 weeks out: full internal review, budget finalization, and subaward paperwork for any STTR or academic partner

• 1 week out: submit early to leave room for eRA Commons error correction

Registrations are the most common cause of a missed deadline. You need SAM.gov with a Unique Entity ID, the SBA Company Registry, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov. eRA Commons access depends on the SBA Company Registry being complete first. Allow six weeks or more and begin before you write.

Also note two moving parts. The current SBIR parent, PA-27-100, closes in early April 2027, well before this topic expires, so applicants targeting later cycles must confirm the active announcement number at submission. Separately, the 2026 reauthorization gave agencies authority to limit how many Phase I proposals a company may submit, and HHS has been reported to cap SBIR and STTR submissions at nine per small business per fiscal year. Confirm the current limit with program staff if you plan multiple submissions across Institutes.

Detailed Overview of What NIH Is Looking For

The problem NIH is trying to solve

The topic frames its case in two movements. The first is scientific. Adoptive cellular therapies such as CAR-T cells have transformed treatment of hematologic malignancies, but challenges remain in solid tumors because of poor immune cell trafficking, limited persistence, and immunosuppressive tumor microenvironments. Development for solid tumors is nonetheless expanding rapidly across autologous and allogeneic engineered T, NK, and other immune cells, and cellular therapies are being explored beyond oncology for autoimmune, infectious, and age-related disease and for regenerative medicine.

The second movement is logistical, and it is where the small business opportunity lives. NIH lists the practical barriers to current approaches directly: lymphodepletion, leukapheresis, ex vivo cell modification and expansion, GMP manufacturing, specialized facilities, and weeks-long processing times. It concludes that this complexity makes these therapies slow, costly, and inaccessible to many patients. In vivo engineering is presented as a transformative alternative that engineers immune cells inside the body using in vivo gene delivery, bypassing that process and offering true off-the-shelf cellular immunotherapy. NIH adds that this removes a major logistical bottleneck and enables treatment for rapidly progressing disease where patients often cannot afford the long wait.

Read strategically, that second paragraph is a specification. It names the incumbent's cost drivers and time drivers and identifies the patient population the incumbent cannot serve. A Significance section that quantifies your platform against those specific barriers, time from decision to dose, cost of goods, site-of-care requirement, and eligibility for patients too sick to wait for manufacturing, is arguing on the ground NIH chose.

The scope of the technology as defined

The topic's purpose statement is unusually detailed about what counts. It encourages basic and preclinical research and early clinical testing of in vivo immune cell engineering to reprogram immune cells within the body, including but not limited to T cells, NK cells, and macrophages, for cancer, autoimmune, infectious, and age-related disease and for regenerative medicine. Delivery may involve viral vectors such as lentiviral or adeno-associated viral vectors, or non-viral nanocarriers such as lipid nanoparticles, for delivery of genetic material such as DNA or mRNA. The genetic material could encode CARs, TCRs, or other functional elements, or gene editing machinery for in situ reprogramming.

The purpose statement then names four categories of acceptable work: development and testing of novel technologies and methodologies for increasing specificity and efficiency of immune cell targeting and transduction in vivo; improving biodistribution; improving safety; and enhancing efficacy and persistence of engineered immune cells in preclinical models and early clinical studies.

Two observations for an applicant. Macrophages appear alongside T and NK cells in the topic's own framing, which is a wider aperture than most CAR-focused programs and an opening for companies working outside the T cell mainstream. And specificity, efficiency, biodistribution, safety, and persistence are each named as standalone objectives. You do not need to propose a complete therapy. A Phase I that measurably improves one of those five parameters is responsive on its own terms.

The clinical trial constraint in detail

This deserves its own treatment because the topic invites clinical work that most of its participating Institutes cannot accept through the parent announcements.

The topic asks for early clinical testing in its purpose statement. NCI names pilot clinical trials informed by biomarkers. NIAID names early clinical research. NIAMS names clinical research. OADR-ORWH names acceleration of clinical trials for autoimmune disease. Against that, the parent announcements set the following:

• NCI. Accepts clinical trials under both SBIR and STTR. The only unrestricted door among the five.

• NIBIB. Supports only early stage clinical trials, specifically feasibility, clinical Phase I, first-in-human, safety, or other small trials that inform early stage technology development. Will not support pivotal trials, clinical Phase II, III, or IV, or trials whose primary outcome is efficacy, effectiveness, or a post-market concern. Mechanistic trials are supported only where the primary focus of the project is technology development. For a first-in-human study of a novel delivery platform, this policy is a good match rather than an obstacle.

• NIAID. Accepts clinical trials under the parent SBIR announcement but not under the parent STTR announcement.

• NIAMS and NIDCR. Accept no clinical trials under either parent announcement. An application proposing a clinical trial that aligns only with one of these missions is non-responsive and will not be reviewed.

The practical sequence is: run the NIH clinical trial determination against your actual design first, then choose the Institute, then choose SBIR or STTR. Doing it in the reverse order is how a strong application becomes unreviewable. Also confirm the definition rather than assuming, since NIH defines a clinical trial as a study prospectively assigning human subjects to one or more interventions to evaluate effects on health-related biomedical or behavioral outcomes, which captures more designs than founders expect.

What OADR-ORWH adds

The Office of Autoimmune Disease Research within ORWH participates but does not award grants. Your application must be relevant to the objectives of at least one participating Institute, which here means NCI, NIAID, NIAMS, NIBIB, or NIDCR. Its interests function as additional strength within an application already aimed at one of the five, and they are more specific than most non-awarding office statements.

OADR-ORWH is interested in design and engineering of next-generation cellular therapies including CAR-T and CAAR-T cells, regulatory T cells, NK cells, engineered CARs and TCRs, costimulatory domains, and other immunocytes and functional elements; development of data science and computational approaches to interrogate mechanisms of novel cellular therapies, including analysis of new or existing early-phase and pooled clinical trial data to define immunologic treatment windows and identify predictors of therapeutic response; and advancement of translational research to enable and accelerate clinical trials of cellular therapies for autoimmune disease. It strongly encourages engagement of people living with or at risk for autoimmunity to ensure direct relevance to human health.

Three things stand out. CAAR-T cells, chimeric autoantibody receptor T cells for depleting autoreactive B cells, are named explicitly and appear nowhere else in the topic, so a CAAR platform has a clear home. Regulatory T cells are named, which points toward tolerance induction rather than cytotoxic depletion. And the interest in analyzing existing and pooled early-phase clinical trial data to define immunologic treatment windows is a computational product opportunity that requires no wet lab at all, and it pairs naturally with NIDCR's parallel interest in AI and computational modeling. Patient engagement is cheap to do well and most applications will do it thinly or not at all.

Eligibility Requirements

To apply for an NIH SBIR or STTR award, your company must meet the core SBA criteria:

• Organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United States, and the primary research performed in the United States

• More than 50 percent directly owned and controlled by one or more individuals who are U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, by other for-profit small business concerns each majority owned by such individuals, or by a combination. Certain venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity structures may qualify for SBIR under specific conditions. Note that companies more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination are not eligible for the STTR program, which is a distinction that catches venture-backed cell therapy companies specifically.

• No more than 500 employees including all affiliates. A subsidiary counts its parent's employees.

• For SBIR, the Principal Investigator's primary employment must be with the small business at the time of award and for the duration of the project. For STTR, the PD/PI may be primarily employed by either the small business or the partnering nonprofit research institution, with the award still made to the small business.

• For SBIR Phase I, the small business must perform at least two thirds of the research or analytical effort. For SBIR Phase II, at least half. For STTR, the small business performs at least 40 percent and a single partner nonprofit research institution performs at least 30 percent.

Additional constraints. NIH will not accept similar applications with essentially the same research focus from the same applicant organization, including derivative applications proposing a single product applicable to multiple purposes with non-substantive modification. This matters on a platform topic, where the temptation is to submit the same delivery technology against several disease areas and Institutes. You may not simultaneously submit identical or essentially identical applications under both parent announcements, and duplicate or highly overlapping applications under simultaneous review are not accepted. Applicants must disclose overlapping federal work under the essentially equivalent work rule. Companies with a substantial award history should confirm they meet the Phase I to Phase II Transition Rate and commercialization benchmarks. Heightened screening of foreign ownership and foreign influence applies under the 2026 reauthorization, with additional scrutiny possible for STTR because of the research institution partnership.

What a Competitive Application Looks Like

1. A quantified comparison against the ex vivo process. NIH named the barriers: lymphodepletion, leukapheresis, ex vivo modification and expansion, GMP manufacturing, specialized facilities, weeks-long processing. State what your approach does to each one, in numbers where you can. This is the argument the topic was written to invite, and most applications will gesture at it rather than quantify it.

2. One of the five named parameters as a measurable endpoint. Specificity, transduction efficiency, biodistribution, safety, and persistence are each named as standalone objectives. Pick one or two, define the metric, and state the success criterion. A proposal that improves everything vaguely improves nothing measurably.

3. A safety and control story. NIAID names off-target effects, unintended tissue injury, prolonged immune dysregulation, oncogenic risk, and control and reversibility of therapeutic activity. In vivo editing raises safety questions that ex vivo manufacturing partially contains through release testing, and reviewers know it. Addressing reversibility or a control switch directly is a differentiator.

4. The clinical trial determination resolved before the mechanism is chosen. Run the NIH definition against your design, then pick the Institute and announcement. Four of the five Institutes carry restrictions.

5. An honest capital sequence. Phase I or Direct to Phase II for specificity and transduction, Phase II for the preclinical package, CRP or Phase IIB for IND-enabling studies and manufacturing, private capital for first-in-human. Naming the sequence signals that you understand what this class of product costs to develop.

6. Program officer contact before writing. Five Institutes, four clinical trial postures, and two Institutes with brief published language. The call determines assignment, budget realism, and reviewability.

Common Reasons Applications Miss

• Treating the Highlighted Topic as a NOFO and searching Grants.gov for a topic-specific number that does not exist

• Proposing a clinical trial to NIAMS or NIDCR, which accept none under either parent announcement, making the application non-responsive and unreviewed

• Proposing a clinical trial to NIAID through STTR, which it does not accept, when SBIR would have worked

• Proposing an efficacy-powered or pivotal trial to NIBIB, which supports only early stage, feasibility, first-in-human, and safety trials informing technology development

• Confusing SBIR Phase I and Phase II with clinical trial Phase I and Phase II, which are separate and unaligned numbering systems

• Submitting the same delivery platform against multiple diseases and Institutes, which runs into the prohibition on derivative applications proposing a single product applicable to multiple purposes

• Applying for STTR while more than 50 percent owned by a combination of venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity firms, which is an STTR eligibility bar even where SBIR would permit it

• Designing a Phase II budget with costs concentrated in one year at NIAID, which will not generally allow more than $1,000,000 in total costs per year

• Budgeting to the $700,000 Phase I ceiling rather than the roughly $400,000 that Institutes actually award

• Omitting the fee from the budget or requesting the wrong level, neither correctable after submission

• Referencing a Make America Healthy Again alignment that this topic, unlike most others in the cycle, does not claim

• Implying a Phase II ends at an approved therapy, with no account of IND-enabling work, manufacturing, or the capital required to reach the clinic

• Starting federal registrations after drafting begins, then missing the receipt date on an eRA Commons validation error

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this a grant I can apply to directly?

No. This is an NIH Highlighted Topic, which is a statement of scientific priority rather than a Notice of Funding Opportunity. You apply through a broad NIH announcement, and for small businesses that means the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement, requesting assignment to one of the five awarding Institutes.

Which funding opportunity number do I actually use?

For most small businesses it is PA-27-100, the NIH, CDC, and FDA Parent SBIR announcement covering R43 and R44 awards. If your project depends on a formal university or nonprofit research partner, use PA-27-102, the Parent STTR announcement covering R41 and R42. Confirm the active number at submission, since PA-27-100 closes in early April 2027 while this topic runs to September 2028.

Can I propose a clinical trial under this topic?

It depends entirely on the Institute and mechanism. NCI accepts clinical trials under both SBIR and STTR. NIBIB accepts only early stage trials such as feasibility, clinical Phase I, first-in-human, safety, or other small trials that inform early technology development, and will not support pivotal or efficacy-powered trials. NIAID accepts clinical trials under SBIR but not STTR. NIAMS and NIDCR accept none under either parent. Run the NIH clinical trial determination against your design before choosing an Institute.

Is an SBIR Phase I the same as a clinical Phase I trial?

No, and conflating them causes real problems. NIH small business phases are separate from and not aligned with clinical trial phases. An SBIR Phase I is a feasibility award. A clinical Phase I trial is a first-in-human safety study, which would typically be proposed within an SBIR Phase II, Direct to Phase II, or Fast-Track application, subject to the target Institute's clinical trial policy.

Which of the five Institutes should I target?

NCI for oncology, and the default for any project with a clinical component since it accepts trials without restriction. NIAID for infectious, autoimmune, and immune-mediated disease, especially where your advantage is specificity, cost reduction, access, or minimizing preconditioning. NIBIB for disease-agnostic enabling technology, synthetic biology, biomaterials, and evaluation platforms. NIAMS for rheumatic, autoimmune, autoinflammatory, and musculoskeletal disease. NIDCR for dental, oral, and craniofacial disease, and the only Institute here offering a stated funding advantage.

How much money can my company request?

The SBA statutory guidelines this cycle are $323,090 for Phase I and $2,153,927 for Phase II in total costs, including direct costs, indirect costs, and fee. NCI and NIAID are among the components listing Phase I headroom to $700,000, though NCI's own guidance generally funds waiver-eligible Phase I near $400,000 and Phase II up to $2,250,000. NIAID applies a per-year constraint of $1,000,000 in total costs on Phase II and Phase IIB. Confirm with your target Institute before setting a budget.

When is the deadline?

There is no deadline specific to this topic. You submit on the NIH standard small business receipt dates of January 5, April 5, and September 5 each year, with dates falling on weekends or federal holidays moving to the next business day. The topic expires September 2, 2028, making January 5, 2027 through April 5, 2028 the realistic competing cycles.

How long until I receive funding?

Plan on approximately 9 months from submission to award start. An application submitted in the January 2027 cycle would typically have an earliest possible start date in the fall of 2027.

Do I have to give up equity or match the funds?

No. NIH SBIR and STTR Phase I and Phase II awards are non-dilutive and require no cost share. The exception is the Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, which requires not less than 100 percent matching funds from new private capital or from a government source other than a Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award.

My company is venture-backed. Are we still eligible?

For SBIR, possibly. Certain venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership structures qualify under specific conditions, and complex cap tables should be checked against 13 CFR Part 121. For STTR, no: small business concerns more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these are not eligible for the STTR program. This distinction affects venture-backed cell therapy companies more than most.

Can NIH funding cover IND-enabling studies and manufacturing?

Yes, primarily through the Commercialization Readiness Pilot. CRP supports later-stage work not typically fundable through Phase II or Phase IIB, and NIH names IND and IDE enabling studies, independent replication of key studies, clinical studies, manufacturing costs, and regulatory assistance among eligible activities. CRP permits substantial subcontracting, though the small business must maintain oversight and management of the research throughout the award.

Does my project have to target cancer?

No. The topic names cancer, autoimmune disease, infectious disease, age-related disease, and regenerative medicine, and covers T cells, NK cells, and macrophages. NIBIB's framing is explicitly disease-agnostic, NIAID covers infectious and immune-mediated disease, NIAMS covers rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease, and NIDCR covers dental, oral, and craniofacial conditions.

Does any Institute set aside dedicated funding for this topic?

Not guaranteed. NIDCR is the only participating Institute that stated it may give special consideration to meritorious applications in this topic area. NCI, NIAID, NIAMS, and NIBIB made no such statement. Treat the NIDCR statement as a favorable tilt rather than a reserved pool of money.

I already have feasibility data. Do I still need a Phase I?

Not necessarily. SBIR Direct to Phase II allows a company that has demonstrated the scientific and technical merit and feasibility normally expected from a Phase I, without having received a Phase I award for that project, to apply directly for Phase II. This authority is available for SBIR only and is not available under STTR. A validated delivery platform plus new in vivo immune cell transduction data is a common qualifying profile.

Does this topic align with the Make America Healthy Again initiative?

No. Unlike most NIH Highlighted Topics published in this cycle, this one is not issued under the MAHA initiative and lists no named policy alignments. Applicants should not reference an initiative alignment the topic does not claim.

What registrations do I need, and how long do they take?

SAM.gov with a Unique Entity ID, the SBA Company Registry, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov. eRA Commons access depends on completing the SBA Company Registry first, so the sequence matters. Allow at least six weeks, and start before you begin writing.

How BW&CO Helps

BW&CO is a non-dilutive federal funding advisory firm. We help deep-tech, biotech, medtech, and health technology founders convert agency priority signals like this one into funded awards.

On this topic the decisive work happens before drafting: resolving the clinical trial determination, selecting among five Institutes with four different clinical trial postures, choosing SBIR versus STTR against your ownership structure and your PI's employment, engaging program officers, and sequencing Phase I, Phase II, CRP, Phase IIB, and private capital into a financing plan that actually reaches the clinic. That work also includes Specific Aims development, full proposal build, budget and fee construction, commercialization planning, and Phase IIB matching capital positioning. Our team has helped clients secure more than $350 million in funding. Innovation Funding Simplified.

If you are developing an in vivo immune cell engineering platform and want a straight answer on which Institute to target, whether your clinical plan is reviewable where you intend to send it, and whether you are competitive for the January 5, 2027 cycle, contact us for a fit assessment.

NIH Highlighted Topic: Catalyzing Interdisciplinary Research on HIV-Associated Co-occurring Conditions

Executive Summary

The National Institutes of Health has published a Highlighted Topic titled "Catalyzing Interdisciplinary Research on HIV-Associated Co-occurring Conditions." Twelve NIH Institutes award grants under it and five additional offices participate without awarding, making this one of the broadest cross-NIH topics published this cycle. The scientific premise is that antiretroviral therapy has turned HIV into a manageable chronic condition, but people with HIV now face early onset and elevated risk of comorbidities, treatment-related adverse effects, and interconnected medical, psychosocial, and structural challenges that disease-specific research models handle poorly.

For a small business, the practical translation is this: there is no new application portal and no new deadline attached to this topic. A Highlighted Topic is a demand signal, not a Notice of Funding Opportunity. You capture the funding by submitting to the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement, requesting assignment to one of the twelve awarding Institutes, and aligning your Specific Aims to that Institute's stated interests.

Two things about this topic deserve to be said plainly before you invest a cycle in it. First, a substantial share of the published language describes work that is not a small business fit: cohort analysis, mechanistic basic science, academically led community-based trials, and health disparities characterization. Those belong in R01 and related mechanisms. The slices that are genuinely SBIR-fundable are narrower and named below. Second, two of the twelve awarding Institutes, NIAMS and NIDCR, will not accept clinical trial applications under either parent announcement, even though both explicitly ask for research that develops and tests interventions. Two more, NIAID and NIDDK, accept clinical trials under SBIR but not under STTR. Getting this wrong makes an application non-responsive and unreviewed regardless of its scientific merit.

The topic was posted on September 1, 2026 and expires on July 28, 2028, which is a shorter window than the standard two years and eliminates the September 2028 cycle. The realistic competing cycles run from January 5, 2027 through April 5, 2028.

If you build diagnostics or screening tools for subclinical comorbidity, therapeutics or biologics for HIV-associated disease, medication optimization and polypharmacy tools, care coordination or clinical decision support software, point-of-care coinfection testing, or integrated behavioral health delivery platforms, there is real money here across multiple Institutes.

At a Glance

• Topic title: Catalyzing Interdisciplinary Research on HIV-Associated Co-occurring Conditions

• Issuing agency: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• Awarding Institutes: NCCIH, NCI, NHLBI, NIA, NIAAA, NIAID, NIAMS, NICHD, NIDA, NIDCR, NIDDK, and NIMH

• Non-awarding participating offices: OAR, OBSSR, ODP, ORWH, and THRO

• Central scientific contact: Office of AIDS Research, OARinfo@nih.gov

• Type: NIH Highlighted Topic. This is not a Notice of Funding Opportunity.

• Post date: September 1, 2026

• Expiration date: July 28, 2028. Note this is short of the usual two-year window.

• Recommended small business mechanism: NIH SBIR (R43 and R44) or NIH STTR (R41 and R42) parent announcement

• Current parent announcements: PA-27-100 for SBIR, PA-27-102 for STTR, PA-27-101 for the Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, and PAR-27-098 for the Commercialization Readiness Pilot

• Standard annual due dates: January 5, April 5, and September 5. HHS SBIR and STTR applications are not accepted on the AIDS and AIDS-related due dates, so the standard dates apply here despite the HIV subject matter.

• SBA statutory guidelines this cycle: $323,090 Phase I, $2,153,927 Phase II, $4,191,495 CRP

• Institute headroom: several participating Institutes list Phase I limits above the statutory guideline, up to $700,000, and Phase II limits up to $2.5 million or $3 million. Limits differ by Institute and must be confirmed.

• Clinical trials: not accepted by NIAMS or NIDCR under either parent announcement. Not accepted by NIAID or NIDDK under STTR, though both accept them under SBIR.

• Cost share: none for Phase I or Phase II. Phase IIB requires 100 percent third-party matching funds.

• Equity dilution: none. This is non-dilutive federal funding.

• Profit or fee: allowable, must be in the budget at submission, and normally will not exceed 7 percent of total costs

• Strongest funding signals: NIDA states both that it may dedicate available funds and that it may give special consideration. NHLBI states it may dedicate available funds. NCCIH and NIDCR each state they may give special consideration.

• Broader initiative alignment: Make America Healthy Again initiative, with eight named component efforts

What This Opportunity Actually Is

An NIH Highlighted Topic is a published statement of scientific interest from one or more NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. It tells the research community that an area of science is a priority without creating a separate funding announcement, deadline, or review process. There is no topic-specific number to search on Grants.gov, and applications are not scored against other applications to the topic.

What it does do is identify which Institutes are receptive, which determines your assignment request and your program officer conversations; supply the vocabulary program staff already use internally, which your Specific Aims should mirror; and in four cases here create an explicit stated advantage. NIDA is the only participating Institute that made both available statements, saying it may dedicate available funds to this topic area depending on the availability of funds, the number of meritorious applications, and competing priorities, and separately that it may give special consideration to meritorious applications in the topic area. NHLBI made the funds statement. NCCIH and NIDCR each made the special consideration statement. The remaining eight awarding Institutes made neither.

That distribution is worth reading carefully. It does not mean the other eight will not fund this work. It does mean four Institutes went on record and eight did not, which is the closest thing to a competitive signal a Highlighted Topic provides.

Is This Topic a Fit for a Small Business?

This topic is less small-business-native than most NIH Highlighted Topics, and an honest read saves cycles.

The topic language repeatedly emphasizes interdisciplinary collaborative science, multidisciplinary teams with multiple Program Directors and Principal Investigators holding complementary expertise, meaningful community engagement, cross-NIH alignment, and use of existing NIH resources. Those are hallmarks of investigator-initiated academic research, and much of what is described is best pursued through R01, R34, or cooperative agreement mechanisms rather than SBIR or STTR.

Work in this topic that is a poor small business fit: secondary analysis of existing cohorts; epidemiological characterization of comorbidity burden; mechanistic basic science with no identified product; health disparities documentation; academically led community-based behavioral trials where the small business would be a subcontractor rather than the developer of a commercial product.

Work in this topic that is a genuine small business fit:

• Screening and diagnostics for subclinical disease. NHLBI explicitly asks for novel methods to detect subclinical HIV-related heart, lung, blood, and sleep conditions. NCI asks for new biomarkers and diagnostics. NIDCR asks for early cancer detection in the oral and craniofacial complex. This is the clearest product lane in the entire topic.

• Therapeutics and biologics. NCI asks for therapeutics improving prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in people with HIV. NIAAA asks for biomedical approaches to restore alcohol-induced organ dysfunction. NIDA asks for basic, clinical, and translational research on treatment of substance use disorder and overdose in people with HIV.

• Medication optimization and interaction tools. NIA asks for optimizing medications and care coordination. NCCIH asks for evaluation of risks including drug and herb interactions. Polypharmacy in an ART-treated aging population is a well-defined software and decision-support problem.

• Care coordination, clinical decision support, and digital delivery platforms. NIMH asks for scalable whole-person care models. NIDDK asks for strategies to improve implementation and delivery of evidence-based care. NIAMS prioritizes care models integrating musculoskeletal, rheumatic, and skin health into HIV settings.

• Point-of-care coinfection testing. NIAID names tuberculosis, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted infections across the lifespan from infant through adult.

• Integrated behavioral health and substance use interventions. NIDA names integrated interventions addressing HIV, substance use disorder, hepatitis C, and co-occurring mental health conditions. Digital therapeutics fit here.

• Complementary and integrative health products and delivery. NCCIH names mind-body and natural product interventions for symptom clusters, plus pragmatic and hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies and scalable delivery models.

The test is the ordinary SBIR test, applied honestly: is there a commercial product with unresolved technical risk that your company will own and sell? If the deliverable is knowledge, a publication, or a care model your company will not commercialize, the mechanism is wrong even though the science is wanted.

Which Institute Should You Target?

With twelve awarding Institutes, the assignment request is the highest-leverage decision on the application. Group yourself by what you sell, not by the disease you are adjacent to.

If you build diagnostics, biomarkers, or screening tools: NHLBI for cardiopulmonary, cardiometabolic, hematologic, and sleep-disordered breathing detection, including subclinical detection and vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia. NCI for cancer biomarkers, diagnostics, and early detection in people with HIV. NIDCR for oral and salivary gland complications and HPV-associated cancer detection, subject to the clinical trial restriction below. NIDDK for kidney, urologic, hematologic, liver, and metabolic conditions that present differently or follow altered courses in the context of HIV.

If you build therapeutics or biologics: NCI for HIV-related tumor pathogenesis and therapeutics. NIAID for tuberculosis, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted infection coinfections. NIAAA for approaches restoring alcohol-induced organ dysfunction across cardiovascular, metabolic, neurocognitive, and immune complications. NIDA for substance use disorder and overdose treatment in people with HIV. NIA for interventions addressing HIV-associated conditions in midlife and older age, framed against the NIH Stage Model from Stage 0 basic science through Stage V implementation.

If you build software, digital health, or care delivery platforms: NIMH for neurocognitive and mental health screening, early intervention, and scalable whole-person care models, including implementation research identifying diagnosis and treatment barriers. NIDA for care engagement, ART adherence, and access in underserved populations. NIA for care coordination and medication optimization. NIDDK for implementation and delivery of evidence-based care. NIAMS for whole-person care models integrating musculoskeletal and skin health, subject to the clinical trial restriction.

If you build complementary or integrative health products: NCCIH is the only door, and it is a good one. NCCIH frames HIV as a chronic multisystem condition with complex symptoms including pain, fatigue, and neurocognitive and mental health challenges, well suited to Whole Person Health approaches, and it stated it may give special consideration to meritorious applications here.

If your work concerns pediatric or perinatal populations: NICHD participates but published no areas of interest for this topic, listing only a scientific contact. The topic body does note that HIV-exposed but uninfected children may face elevated immune, metabolic, and developmental risks compared with unexposed peers, particularly in low and middle-income settings. If this is your space, the program officer call is not optional, because there is no published language to write against.

Quick reference: awarding Institutes and stated funding signals

• NCCIH. Complementary and integrative health for symptom management. May give special consideration. Contact: Lanay Mudd, PhD, NCCIHDERFunding@nih.gov

• NCI. Cancer risk, pathogenesis, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and bundled cancer and HIV interventions. No stated signal. Contact: Rebecca Liddell Huppi, Ph.D.

• NHLBI. Heart, lung, blood, and sleep comorbidity mechanisms and interventions. May dedicate available funds. Contact: nhlbihighlightedtopics@mail.nih.gov

• NIA. HIV-associated conditions in midlife and older age across the NIH Stage Model. No stated signal. Contact: Marcel E. Salive, MD, MPH

• NIAAA. Alcohol use and alcohol use disorder interactions with HIV pathophysiology and care. No stated signal. Contact: Kendall Bryant, Ph.D.

• NIAID. Coinfections across the lifespan, with attention to stigma and health system factors. No stated signal. Does not accept clinical trials under STTR. Contact: Robin E. Huebner, PhD, MPH

• NIAMS. Musculoskeletal, skin, and systemic rheumatic comorbidities, with priority to implementation science care models. No stated signal. Does not accept clinical trials under either parent. Contact: Heiyoung Park, PhD

• NICHD. No published areas of interest for this topic. Contact: Sonia Lee, Ph.D.

• NIDA. Drug use, addiction, and HIV interactions across the lifespan. May dedicate available funds and may give special consideration. The only Institute making both statements. Contact: NIDAHIVProgram@mail.nih.gov

• NIDCR. Oral and craniofacial comorbidities and integration of oral health into HIV care. May give special consideration. Does not accept clinical trials under either parent. Contact: NIDCR-Program@nih.gov

• NIDDK. Enteropathy and gastrointestinal homeostasis, liver disease and viral hepatitis coinfection, nutrition, obesity, diabetes, kidney, urologic, and hematologic disease. No stated signal. Does not accept clinical trials under STTR. Contact: Deepak Nihalani, Khoa Nguyen, Minnjuan Flournoy Floyd

• NIMH. Neuropsychiatric mechanisms of CNS comorbidity, shared pathways, and implementation research. No stated signal. Contact: NIMH.DAR.inquiries@nih.gov

Which NIH Mechanism Should a Small Business Use?

Small businesses should apply through the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement and request assignment to the Institute whose interests match. On this topic the SBIR versus STTR choice carries unusual weight for two reasons: the topic actively encourages multidisciplinary academic collaboration, and the clinical trial restrictions differ between the two announcements.

NIH Parent SBIR, currently PA-27-100 (R43 and R44). The default route. Accepts Phase I, Phase II, Direct to Phase II, and Fast-Track. Use it when your company performs the majority of the research and your Principal Investigator is primarily employed by the company. Under PA-27-100, NIAMS and NIDCR do not accept clinical trial applications, and an application proposing a clinical trial that aligns only with one of those missions is non-responsive and will not be reviewed.

NIH Parent STTR, currently PA-27-102 (R41 and R42). Requires a formal collaboration with a nonprofit research institution, with at least 40 percent of the research at the small business and at least 30 percent at a single partner institution. STTR carries a feature that matters a great deal on this topic: the Program Director or Principal Investigator may be employed by either the small business or the partnering nonprofit, while the award still goes to the small business. For a company whose scientific lead is a clinician-researcher with a primary academic appointment, which describes much of the HIV comorbidity field, STTR is the only NIH small business mechanism that works. The tradeoff is a longer clinical trial exclusion list: under PA-27-102, NIAID, NIAMS, NIDCR, NIDDK, and NIMHD do not accept clinical trials.

The combined clinical trial picture for this topic. NIAMS and NIDCR accept no clinical trials under either parent, despite both asking for research that develops and tests interventions. NIAID and NIDDK accept clinical trials under SBIR but not under STTR, so a project with an academic PI and a trial component cannot use STTR at those Institutes. Review the NIH Clinical Trial Definition before assuming your study is not a trial, because it captures more designs than founders expect, including many behavioral and care delivery interventions that sit at the center of this topic.

Multiple Program Directors and Principal Investigators. The topic strongly encourages teams with multiple PD/PIs holding complementary expertise. NIH small business awards do permit multiple PD/PI structures, but the employment rules still bind. Confirm with your target Institute how the primary employment requirement applies across a multiple PD/PI team before you build the team into the application, because this is the point at which an otherwise strong interdisciplinary structure can become an eligibility problem.

Direct to Phase II. Available if you already hold the feasibility data a Phase I would generate and never received a Phase I award for that project. SBIR only, not available under STTR.

Fast-Track. Phase I and Phase II submitted together, reviewed once. Poor fit when Phase I results would change the Phase II design, which is common where the Phase I is a feasibility or usability study feeding an intervention design.

Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, currently PA-27-101 (R44). For companies that completed an NIH SBIR or STTR Phase II and need a commercialization bridge. Requires documentation of not less than 100 percent matching funds from new private capital or from a government source other than a Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award. Award periods must not exceed 4 years. Budget guidance varies by Institute, and not all Institutes accept clinical trials through Phase IIB.

Commercialization Readiness Pilot, currently PAR-27-098 (SB1). Late-stage technical assistance and product development that Phase II and Phase IIB cannot support, including regulatory and reimbursement work. Permits more outsourcing, though the small business must retain substantial project management and oversight.

Funding Allowance

The ceiling depends on two layers, and with twelve participating Institutes the second layer is where the planning happens.

Layer one, the SBA statutory guidelines for the current cycle:

• Phase I: up to $323,090 in total costs, for a project period of 6 months to 2 years

• Phase II: up to $2,153,927 in total costs, for a project period of 1 to 3 years

• Commercialization Readiness Pilot: up to $4,191,495 in total costs, for a project period of up to 3 years

Total funding support means direct costs, indirect costs, and fee combined. A reasonable profit or fee is allowable but must be in the budget at submission and normally will not exceed 7 percent of total costs. NIH does not adjust budgets after submission, so a request at the wrong level cannot be corrected later.

Layer two, Institute-specific guidance. NIH holds SBA waivers permitting awards above the guideline for approved topics, and each Institute publishes its own limits. For the participating Institutes here, the published picture as of this writing:

• Higher Phase I headroom. The participating component table in the parent SBIR announcement lists Phase I limits above the statutory guideline for several Institutes in this topic, reaching $700,000 for the highest tier, which includes NCI, NIA, NIAID, NIMH, and NCCIH. Other components list $400,000, and some hold to the SBA guideline.

• NCI. Publishes waiver-topic guidance generally funding Phase I up to $400,000 across up to 2 years and considering Phase II up to $2,250,000 across up to 3 years. NCI also runs a Phase IIB Bridge Award and caps its CRP support well below the government-wide figure.

• NIDDK. Generally considers Phase I up to $350,000 across up to 2 years, Phase II up to $2,200,000 across up to 3 years, and Phase IIB up to $3,000,000, with Phase II and Phase IIB generally not exceeding $1,100,000 in any single year.

• NIAAA. Publishes guidance that it will generally not fund Phase I applications to the omnibus above roughly $385,000 or Phase II awards above $3 million, even for topics on the SBA-approved waiver list.

• NIAID. Publishes a per-year constraint rather than only a total: NIAID will not generally allow Phase II or Phase IIB awards of any duration exceeding $1,000,000 in total costs per year. This reshapes a budget more than a total-cost ceiling does.

• NIDA. Publishes waiver-topic guidance permitting Phase II requests up to $2.5 million across up to 3 years where the research falls within its approved waiver topics and the justification is adequate.

• NHLBI. Publishes its budget guidance through NOT-HL notices rather than a single standing page. Confirm the current notice with NHLBI program staff before budgeting.

• NCCIH, NIA, NIAMS, NICHD, NIDCR, NIMH. Refer to the participating component table in the current parent announcement and confirm directly with program staff, as these Institutes do not all maintain standing published SBIR budget pages.

Two cautions. First, a ceiling in a component table is not the number that gets awarded. BW&CO's analysis of a fiscal year 2026 NCI SBIR award slice found Phase I level awards ranging from roughly $305,000 to $404,000, with not one award in 44 records reaching the $700,000 headroom. Budgeting to the ceiling budgets against an outcome that did not occur. Second, an Institute may reduce the recommended budget or shorten the award period for budgetary, administrative, or programmatic reasons even after a strong review score.

Timeline

The topic window runs from September 1, 2026 through July 28, 2028. That expiration is earlier than the usual two-year window and sits between two standard due dates, which removes a cycle other Highlighted Topics would offer.

Standard annual due dates: January 5, April 5, and September 5. When a due date falls on a weekend or federal holiday, NIH moves it to the next business day. Applications are due by 5:00 p.m. local time of the applicant organization.

Do not use the AIDS due dates. NIH runs a separate set of AIDS and AIDS-related receipt dates of January 7, May 7, and September 7 for many mechanisms, and researchers experienced with R01 submissions in this field will know those dates well. HHS SBIR and STTR grant applications are not accepted on the AIDS and AIDS-related due dates. The standard small business dates govern here despite the HIV subject matter. This is the most likely calendar mistake on this particular topic, and it is most likely to be made by an academic collaborator advising the team.

Cycles available under this topic:

• September 2026 cycle: the September 5, 2026 date shifted to Tuesday, September 8, 2026 because of the weekend and the Labor Day holiday. Since the topic posted on September 1, this cycle is not realistically available.

• January 5, 2027: the first realistic cycle for a company beginning preparation now.

• April 5, 2027

• September 5, 2027

• January 5, 2028

• April 5, 2028, the final cycle. The topic expires July 28, 2028, before the September 2028 date.

What the runway looks like: plan on roughly 9 months from submission to funds in the door. An application submitted in the January 2027 cycle typically reaches an earliest possible start date in the fall of 2027. Council decisions for the September and January cycles are often handled together, so deferring a cycle is not costless.

Work backwards from your target date:

• 16 to 18 weeks out: identify your target Institute, confirm its clinical trial policy for your chosen mechanism, contact program staff, and start or verify federal registrations. This topic warrants a longer lead time than most because of the Institute selection and clinical trial questions.

• 12 weeks out: lock the Specific Aims page, confirm the multiple PD/PI structure against employment rules, and circulate to program staff

• 8 weeks out: complete the research strategy, commercialization plan, letters of support, community partner documentation, and any IRB or human subjects planning

• 4 weeks out: full internal review, budget finalization, and subaward paperwork for any STTR or academic partner

• 1 week out: submit early to leave room for eRA Commons error correction

Registrations are the most common cause of a missed deadline. You need SAM.gov with a Unique Entity ID, the SBA Company Registry, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov. eRA Commons access depends on the SBA Company Registry being complete first. Allow six weeks or more and begin before you write.

Also note that the current SBIR parent, PA-27-100, closes in early April 2027, well before this topic expires. Applicants targeting later cycles must confirm the active announcement number at the time of submission.

Detailed Overview of What NIH Is Looking For

The problem NIH is trying to solve

The topic opens from a position of success. Antiretroviral therapy has transformed HIV into a manageable chronic condition. The consequence is a new problem: people with HIV face high risk and early onset of comorbidities, ART-related adverse effects, and interconnected medical, psychosocial, and structural challenges. The scope extends beyond people with HIV themselves. The topic notes that HIV and its treatment may also affect individuals exposed to HIV, and that HIV-exposed, uninfected children may face elevated immune, metabolic, and developmental risks compared with unexposed, uninfected peers, particularly in low and middle-income settings.

The named gap is mechanistic and specific: how HIV, ART, and psychosocial stressors interact to drive early onset and progression of comorbidities. NIH argues that many comorbidities involve intersecting pathways and shared risk factors even as they diverge into disease-specific trajectories, giving two examples. Metabolic syndrome increases risk for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. Certain coinfections increase cancer risk. Elucidating the shared factors, NIH argues, may inform preventive strategies addressing multiple outcomes at once.

The methodological critique follows from that. Traditional disease-specific models may insufficiently capture shared factors or multilevel implementation determinants. NIH instead points toward comprehensive whole-person care linking infectious diseases, endocrinology, psychiatry, nursing, pharmacy, and community health, with emphasis on early screening, lifestyle-based prevention, and sustained engagement in HIV care, while requiring careful attention to local context and health system factors for effective implementation.

Read strategically, that argument creates a specific opening for a product company. If NIH believes the shared upstream factors matter more than the disease-specific endpoints, then a screening tool, biomarker panel, or decision-support system that detects or manages a shared factor across multiple downstream comorbidities is more responsive than one addressing a single condition. A cardiometabolic risk platform that also informs kidney and cancer risk is speaking the topic's language. A single-indication tool is not.

The stated purpose

The topic aims to catalyze interdisciplinary research on HIV-associated co-occurring conditions and to expand multidisciplinary teams that develop and deliver preventive strategies improving health and quality of life for people with HIV across the lifespan. Emphasis falls on two things: research on shared factors and multi-organ effects to inform early preventive strategies, and implementation science approaches that identify barriers and facilitators, optimize multidisciplinary care approaches, and deliver scalable, sustainable care models. Multidisciplinary teams with multiple Program Directors and Principal Investigators holding complementary expertise in HIV and relevant conditions, cross-NIH alignment, and use of existing resources are all strongly encouraged.

Two phrases in that paragraph carry weight for a small business. "Scalable, sustainable care models" is commercialization language, and it invites a business model argument about who pays and how the model persists after grant funding ends, which most academic applications will answer weakly. "Use of existing resources" points toward NIH cohorts, data platforms, and networks, and a company that proposes to validate against an existing NIH resource rather than build a new cohort is both cheaper and more responsive.

Selected Institute areas of interest, with strategic reads

NHLBI seeks mechanisms and pathways contributing to HIV-associated heart, lung, blood, and sleep comorbidities, and interventions that improve care including implementation evaluation. Its named priorities are the combined effects of aging, HIV, and ART on those conditions; aging and HIV-related changes in hematopoiesis including hematopoietic stem cells and their niche; the impact of sleep deficiency and sleep-disordered breathing on HIV-associated cardiopulmonary and cardiometabolic disease pathogenesis; vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia; implementation strategies improving uptake and sustainability of evidence-based interventions; mechanistic studies reducing the effects of HIV and aging including traditional risk factors and sex differences; and novel methods to detect subclinical HIV-related conditions plus strategies to mitigate clinical disease.

Read: the last bullet is the strongest product invitation in the topic. Subclinical detection is a diagnostics problem with a defined customer and a regulatory pathway. NHLBI also stated it may dedicate available funds. Sleep-disordered breathing is a notable inclusion for wearable and home-testing companies.

NCI seeks advancement in understanding risks, development, progression, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer in people with HIV, plus testing and implementation of bundled cancer and HIV interventions. It notes that people with HIV have increased incidence of certain cancers, are diagnosed later at higher stage, have worse overall and cancer-specific survival, and are less likely to receive cancer treatment. Its example topics are characterizing HIV's contribution to HIV-related tumor development and pathogenesis; discovering and developing new biomarkers, diagnostics, and therapeutics; and identifying factors influencing cancer disparities including improving adoption, implementation, and sustainment of effective interventions.

Read: "bundled cancer/HIV interventions" is unusual phrasing and signals interest in combined care products rather than single-purpose tools. The treatment access disparity NCI names is a care delivery problem as much as a clinical one.

NIDA seeks interdisciplinary research on how drug use, addiction, and HIV interact across the lifespan, spanning brain function, behavior, mood, sleep, pain, and cognition under HIV, ART, and polysubstance use; molecular, neurochemical, cellular, and circuit function underpinning HIV and co-occurring substance use disorders; shared pathways linking substance use, HIV, stress, trauma, and mental health; individual and community factors affecting prevention, care engagement, and ART adherence with focus on improving access in underserved populations; integrated interventions addressing HIV, substance use disorder, hepatitis C, and co-occurring mental health conditions; and basic, clinical, and translational research on substance use disorder and overdose treatment in people with HIV.

Read: NIDA is the only Institute here making both funding statements, and its list is unusually accommodating, spanning basic neuroscience through digital adherence tools through overdose therapeutics. If your product plausibly fits NIDA, that combination of breadth and stated signal makes it the strongest default target on this topic.

NCCIH supports complementary and integrative health approaches for symptom management, prioritizing testing of interventions such as mind-body and natural products to address symptom clusters and improve function and quality of life; elucidating biological, behavioral, and psychosocial mechanisms including inflammation, neuroimmune, and stress pathways and identifying biomarkers and patient characteristics; integrating these approaches into HIV care through pragmatic and hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies and scalable delivery models; and evaluating risks such as drug and herb interactions, synthesizing evidence, and developing decision-making guidance.

Read: the risk evaluation and guidance bullet is the least crowded. A drug and herb interaction screening tool for an ART-treated population is a clean software product with a real safety rationale, and NCCIH stated it may give special consideration.

NIAMS and NIDCR both ask for interventions while accepting no clinical trials. NIAMS seeks research on HIV-associated musculoskeletal, skin, and systemic rheumatic comorbidities including musculoskeletal pain, sarcopenia and cachexia, cartilage degeneration and osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and fractures, arthritis and rheumatic disease, and dermatologic manifestations, and states that priority is given to implementation science projects developing, testing, and scaling multidisciplinary whole-person care models. NIDCR seeks mechanisms of HIV-related oral disease; biological, behavioral, and contextual risk factors linking oral and systemic comorbidities including HPV-associated cancer; interdisciplinary preventive, diagnostic, and treatment approaches including probiotics, mucosal immunity modifiers, and early cancer detection; and integration of oral health into the HIV care continuum.

Read: this is the sharpest trap on the page. Both Institutes invite intervention development and both are on the clinical trial exclusion list for the parent announcements. The workable path is a project whose endpoints are technical, mechanistic, or feasibility-based rather than a trial testing safety or efficacy in human subjects, or a submission through an Institute-specific announcement designed for trials. Confirm the design with program staff before drafting, not after.

NIA, NIAAA, NIAID, NIDDK, and NIMH round out the awarding set. NIA works across the NIH Stage Model from Stage 0 basic science through Stage V implementation, interested in etiology and pathogenesis including chronic immune activation and antiretroviral and other drug toxicities, optimizing medications and care coordination alongside behavioral and social interventions, and developing, testing, implementing, and scaling evidence-based interventions. NIAAA focuses on heavy alcohol use and alcohol use disorder, noting it accelerates physiological vulnerability, impacts medication adherence and toxicities, and complicates care, with complications including cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders, neurocognitive impairment, and cellular and immune dysfunction. NIAID focuses on coinfections from infant through adult, encouraging attention to stigma and intersecting behavioral, biological, and health system factors in diagnosing, preventing, and treating tuberculosis, viral hepatitis, and sexually transmitted infections. NIDDK spans enteropathy and gastrointestinal homeostasis, liver disease and viral hepatitis coinfection, digestive disease, nutrition, obesity, diabetes and complications, and kidney, urologic, and hematologic disease presenting differently under HIV, and gives high priority to studies of social, behavioral, and environmental factors affecting disease severity and treatment adherence. NIMH focuses on neuropsychiatric mechanisms of CNS comorbidity, how HIV biology, treatment exposures, and psychosocial burden converge on shared pathways driving neurocognitive and mental health disorders, and multidisciplinary implementation research identifying diagnosis and treatment barriers with emphasis on community engagement and sustainable delivery.

What the non-awarding offices add

Five offices participate without awarding grants: the Office of AIDS Research, which also serves as the central scientific contact for the topic; the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research; the Office of Disease Prevention; the Office of Research on Women's Health; and the Tribal Health Research Office. Your application must be relevant to the objectives of at least one awarding Institute, and their interests function as additional strength rather than an independent route.

OAR is interested in interdisciplinary research including implementation science advancing understanding of common factors underlying HIV-associated co-occurring conditions, supporting early prevention, integrated whole-person care, and improved health and quality of life across the lifespan. ODP is particularly interested in innovative prevention research using rigorous study design, measurement, and analysis methods to test interventions, implementation strategies, and multidisciplinary care approaches. ORWH is interested in projects addressing HIV-associated co-occurring conditions in women. OBSSR and THRO participate without publishing specific interests for this topic.

Practical read: ODP's emphasis on rigorous design, measurement, and analysis is the most actionable of these, because methodological rigor is cheap to strengthen and is where small business applications most often lose points. Powering your study properly and pre-specifying your analysis is a low-cost, high-return decision. OAR being the central contact also means a single call to OAR can help route you among twelve Institutes if you are genuinely unsure where you fit.

MAHA alignment

This topic is issued as part of the Make America Healthy Again initiative and lists eight named alignments, more than any comparable topic: the NIH MAHA Chronic Disease Initiative's Whole-Person-Health approach; Food for Health, a joint HHS, VA, and USDA effort studying food and lifestyle interventions and their cost impact, coordinated by the NIH Office of Nutrition and including large-scale randomized controlled trials; Nutrition, spanning NIH partnership with FDA, USDA, and the Administration for a Healthy America, expanded research on dietary patterns supporting metabolic health, the FDA and NIH Joint Nutrition Regulatory Science Program, and precision nutrition; the Oral Health and Systemic Disease Connection, examining pediatric oral health links to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune conditions plus oral microbiome relationships with gut health and immune function; the Gut Microbiome Research Initiative; Longitudinal Research for Chronic Disease Prevention, naming the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, the Healthy Brain and Child Development Study, All of Us, and the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes Program, with example areas including sleep, nutrition, insulin resistance, select high-quality supplements, and fitness as a vital sign; and Mental Health and Addiction Research, with a special focus on screentime in children and adolescents.

Practical read: pick one or two, not eight. The named longitudinal resources are the most useful, because "use of existing resources" is explicitly encouraged in the topic purpose, and proposing validation against All of Us or a named cohort is concrete, cheaper than new recruitment, and directly responsive. For a nutrition or metabolic product, Food for Health and the Nutrition alignment are the natural anchors. For oral health, NIDCR plus the Oral Health and Systemic Disease Connection is a coherent pairing.

Eligibility Requirements

To apply for an NIH SBIR or STTR award, your company must meet the core SBA criteria:

• Organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United States, and the primary research performed in the United States

• More than 50 percent directly owned and controlled by one or more individuals who are U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, by other for-profit small business concerns each majority owned by such individuals, or by a combination. Certain venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity structures may qualify for SBIR under specific conditions, and Tribal, Alaska Native Corporation, Native Hawaiian Organization, and joint venture paths exist. Complex cap tables should be checked against 13 CFR Part 121.

• No more than 500 employees including all affiliates. A subsidiary counts its parent's employees.

• For SBIR, the Principal Investigator's primary employment must be with the small business at the time of award and for the duration of the project. For STTR, the PD/PI may be primarily employed by either the small business or the partnering nonprofit research institution, with the award still made to the small business.

• For SBIR Phase I, the small business must perform at least two thirds of the research or analytical effort. For SBIR Phase II, at least half. For STTR, the small business performs at least 40 percent and a single partner nonprofit research institution performs at least 30 percent.

Additional constraints that matter on a topic this broad. NIH will not accept similar applications with essentially the same research focus from the same applicant organization, including derivative applications proposing a single product that can be applied to multiple purposes with non-substantive modification. You may not simultaneously submit identical or essentially identical applications under both parent announcements. Duplicate or highly overlapping applications under simultaneous review are not accepted. Applicants must disclose overlapping federal work under the essentially equivalent work rule. Companies with a substantial award history should confirm they meet the Phase I to Phase II Transition Rate and commercialization benchmarks, which can restrict new Phase I, Fast-Track, and Direct to Phase II eligibility for one year. Heightened screening of foreign ownership and foreign influence applies under the 2026 reauthorization, with additional scrutiny possible for STTR because of the research institution partnership.

What a Competitive Application Looks Like

1. A shared-factor story, not a single-condition story. The topic's central argument is that comorbidities share upstream pathways and risk factors. A product addressing a shared factor with consequences across multiple downstream conditions is answering the question asked. A single-indication tool is answering a different one.

2. The right Institute, confirmed by a call. Twelve awarding Institutes with different missions, different budget ceilings, and different clinical trial policies. The program officer conversation determines assignment, budget realism, and whether your design is even reviewable. On this topic that call is worth more than on almost any other.

3. A clinical trial determination made early. Review the NIH Clinical Trial Definition against your actual design before choosing a mechanism and Institute. Behavioral and care delivery interventions frequently meet the definition when founders assume they do not, and NIAMS, NIDCR, NIAID, and NIDDK all carry restrictions.

4. Validation against existing NIH resources. The topic explicitly encourages use of existing resources, and the MAHA alignment names specific longitudinal cohorts. Proposing to validate against an existing resource is cheaper, faster, and more responsive than proposing new recruitment.

5. A sustainability and payer argument, not just a care model. The topic asks for scalable, sustainable care models. For a company that means naming who pays after the grant ends: reimbursement pathway, health system purchaser, or payer. Academic applications will treat sustainability as an aspiration. Treating it as a business model is your advantage.

6. Community engagement that is documented, not asserted. Meaningful community engagement is strongly encouraged throughout the topic. Letters, agreements, and named partners carry weight. A stated intention does not.

7. An interdisciplinary team that survives the eligibility rules. Multiple PD/PIs with complementary expertise are encouraged, but SBIR employment rules still bind. Build the team and confirm the structure with program staff in the same step.

Common Reasons Applications Miss

• Treating the Highlighted Topic as a NOFO and searching Grants.gov for a topic-specific number that does not exist

• Submitting on an AIDS due date of January 7, May 7, or September 7, which HHS does not accept for SBIR or STTR applications

• Proposing a clinical trial to NIAMS or NIDCR, which accept none under either parent announcement, making the application non-responsive and unreviewed

• Proposing a clinical trial to NIAID or NIDDK through STTR, which neither accepts, when SBIR would have worked

• Assuming a behavioral or care delivery intervention is not a clinical trial without checking the NIH Clinical Trial Definition

• Pursuing SBIR when the scientific lead holds a primary academic appointment, where STTR permits that PD/PI arrangement and SBIR does not

• Bringing an academic research project to a small business mechanism, where the deliverable is knowledge rather than a commercial product the company will own and sell

• Targeting NICHD without a program officer conversation, since NICHD published no areas of interest for this topic

• Budgeting to the $700,000 Phase I ceiling rather than the roughly $400,000 that Institutes actually award, or ignoring NIAID's per-year constraint of $1,000,000 in total costs

• Omitting the fee from the budget or requesting the wrong level, neither correctable after submission

• Citing all eight MAHA alignments rather than the one or two that fit, which reads as unfocused

• Starting federal registrations after drafting begins, then missing the receipt date on an eRA Commons validation error

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this a grant I can apply to directly?

No. This is an NIH Highlighted Topic, which is a statement of scientific priority rather than a Notice of Funding Opportunity. You apply through a broad NIH announcement, and for small businesses that means the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement, requesting assignment to one of the twelve awarding Institutes.

Which funding opportunity number do I actually use?

For most small businesses it is PA-27-100, the NIH, CDC, and FDA Parent SBIR announcement covering R43 and R44 awards. If your project depends on a formal university or nonprofit research partner, use PA-27-102, the Parent STTR announcement covering R41 and R42. Confirm the active number at submission, since PA-27-100 closes in early April 2027 while this topic runs to July 2028.

When is the deadline, and do the AIDS due dates apply?

There is no deadline specific to this topic. You submit on the NIH standard small business receipt dates of January 5, April 5, and September 5, with dates falling on weekends or federal holidays moving to the next business day. The AIDS and AIDS-related due dates of January 7, May 7, and September 7 do not apply, because HHS does not accept SBIR or STTR grant applications on those dates. The topic expires July 28, 2028, making April 5, 2028 the final available cycle.

Which of the twelve Institutes should I target?

Group by what you sell. Diagnostics and screening point to NHLBI, NCI, NIDCR, or NIDDK. Therapeutics point to NCI, NIAID, NIAAA, NIDA, or NIA. Software and care delivery point to NIMH, NIDA, NIA, NIDDK, or NIAMS. Complementary and integrative health points to NCCIH. NIDA is the only Institute that stated both that it may dedicate funds and that it may give special consideration, which makes it a strong default where the fit is genuine.

How much money can my company request?

The SBA statutory guidelines this cycle are $323,090 for Phase I and $2,153,927 for Phase II in total costs, including direct costs, indirect costs, and fee. Institute limits differ substantially. Several Institutes in this topic list Phase I headroom to $700,000, NCI publishes waiver guidance near $400,000 for Phase I and $2,250,000 for Phase II, NIDDK publishes $350,000 and $2,200,000, NIAAA caps near $385,000 and $3 million, and NIAID applies a per-year constraint of $1,000,000 in total costs on Phase II and Phase IIB. Confirm with your target Institute before setting a budget.

Can I include a clinical trial in my application?

It depends entirely on the Institute and the mechanism. Under the parent SBIR announcement, NIAMS and NIDCR do not accept clinical trials. Under the parent STTR announcement, NIAID, NIAMS, NIDCR, NIDDK, and NIMHD do not. An application proposing a clinical trial that aligns only with an excluded component is non-responsive and will not be reviewed. Check the NIH Clinical Trial Definition against your design first, because many behavioral and care delivery interventions meet it.

My scientific lead is a university faculty member. Can we still apply?

Yes, through STTR. Under the parent STTR announcement the Program Director or Principal Investigator may be primarily employed by either the small business or the partnering nonprofit research institution, while the award still goes to the small business. SBIR requires the PI's primary employment to be with the company. Given how much of the HIV comorbidity field sits in academic clinical settings, this is often the deciding factor on mechanism.

The topic encourages multiple Principal Investigators. Does SBIR allow that?

NIH small business awards do permit multiple Program Director and Principal Investigator structures, but the employment requirements still apply. Because the interaction between a multi-PI team and the primary employment rule can create an eligibility problem, confirm the specific structure with your target Institute's program staff before building the team into the application.

How long until I receive funding?

Plan on approximately 9 months from submission to award start. An application submitted in the January 2027 cycle would typically have an earliest possible start date in the fall of 2027.

Do I have to give up equity or match the funds?

No. NIH SBIR and STTR Phase I and Phase II awards are non-dilutive and require no cost share. The exception is the Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, which requires not less than 100 percent matching funds from new private capital or from a government source other than a Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award.

Is this topic really a fit for a small business, or is it academic research?

Both, and the distinction matters. Cohort analysis, mechanistic basic science, epidemiological characterization, and academically led community trials belong in R01 and related mechanisms. Genuine small business lanes include subclinical disease detection, biomarkers and diagnostics, therapeutics, medication optimization and drug interaction tools, care coordination and clinical decision support software, point-of-care coinfection testing, and integrated behavioral health delivery platforms. The test is whether there is a commercial product with unresolved technical risk that the company will own and sell.

Does any Institute set aside dedicated funding for this topic?

Not guaranteed, but four made statements. NIDA stated both that it may dedicate available funds and that it may give special consideration. NHLBI stated it may dedicate available funds. NCCIH and NIDCR each stated they may give special consideration. The remaining eight awarding Institutes made neither statement. Treat these as a favorable tilt rather than a reserved pool.

Why does NICHD list no areas of interest?

NICHD participates in this topic but published only a scientific contact rather than stated interests. The topic body does note elevated immune, metabolic, and developmental risks in HIV-exposed but uninfected children, particularly in low and middle-income settings. With no published language to write against, a program officer conversation is essential before investing in a NICHD-targeted application.

I already have feasibility data. Do I still need a Phase I?

Not necessarily. SBIR Direct to Phase II allows a company that has demonstrated the scientific and technical merit and feasibility normally expected from a Phase I, without having received a Phase I award for that project, to apply directly for Phase II. This authority is available for SBIR only and is not available under STTR.

Do OAR, OBSSR, ODP, ORWH, and THRO award grants?

No. All five participate without awarding. Your application must be relevant to the objectives of at least one awarding Institute. OAR does serve as the central scientific contact for the topic, which makes it a useful first call if you are unsure which of the twelve Institutes fits your technology.

What registrations do I need, and how long do they take?

SAM.gov with a Unique Entity ID, the SBA Company Registry, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov. eRA Commons access depends on completing the SBA Company Registry first, so the sequence matters. Allow at least six weeks, and start before you begin writing.

How BW&CO Helps

BW&CO is a non-dilutive federal funding advisory firm. We help deep-tech, biotech, medtech, and health technology founders convert agency priority signals like this one into funded awards.

This topic has twelve awarding Institutes, four different clinical trial policies, and budget ceilings that range from the statutory guideline to $700,000 at Phase I. Most of the value is created before drafting begins: honest fit assessment, Institute selection and assignment strategy, clinical trial determination and mechanism choice, program officer engagement, multi-PI structure review against eligibility rules, Specific Aims development, full proposal build, budget and fee construction, commercialization and sustainability planning, and Phase IIB matching capital positioning. Our team has helped clients secure more than $350 million in funding. Innovation Funding Simplified.

If you are building a product for people with HIV and want a straight answer on whether this topic fits your company, which Institute to target, and whether you are competitive for the January 5, 2027 cycle, contact us for a fit assessment.

NIH Highlighted Topic: Accelerating Disease Prevention Research by New Approach Methodologies

Executive Summary

The National Institutes of Health has published a Highlighted Topic titled "Accelerating Disease Prevention Research by New Approach Methodologies." It signals that four NIH awarding components, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the National Institute on Aging (NIA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), want to fund the development, validation, and use of human-relevant New Approach Methodologies that model precursor conditions and the process by which those conditions progress into overt disease.

The gap NIH names is specific and narrow. NAMs exist. NAMs that model precursor states, things like precancer, prediabetes, and preclinical Alzheimer's disease, and that capture the dynamics of progression rather than a static snapshot, do not exist in sufficient number. NIH calls this a high-priority unmet need. If your platform can model a disease before it becomes a disease, you are inside the target.

For a small business, the practical translation is this: there is no new application portal and no new deadline attached to this topic. A Highlighted Topic is a demand signal, not a Notice of Funding Opportunity. You capture the funding by submitting to the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement, requesting assignment to whichever of the four Institutes best fits your science, and aligning your Specific Aims to that Institute's stated areas of interest.

The topic was posted on September 3, 2026 and expires on September 3, 2028. Budget guidance varies substantially by Institute, which is the single most consequential planning fact on this page. The SBA statutory guidelines for the current cycle are $323,090 for Phase I and $2,153,927 for Phase II, but the participating component table in the parent SBIR announcement lists Phase I limits as high as $700,000 for NCI and NIA, while NCATS operates at the statutory guideline.

If you build organoids, microphysiological systems and organ-on-a-chip platforms, iPSC-derived tissue or immune models, bioengineered human tissues, advanced biomaterials for human-derived models, in silico or AI-based predictive models, or combinatorial NAMs, this is one of the broadest and best-signposted funding openings NIH has published for the tools and platforms community.

At a Glance

• Topic title: Accelerating Disease Prevention Research by New Approach Methodologies

• Issuing agency: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• Awarding components: NCI, NCATS, NIA, and NIDA

• Non-awarding participating offices: ORWH, the Office of Autoimmune Disease Research in ORWH (OADR-ORWH), and the Tribal Health Research Office (THRO)

• Type: NIH Highlighted Topic. This is not a Notice of Funding Opportunity.

• Post date: September 3, 2026

• Expiration date: September 3, 2028

• Recommended small business mechanism: NIH SBIR (R43 and R44) or NIH STTR (R41 and R42) parent announcement

• Current parent announcements: PA-27-100 for SBIR, PA-27-102 for STTR, PA-27-101 for the Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, and PAR-27-098 for the Commercialization Readiness Pilot

• Standard annual due dates: January 5, April 5, and September 5

• SBA statutory guidelines this cycle: $323,090 Phase I, $2,153,927 Phase II, $4,191,495 CRP

• Component Phase I limits in the parent SBIR table: up to $700,000 for NCI and NIA, with NCATS at the statutory guideline. Confirm with the Institute before budgeting above the guideline.

• Cost share: none for Phase I or Phase II. Phase IIB requires 100 percent third-party matching funds.

• Equity dilution: none. This is non-dilutive federal funding.

• Profit or fee: allowable, must be in the budget at submission, and normally will not exceed 7 percent of total costs

• Funding signals: NCATS states it may dedicate available funds to this topic area. NIDA states it may give special consideration to meritorious applications in this topic area.

• Small business specific contact: NCI has designated Linda Zane, Ph.D. for small business product development and commercialization of NAMs, reachable at NCI-HT-NAM@nih.gov

• Broader initiative alignment: Make America Healthy Again initiative, New Approach Methodologies effort

What This Opportunity Actually Is

An NIH Highlighted Topic is a published statement of scientific interest from one or more NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. It tells the research community that an area of science is a priority without creating a separate funding announcement, a separate deadline, or a separate review process. There is no topic-specific number to search for on Grants.gov, and applications are not reviewed against other applications to the topic.

What it does do for a small business is threefold. It identifies which Institutes are receptive, which determines your assignment request and which program officer you call. It supplies the vocabulary that program staff and reviewers are already using internally, which is what your Specific Aims should mirror. And in two cases here it creates an explicit funding advantage: NCATS states it may dedicate available funds to applications in this topic area depending on the availability of funds, the number of meritorious applications, and competing priorities, and NIDA states it may give special consideration to meritorious applications in the topic area.

What it does not do is guarantee a set-aside or bypass peer review. Your application competes on scientific merit through the standard NIH study section route, and the topic language is a positioning advantage rather than a shortcut.

Which Institute Should You Target?

This is the decision that matters most on this topic, because four awarding components with materially different missions and budget ceilings are participating, and your assignment request determines which one reads your application.

NCI, if your work touches precancer or cancer prevention. NCI published the most detailed and most product-oriented set of interests here, covering human-derived precancerous organoids, iPSC-derived and bioengineered human tissue and immune system models of tumorigenesis, advanced biomaterials enabling human-derived NAMs, NAMs for discovery of preventive, interceptive, or reversive agents, NAMs for biomarker discovery supporting early detection and risk stratification, and microphysiological and combinatorial NAMs for predicting human safety and toxicity of candidate prevention agents. NCI also listed eight named scientific contacts for this topic, including one specifically for small business product development and commercialization of NAMs. That is an unusually strong signal that NCI expects and wants small business applications here.

NCATS, if your platform is disease-agnostic. NCATS is interested in NAMs that reveal the mechanisms of drug-induced organ injury so those reactions can be prevented before clinical symptoms emerge. The framing is deliberately not tied to one disease, which makes this the right door for a platform company whose technology is a tool rather than a disease model. NCATS asks for innovative, scalable, and reproducible platforms that enable earlier intervention, reduce reliance on traditional animal models, and generate broadly applicable knowledge. Note that scalability and reproducibility are named explicitly, which for a small business means manufacturing consistency and assay robustness are scientific aims, not afterthoughts.

NIA, if your work concerns aging, resilience, or dementia. NIA wants NAMs that identify biomarkers, protective pathways, and preventive therapeutics for age-related conditions including Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Its interests include person-specific, cross-species, and combinatorial NAMs; neuronal and peripheral tissue NAMs derived from individuals with exceptional longevity, cognitive superagers, or people showing resistance or resilience to AD and ADRD, used to identify protective pathways and test whether those pathways can reduce or reverse disease phenotypes in patient-derived iPSCs; and in silico NAMs that model behavioral, cognitive, and functional phenotypes alongside extrinsic risk factors. The resilience donor angle is distinctive and worth noting: NIA is asking for models built from people who did not get sick.

NIDA, if your work concerns addiction biology or substance use. NIDA seeks human-relevant NAMs that accelerate addiction research and intervention discovery, including iPSCs, organoids, and bioengineered tissues that identify molecular changes induced by addictive drugs and mechanisms of vulnerability; tools and methods including in silico models that integrate and analyze epidemiological and electronic health record data to surface mechanisms, biomarkers, and candidate drugs; and NAMs that decipher interactions between biological factors such as age and sex, behavioral factors such as exercise, and environmental factors such as nutrition and substance exposure. NIDA's inclusion of data integration work makes this the most software-friendly of the four.

If your technology plausibly fits more than one, contact more than one program officer before choosing. Assignment requests are not binding on NIH, but an application written to a specific Institute's language and referred elsewhere reads as a poor fit to whoever receives it.

Which NIH Mechanism Should a Small Business Use?

Small businesses should apply through the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement and request assignment to the Institute whose interests match.

NIH Parent SBIR, currently PA-27-100 (R43 and R44). The default route for most companies. It accepts Phase I, Phase II, Direct to Phase II, and Fast-Track applications. Use it when your company performs the majority of the research and your Principal Investigator is primarily employed by the company.

NIH Parent STTR, currently PA-27-102 (R41 and R42). Use this when the project depends on a formal partnership with a U.S. nonprofit research institution. STTR requires at least 40 percent of the research at the small business and at least 30 percent at a single partner institution. This is the natural route for a company commercializing licensed organoid, iPSC, or microphysiological system technology where the originating academic lab retains essential capability, and for projects needing access to donor cohorts such as NIA's exceptional longevity and resilience populations.

Direct to Phase II. If you already have the feasibility data a Phase I would generate, and you never received a Phase I award for that project, you can apply straight to Phase II. This authority is SBIR only and is not available under STTR. Many NAMs companies with a validated platform in one disease context and new data in a precursor context are strong candidates here.

Fast-Track. Phase I and Phase II submitted together and reviewed once. It compresses the funding gap but requires a fully developed Phase II plan at first submission. Poor fit when Phase I results would change the Phase II design, which is common in early model development where the qualification strategy depends on what the first characterization shows.

Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, currently PA-27-101 (R44). For companies that have completed an NIH SBIR or STTR Phase II and need to bridge to commercialization. Requires documentation of not less than 100 percent matching funds from new private capital or from a government source other than a Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award. Budget guidance varies by participating Institute.

Commercialization Readiness Pilot, currently PAR-27-098 (SB1). Funds late-stage technical assistance and product development that Phase II and Phase IIB cannot support, including specialized regulatory and qualification work. It permits more outsourcing than other mechanisms, though the small business must retain substantial project management and oversight. Note that NCI caps its CRP support well below the government-wide CRP figure, so contact NCI SBIR program staff before planning a CRP budget.

Funding Allowance

The ceiling on this topic depends on two layers, and on this particular topic the second layer varies more than usual because four Institutes are involved.

Layer one, the SBA statutory guidelines for the current cycle:

• Phase I: up to $323,090 in total costs, for a project period of 6 months to 2 years

• Phase II: up to $2,153,927 in total costs, for a project period of 1 to 3 years

• Commercialization Readiness Pilot: up to $4,191,495 in total costs, for a project period of up to 3 years

Total funding support means direct costs, indirect costs, and fee combined. A reasonable profit or fee is allowable on SBIR and STTR awards, but it must be built into the budget at the time of application and normally will not exceed 7 percent of total costs. NIH does not adjust budgets after submission, so a budget requested at the wrong level cannot be corrected later.

Layer two, Institute-specific guidance. NIH holds SBA waivers permitting awards above the statutory guideline for specific approved topics, and each Institute publishes its own limits. For the four awarding components here:

• NCI. The participating component table in the parent SBIR announcement lists a Phase I limit as high as $700,000. NCI's own program descriptions state that for waiver-eligible topics it generally funds Phase I applications up to $400,000 in total costs across up to 2 years, and will consider Phase II applications up to $2,250,000 across up to 3 years. NCI also runs a Phase IIB Bridge Award and caps its CRP support well below the government-wide figure.

• NIA. Listed among the components with a Phase I limit as high as $700,000 in the parent announcement table.

• NCATS. Operates at the stated statutory guideline rather than a waivered higher limit.

• NIDA. Publishes waiver-topic guidance permitting Phase I requests above the standard guideline with a project period up to 1 year, and Phase II requests up to $2.5 million with a project period up to 3 years, where the research falls within NIDA's approved waiver topics and the justification is adequate.

Two cautions on the headroom. First, the ceiling in a component table is not the number that gets awarded. BW&CO's own analysis of a fiscal year 2026 NCI SBIR award slice found Phase I level awards ranging from roughly $305,000 to $404,000, with not one award in 44 records using the $700,000 headroom. The realistic planning number for an NCI SBIR Phase I is closer to $400,000. Building a program plan around a waivered Phase I budgets against an outcome that did not occur. Second, an Institute may reduce the recommended budget or shorten the award period for budgetary, administrative, or programmatic reasons even after a strong review score.

The practical instruction is the same across all four: identify your target Institute, then contact its program staff with a draft Specific Aims page before you set the budget. Institutes generally do not pre-approve budget waivers, but they will tell you whether your topic is waiver-eligible and whether the number you have in mind is realistic.

Timeline

The Highlighted Topic window runs from September 3, 2026 through September 3, 2028. Within that window you submit against the NIH standard small business receipt dates.

Standard annual due dates: January 5, April 5, and September 5. When a due date falls on a weekend or federal holiday, NIH moves it to the next business day. Applications are due by 5:00 p.m. local time of the applicant organization.

Cycles available under this topic:

• September 2026 cycle: the September 5, 2026 date shifted to Tuesday, September 8, 2026 because of the weekend and the Labor Day holiday. Since the topic posted on September 3, this cycle is not realistically available.

• January 5, 2027: the first realistic cycle for a company beginning preparation now.

• April 5, 2027

• September 5, 2027

• January 5, 2028

• April 5, 2028, the last full cycle before the topic expires in September 2028.

What the runway looks like: plan on roughly 9 months from submission to funds in the door. An application submitted in the January 2027 cycle typically reaches an earliest possible start date in the fall of 2027. Council decisions for the September and January cycles are often handled together, which is one reason experienced applicants do not treat deferring a cycle as costless.

Work backwards from your target date:

• 14 to 16 weeks out: identify your target Institute, contact its program officer, confirm responsiveness and waiver eligibility, and start or verify federal registrations

• 12 weeks out: lock the Specific Aims page and circulate it to program staff

• 8 weeks out: complete the research strategy, the commercialization plan, letters of support, and any donor cohort or tissue sourcing agreements

• 4 weeks out: full internal review, budget finalization, and subaward paperwork for any STTR or academic partner

• 1 week out: submit early to leave room for eRA Commons error correction

Registrations are the most common cause of a missed deadline. You need SAM.gov with a Unique Entity ID, the SBA Company Registry, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov. eRA Commons access depends on the SBA Company Registry being complete first. Allow six weeks or more and begin before you write anything.

Also note that parent announcements are reissued periodically. The current SBIR parent, PA-27-100, carries a closing date in early April 2027, well before this topic expires, so applicants targeting later cycles must confirm the active announcement number at the time of submission.

Detailed Overview of What NIH Is Looking For

The problem NIH is trying to solve

The topic's premise is that prevention research is bottlenecked by a missing class of research tools. Beyond established risk-reduction strategies such as lifestyle change and smoking cessation, NIH argues that studying the etiologic processes by which precursor conditions initiate and progress opens new prevention opportunities: actionable targets, biomarkers for early detection and risk stratification, and therapeutics designed to prevent or intercept precursors before they become manifest disease, or even to revert them to normal.

NIH is direct about why animal models alone will not get there. Animal models remain vital, and nearly every modern pharmaceutical agent reached human clinical data on the strength of animal data, but only about 10 percent of agents entering clinical trials obtain regulatory approval. NIH attributes this to inadequate drug target validation, absent human efficacy, and unmanageable toxicity, and argues that human-relevant research tools designed to bridge interspecies differences in pathophysiology, environmental exposure, and disease characteristics, combined with in silico and AI-based tools, can improve the predictability of human efficacy and safety.

The specific gap is stated plainly: there is a scarcity of NAMs designed to mimic precursor conditions and the dynamic process of disease progression in humans. Development, validation, and integrated use of such NAMs is described as a high-priority unmet need across cancer and other chronic diseases, which NIH notes are frequently interconnected.

Read strategically, that sentence contains three requirements most applications will only partially satisfy. The model must represent a precursor state rather than established disease. It must capture progression as a process rather than a static endpoint. And NIH wants development, validation, and integrated use, which means a proposal that builds a model without a qualification and application strategy is answering one third of the question.

What counts as a NAM here

The topic states that NAMs within its scope may include, but are not limited to, microphysiological systems such as organ-on-a-chip, 2D and 3D tissue systems, bioengineered human tissue models, in silico NAMs, and combinatorial NAMs. The named precursor examples are precancerous conditions, prediabetes, and preclinical Alzheimer's disease.

The inclusion of in silico and combinatorial NAMs matters commercially. A company with no wet lab can be responsive here through computational modeling and data integration, and a company that pairs a physical model with a computational layer is directly addressing the combinatorial category NIH names in every one of the four Institute sections.

NCI areas of interest

NCI seeks NAMs that accelerate research on precancer biology, cancer prevention, and the discovery of prevention and interception interventions. Its listed interests, which it states are not exhaustive, are human-derived precancerous organoids or other NAMs that help identify molecular mechanisms of precancer growth and exploitable targets for high-risk precancer interception; iPSC-derived or other bioengineered human tissue and immune system models mimicking aspects of human tumorigenesis; advanced biomaterials enabling innovative human-derived NAMs for precancer research; NAMs for discovery of cancer preventive, interceptive, or reversive agents; NAMs for biomarker discovery supporting early detection, efficacy evaluation, and risk stratification; and microphysiological and other combinatorial NAMs to predict human safety and toxicity of candidate agents for cancer prevention and interception.

What this tells you: NCI has decomposed the space into discovery tools, agent screening, biomarker discovery, and safety prediction, and named a separate scientific contact for nearly each one, plus contacts for pharmaceutical agent development, cancer dormancy and recurrence, and small business product development. The presence of the word "reversive" alongside preventive and interceptive is notable. NCI is signaling interest in agents that reverse precursor lesions, not only ones that halt them, and very few applications will propose a reversion endpoint.

NCATS areas of interest

NCATS is advancing disease-agnostic research using NAMs to understand and ultimately prevent drug-induced organ injury. It encourages human-based in vitro and in silico NAMs that illuminate the factors contributing to drug-induced organ injury so those reactions can be avoided or prevented, revealing actionable prevention mechanisms before clinical symptoms emerge. Its scientific interests center on innovative, scalable, and reproducible NAMs platforms that enable earlier interventions, reduce reliance on traditional animal models, and generate broadly applicable knowledge that helps treat and prevent disease onset and promotes long-term health across different populations.

What this tells you: NCATS is the only one of the four framed around a safety and toxicity problem rather than a disease. If your platform predicts organ injury, hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, or neurotoxicity, this is your door, and the disease-agnostic framing means you do not need a disease indication to be responsive. NCATS is also the Institute here that stated it may dedicate available funds to the topic area. The words scalable and reproducible should appear in your aims with data behind them.

NIA areas of interest

NIA seeks NAMs that identify biomarkers, protective pathways, and preventive therapeutics for age-related conditions and diseases including Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, through studies of aging biology and the intrinsic and extrinsic factors underlying resilience. Its listed interests are person-specific, cross-species, and combinatorial NAMs for biomarker discovery, identification of preventive therapeutics and interventions for age-related conditions and AD or ADRD, and prediction of safety and toxicity; neuronal and peripheral tissue NAMs derived from individuals with exceptional longevity, cognitive superagers, or individuals with resistance or resilience to AD and ADRD, used to identify protective pathways and test their ability to reduce or reverse disease phenotypes in iPSCs from patients with AD or ADRD; and in silico NAMs modeling behavioral, cognitive, and functional phenotypes along with extrinsic factors influencing disease risk and resilience.

What this tells you: NIA has described a specific experimental architecture, not just a technology category. Take tissue from people who resisted the disease, find the protective pathway, then test that pathway in patient-derived cells. A proposal that runs that full arc is unusually well matched. The phrase person-specific also signals interest in individualized rather than pooled models. And NIA is one of the components listed with Phase I headroom as high as $700,000 in the parent announcement table.

NIDA areas of interest

NIDA seeks human-relevant NAMs that accelerate research on addiction biology, substance use prevention, and intervention discovery. Its listed interests are human-derived iPSCs, organoids, bioengineered tissues, or other NAMs to identify molecular changes induced by addictive drugs and mechanisms contributing to addiction vulnerability; development and application of tools and methods, including in silico models, to integrate and analyze data from sources including epidemiological data and electronic health records in order to identify mechanisms, biomarkers, and candidate drugs for prevention, early intervention, and treatment of substance use disorders; and application of NAMs to decipher interactions among biological factors such as age and sex, behavioral factors such as exercise, and environmental factors such as nutrition and exposure to drugs and other substances that influence the trajectory of addiction and its comorbidities.

What this tells you: NIDA is the most accommodating of the four for data and software companies, because it explicitly invites electronic health record and epidemiological data integration as a NAM activity. NIDA also stated it may give special consideration to meritorious applications in this topic area. The gene by environment by behavior interaction framing is a distinctive third bullet that most applicants will skip.

What the non-awarding offices add

ORWH, OADR-ORWH, and THRO participate but do not award grants. Your application must be relevant to the objectives of at least one participating Institute or Center, which here means NCI, NCATS, NIA, or NIDA. Their stated interests function as scoring advantages layered on top of your primary Institute fit.

ORWH seeks NAMs relevant to women's health, specifically human-derived NAMs modeling hormone homeostasis across the life course and sex influences on precursor conditions and disease progression; biomarker identification in human-derived NAMs for early detection, prevention, translation, or risk stratification of conditions prevalent in females; evaluation of sex differences in human-derived organoids, microphysiological systems, iPSC-derived models, and other bioengineered tissues; and human microphysiological or combinatorial NAMs predicting safety and toxicity in female-relevant contexts.

OADR-ORWH is interested in projects using human-derived organoids, iPSCs, or other bioengineered human tissue and immune system models to investigate pre-clinical and established autoimmunity.

THRO supports NAMs development and use to prevent disease progression in American Indian and Alaska Native communities, encouraging models of diseases that disproportionately affect AI/AN populations such as diabetes and cancer. THRO adds a requirement that most applicants will not be able to satisfy retroactively: research should be culturally grounded and involve AI/AN communities and practices as much as possible. If you intend to claim THRO alignment, community partnership must be real and documented in the application, not asserted.

Practical read: sex differences are the cheapest and most defensible of these to build in, because evaluating sex differences in an existing model architecture is a design decision rather than a new capability. Doing it deliberately, with powered comparisons rather than a minimal sex-as-a-biological-variable statement, distinguishes an application at almost no cost.

MAHA and NAMs policy alignment

This topic is issued as part of the Make America Healthy Again initiative and aligns specifically with the New Approach Methodologies effort, under which expanded NAMs use is expected to enable earlier and more predictive insight into chronic disease mechanisms through human-relevant models such as organoids, computational simulations, and real-world data integration, improving prevention, diagnosis, and personalized treatment while reducing reliance on animal studies that often fail to replicate complex human conditions. EPA, FDA, and NIH have all committed to using NAMs going forward where appropriate.

The framing consequence is significant and specific to this topic. On most NIH applications, a preclinical package light on animal data is a weakness to be explained. Here, replacing animal work with a qualified human-relevant model is the point of the solicitation. Do not apologize for the absence of animal studies. Argue affirmatively that your model predicts human outcomes better, and cite the tri-agency commitment as the policy context that makes a qualified NAM a durable asset rather than a research curiosity.

Eligibility Requirements

To apply for an NIH SBIR or STTR award, your company must meet the core SBA criteria:

• Organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United States, and the primary research performed in the United States

• More than 50 percent directly owned and controlled by one or more individuals who are U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, by other for-profit small business concerns each majority owned by such individuals, or by a combination. Certain venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership structures may qualify for SBIR under specific conditions, and Tribal, Alaska Native Corporation, Native Hawaiian Organization, and joint venture paths exist. Complex cap tables should be checked against 13 CFR Part 121 rather than assumed either way.

• No more than 500 employees, including all affiliates. A subsidiary counts its parent's employees.

• For SBIR, the Principal Investigator's primary employment must be with the small business at the time of award and for the duration of the project. For STTR, the PI may be primarily employed by the small business or by the partnering research institution.

• For SBIR Phase I, the small business must perform at least two thirds of the research or analytical effort. For SBIR Phase II, at least half. For STTR, the small business performs at least 40 percent and a single partner nonprofit research institution performs at least 30 percent.

Companies with a substantial history of prior awards should confirm they meet the SBIR and STTR Phase I to Phase II Transition Rate and commercialization benchmarks, which can restrict new Phase I, Fast-Track, and Direct to Phase II eligibility for a period of one year. Applicants must also disclose overlapping federal work under the essentially equivalent work rule, which is a certification matter rather than a footnote. Heightened screening of foreign ownership and foreign influence applies under the 2026 reauthorization, and STTR applicants can face additional scrutiny because of the research institution partnership.

What a Competitive Application Looks Like

The trap on this topic is that NAMs are fashionable. NIH has funded organoids, microphysiological systems, and in silico models for years, and reviewers will have seen many applications proposing a model. The topic is not asking for a model. It is asking for a model of a precursor condition that captures progression, validated well enough to be used.

1. A precursor state, not a disease state. If your model represents established pathology, reframe it or propose the precursor version. Precancer, prediabetes, and preclinical Alzheimer's disease are the named examples, and the equivalent precursor in your indication is what NIH is asking for.

2. Progression as a measured process. NIH asks for the dynamic process of disease progression. That means longitudinal readouts and transition endpoints, not a single characterized timepoint. A model that shows a precursor becoming something else is answering the question a static model cannot.

3. A qualification and validation strategy, not just construction. The topic asks for development, validation, and integrated use. State what human outcome your model is claimed to predict, how you will demonstrate that predictivity, and against what reference data. This is also what makes the platform sellable, so it doubles as commercialization substance.

4. Scalability and reproducibility with data behind them. NCATS names both explicitly, and every buyer of a NAM platform, whether pharma or regulator, asks the same question. Batch-to-batch variability, operator independence, and throughput are legitimate Phase I aims.

5. A named customer and a regulatory posture. NIH small business awards are product development awards. For a NAMs platform the customer is usually a pharmaceutical developer, a CRO, or a regulator, and the value proposition is a decision they can make earlier or more confidently. Reference the FDA and EPA commitment to NAMs as the demand-side context.

6. Program officer contact before writing. With four Institutes, this is not optional here. The conversation determines your assignment request, tells you whether your topic is waiver-eligible for a larger budget, and surfaces overlap with existing awards. NCI has designated a small business product development contact for this topic specifically.

Common Reasons Applications Miss

• Treating the Highlighted Topic as a NOFO and hunting Grants.gov for a topic-specific number that does not exist

• Proposing a model of established disease when the topic asks for precursor conditions

• Proposing a static model when the topic asks for the dynamic process of progression

• Building the model and stopping there, with no validation, qualification, or use case, which answers one third of what the topic requests

• Leaving the assignment request blank or picking the wrong Institute, so the application is read by a component with no stake in the science

• Budgeting to the $700,000 component ceiling rather than the roughly $400,000 that Institutes actually award at Phase I

• Omitting the fee from the budget, or requesting the wrong level, neither of which can be corrected after submission

• Claiming THRO alignment without documented AI/AN community partnership

• Treating the absence of animal data as a weakness to apologize for rather than the point of the solicitation

• Starting federal registrations after drafting begins, then missing the receipt date on an eRA Commons validation error

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this a grant I can apply to directly?

No. This is an NIH Highlighted Topic, which is a statement of scientific priority rather than a Notice of Funding Opportunity. You apply through a broad NIH announcement, and for small businesses that means the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement, requesting assignment to one of the four participating Institutes.

Which funding opportunity number do I actually use?

For most small businesses it is PA-27-100, the NIH, CDC, and FDA Parent SBIR announcement covering R43 and R44 awards. If your project requires a formal university or nonprofit research partner, use PA-27-102, the Parent STTR announcement covering R41 and R42. Confirm the active number at the time you submit, since PA-27-100 closes in early April 2027 while this topic runs through September 2028.

Which of the four Institutes should I target?

NCI for precancer biology and cancer prevention or interception. NCATS for disease-agnostic platforms addressing drug-induced organ injury. NIA for aging, resilience, Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. NIDA for addiction biology, substance use, and data integration approaches. If your technology fits more than one, contact multiple program officers before choosing, because your assignment request shapes who reviews the application.

How much money can my company request?

The SBA statutory guidelines this cycle are $323,090 for Phase I and $2,153,927 for Phase II in total costs, including direct costs, indirect costs, and fee. Institute limits differ: the parent SBIR component table lists Phase I limits as high as $700,000 for NCI and NIA, while NCATS operates at the statutory guideline. In practice, NCI Phase I awards have clustered around $400,000 rather than at the ceiling. Contact your target Institute before budgeting above the guideline.

When is the deadline?

There is no deadline specific to this topic. You submit on the NIH standard small business receipt dates of January 5, April 5, and September 5 each year, with dates falling on weekends or federal holidays moving to the next business day. The topic expires on September 3, 2028, making January 5, 2027 through April 5, 2028 the realistic competing cycles.

How long until I receive funding?

Plan on approximately 9 months from submission to award start. An application submitted in the January 2027 cycle would typically have an earliest possible start date in the fall of 2027.

Do I have to give up equity or match the funds?

No. NIH SBIR and STTR Phase I and Phase II awards are non-dilutive and require no cost share. The exception is the Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, which requires not less than 100 percent matching funds from new private capital or from a government source other than a Phase I or Phase II SBIR or STTR award.

What counts as a New Approach Methodology under this topic?

The topic names microphysiological systems such as organ-on-a-chip, 2D and 3D tissue systems, bioengineered human tissue models, in silico NAMs, and combinatorial NAMs, and states the list is not exhaustive. The distinguishing requirement is not the technology type but the subject: the model should represent a precursor condition and the process of progression toward overt disease.

Does my model have to be human-derived?

Human relevance is the consistent thread across all four Institutes, and most listed interests specify human-derived material. NIA is the exception that explicitly includes cross-species NAMs among its interests. If your platform is not human-derived, the burden is to show why it predicts human outcomes better than the animal models NIH says are failing to translate.

Can I include a clinical trial?

The parent SBIR and STTR announcements are clinical trial optional, but acceptance varies by Institute and program, and several Institutes accept clinical trials through SBIR only. Given that this topic centers on preclinical model development, most responsive applications will not involve a clinical trial. If yours does, review the NIH Clinical Trial Definition and confirm with your target Institute, because the definition captures more study designs than founders expect.

Do I still need animal data?

Not necessarily, and on this topic the absence can be a strength. The topic is issued under the New Approach Methodologies effort, in which EPA, FDA, and NIH have committed to using human-relevant models to reduce reliance on animal studies that often fail to replicate complex human conditions. Argue that your model predicts human outcomes better rather than framing missing animal work as a limitation.

Does any Institute set aside dedicated funding for this topic?

Not guaranteed, but two made statements. NCATS states it may dedicate available funds to support applications in this topic area depending on the availability of funds, the number of meritorious applications, and competing priorities. NIDA states it may give special consideration to meritorious applications in the topic area. NCI and NIA made neither statement in this topic. Treat all of this as a favorable tilt rather than a reserved pool.

I already have feasibility data. Do I still need a Phase I?

Not necessarily. SBIR Direct to Phase II allows a company that has demonstrated the scientific and technical merit and feasibility normally expected from a Phase I, without having received a Phase I award for that project, to apply directly for Phase II. This authority is available for SBIR only and is not available under STTR. A validated platform plus new precursor-condition data is a common qualifying profile.

Do ORWH, OADR, and THRO award grants under this topic?

No. All three participate and publish areas of interest, but none awards grants. Your application must be relevant to the objectives of at least one of the awarding Institutes, meaning NCI, NCATS, NIA, or NIDA. Their interests are best used as additional strength within an application already aimed at one of the four.

What registrations do I need, and how long do they take?

SAM.gov with a Unique Entity ID, the SBA Company Registry, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov. eRA Commons access depends on completing the SBA Company Registry first, so the sequence matters. Allow at least six weeks, and start before you begin writing.

How BW&CO Helps

BW&CO is a non-dilutive federal funding advisory firm. We help deep-tech, biotech, medtech, and health technology founders convert agency priority signals like this one into funded awards.

On a topic with four awarding Institutes and four different budget ceilings, the highest-leverage work happens before a word of the application is written. That includes Institute selection and assignment strategy, program officer engagement, waiver eligibility assessment, Specific Aims development, full proposal build, budget and fee construction, commercialization and qualification planning, and Phase IIB matching capital positioning. Our team has helped clients secure more than $350 million in funding. Innovation Funding Simplified.

If you are building a New Approach Methodology and want an honest read on which Institute to target and whether you are competitive for the January 5, 2027 cycle, contact us for a fit assessment.

NIH Highlighted Topic: Novel Technologies to Improve Hormone Replacement Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes

Executive Summary

The National Institutes of Health has published a Highlighted Topic titled "Novel Technologies and Approaches to Improve Hormone Replacement Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes (T1D)." It signals that the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), together with the Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) and the Office of Autoimmune Disease Research (OADR-ORWH), want to fund investigator-initiated research on mechanical, digital, biological, and biochemical technologies that make hormone replacement for T1D more physiologic, more automated, and more accessible.

For a small business, the practical translation is this: there is no new application portal and no new deadline attached to this topic. A Highlighted Topic is a demand signal, not a Notice of Funding Opportunity. You capture the funding by submitting to the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement, naming NIDDK as your assignment request, and aligning your Specific Aims to the topic language below.

The topic was posted on September 2, 2026 and expires on September 2, 2028, which gives small businesses roughly five standard SBIR submission cycles to compete against it. NIDDK generally considers Phase I budgets up to $350,000 and Phase II budgets up to $2,200,000 in total costs, with a Phase IIB pathway up to $3,000,000 for companies that have already completed a Phase II.

If you build cell therapy, gene therapy, closed-loop devices, glucose-responsive insulin or glucagon formulations, or AI-driven diabetes management tools, this is one of the clearest funding signals NIDDK has published for the small business community in this space.

At a Glance

• Topic title: Novel Technologies and Approaches to Improve Hormone Replacement Therapies for Type 1 Diabetes (T1D)

• Issuing agency: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

• Funding Institute: NIDDK

• Non-awarding participating offices: ORWH and OADR-ORWH

• Type: NIH Highlighted Topic. This is not a Notice of Funding Opportunity.

• Post date: September 2, 2026

• Expiration date: September 2, 2028

• Recommended small business mechanism: NIH SBIR (R43 and R44) or NIH STTR (R41 and R42) parent announcement

• Current parent announcements: PA-27-100 for SBIR, PA-27-102 for STTR, PA-27-101 for the Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, and PAR-27-098 for the Commercialization Readiness Pilot

• Standard annual due dates: January 5, April 5, and September 5

• NIDDK Phase I guidance: up to $350,000 total costs, project period up to 2 years

• NIDDK Phase II guidance: up to $2,200,000 total costs, project period up to 3 years

• NIDDK Phase IIB guidance: up to $3,000,000 total costs, project period up to 3 years

• Cost share: none for Phase I or Phase II. Phase IIB requires 100 percent third-party matching funds.

• Equity dilution: none. This is non-dilutive federal funding.

• Scientific contact at NIDDK: Guillermo Arreaza-Rubin, M.D., Ph.D., guillermo.arreazarubin@nih.gov

• Broader initiative alignment: Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Chronic Disease Initiative

What Is an NIH Highlighted Topic?

An NIH Highlighted Topic is a published statement of scientific interest from one or more NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices. It tells the research community that a specific area of science is a priority, without creating a separate funding announcement, a separate deadline, or a separate review process.

There are three things a Highlighted Topic does for a small business:

1. It tells you which Institute is receptive. In this case, NIDDK is the awarding IC, so your assignment request and your program officer conversations should point there.

2. It gives you validated language to write against. The "Areas of Interest" and the NIDDK responsiveness list are the vocabulary reviewers and program staff are already using internally.

3. It creates two possible funding advantages. NIDDK may dedicate funds to applications in this topic area depending on the availability of funds, the number of meritorious applications, and competing priorities, and NIDDK may give special consideration to meritorious applications in the topic area.

There are two things a Highlighted Topic does not do. It does not guarantee a set-aside, and it does not replace the peer review process. Your application still competes on scientific merit through the standard NIH study section route.

Which NIH Mechanism Should a Small Business Use?

Small businesses should apply through the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement and request assignment to NIDDK.

The NIH small business programs are the right home for this topic because nearly every area of interest listed is a product development problem: a device, an implant, a biomaterial, a formulation, an algorithm, or a cell product that needs to reach patients. Here is how the mechanism map works.

NIH Parent SBIR, currently PA-27-100 (R43 and R44). This is the default route for most companies. It accepts Phase I, Phase II, Direct to Phase II, and Fast-Track applications. Use it when your company performs the majority of the research and your Principal Investigator is primarily employed by the company. NIDDK accepts SBIR clinical trial applications through the parent announcement.

NIH Parent STTR, currently PA-27-102 (R41 and R42). Use this when the project depends on a formal partnership with a U.S. nonprofit research institution such as a university. STTR requires that at least 40 percent of the research be performed by the small business and at least 30 percent by the single partner institution. This is the natural fit for university spinouts commercializing licensed islet encapsulation, gene therapy, or organoid technology. Note that NIDDK currently accepts clinical trial applications through SBIR only, not through STTR.

Direct to Phase II. If you already have feasibility data that would ordinarily come out of a Phase I, and you never received a Phase I award for that specific project, you can skip straight to Phase II. This authority applies to SBIR only. It is not available under STTR.

Fast-Track. Phase I and Phase II are submitted together and reviewed once. This compresses the funding gap but requires a fully developed Phase II plan at first submission. It is a poor fit when your Phase I result could materially change the Phase II design, which is often the case in early cell therapy and immune protection work.

Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, currently PA-27-101 (R44). For companies that have finished an NIH SBIR or STTR Phase II and need to bridge to commercialization. NIDDK generally considers Phase IIB requests up to $3,000,000 in total costs. Applicants must document not less than 100 percent matching funds from new private capital or from a non-SBIR/STTR government source. NIDDK strongly encourages Phase II awardees to consider Phase IIB, particularly where the product requires clinical evaluation or federal regulatory approval.

Commercialization Readiness Pilot, currently PAR-27-098 (SB1). Funds late-stage technical assistance and product development activities that Phase II and Phase IIB cannot support, such as specialized regulatory and manufacturing work. It allows a higher degree of outsourcing than other mechanisms, though the small business must retain substantial project management and oversight.

Funding Allowance

The dollar ceiling depends on two layers: the statutory guideline set by the Small Business Administration, and the specific budget guidance published by NIDDK.

Layer one, the SBA statutory guidelines for the current cycle:

• Phase I: up to $323,090 in total costs, for a project period of 6 months to 2 years

• Phase II: up to $2,153,927 in total costs, for a project period of 1 to 3 years

• Commercialization Readiness Pilot: up to $4,191,495 in total costs, for a project period of up to 3 years

Layer two, what NIDDK generally considers:

• Phase I: up to $350,000 in total costs, with a project period up to 2 years

• Phase II: up to $2,200,000 in total costs, with a project period up to 3 years, and generally not exceeding $1,100,000 in total costs in any single year

• Phase IIB: up to $3,000,000 in total costs, with a project period up to 3 years, and generally not exceeding $1,100,000 in total costs in any single year

Total funding support includes direct costs, indirect costs, and fee. A reasonable profit or fee may be paid on SBIR and STTR awards, but it must be built into the budget at the time of application, not added later. Applicants seeking a budget above the NIDDK ranges are strongly encouraged to contact NIDDK program staff with a draft Specific Aims page before submitting.

Two points that founders regularly miss. First, budgets above the SBA guideline are possible where the science aligns with an SBA-approved waiver topic, and NIDDK will consider those requests with appropriate justification. Second, NIDDK may reduce the recommended budget or the award period for budgetary, administrative, or programmatic reasons even after a strong review score.

Timeline

The Highlighted Topic window runs from September 2, 2026 through September 2, 2028. Within that window, you submit against the NIH standard small business receipt dates.

Standard annual due dates: January 5, April 5, and September 5. When a due date falls on a weekend or federal holiday, NIH moves it to the next business day. Applications are due by 5:00 p.m. local time of the applicant organization.

Cycles available under this topic:

• September 2026 cycle: the September 5, 2026 date shifted to Tuesday, September 8, 2026 because of the weekend and the Labor Day holiday. Given that the topic posted on September 2, this cycle is effectively closed for anyone starting from scratch.

• January 5, 2027: the first realistic cycle for a company beginning preparation now.

• April 5, 2027

• September 5, 2027

• January 5, 2028

• April 5, 2028, which is the last full cycle before the topic expires in September 2028.

What the runway actually looks like: budget roughly 9 months from submission to money in the door. An application submitted in the January 2027 cycle typically reaches an earliest possible start date in the fall of 2027. Council decisions for the September and January cycles are often handled together, which is one reason experienced applicants do not treat "wait for the next cycle" as a free option.

Work backwards from your target date:

• 14 to 16 weeks out: contact the NIDDK program officer, confirm responsiveness, and start or verify your federal registrations

• 12 weeks out: lock the Specific Aims page and circulate it to program staff

• 8 weeks out: complete the research strategy draft, the commercialization plan, and letters of support

• 4 weeks out: full internal review, budget finalization, and subaward paperwork

• 1 week out: submit early to leave room for eRA Commons error correction

Registrations are the most common cause of a missed deadline. You need SAM.gov, a Unique Entity ID, SBA Company Registry, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov, and eRA Commons access depends on the SBA registration being complete first. Allow six weeks or more, and start before you write anything.

Also note that the parent announcements are reissued periodically. The current SBIR parent, PA-27-100, carries a closing date in early April 2027, so applicants targeting later cycles should confirm the active parent announcement number at the time of submission.

Detailed Overview of What NIH Is Looking For

The problem NIH is trying to solve

Type 1 diabetes results from immune destruction of the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, which leads to elevated blood glucose and serious long-term complications. Insulin replacement is essential, but NIH is explicit that insulin alone is not the whole picture: other hormones, including glucagon and amylin, may also need to be supplemented for optimal management.

NIH acknowledges that it has already funded substantial progress in automated insulin delivery, cell replacement, and beta cell protection, along with newer work in glucose-responsive insulin and glucagon platforms, gene therapy, and AI-driven synthetic biology. The stated position is that these advances remain insufficient. Three gaps are named directly:

1. Current technologies do not adequately mimic natural physiology.

2. Disease management is still too burdensome for patients.

3. Behavioral and accessibility factors have not been addressed for all people with T1D.

NIH calls out two underserved populations by name. Shift workers, who face circadian rhythm disruption, irregular activity patterns, and a lack of facilities suitable for injection. And persons with disabilities, including people with visual, hearing, or cognitive impairment. If your technology has a credible story for either group, say so in your Specific Aims. This is one of the most specific and least contested differentiators in the entire topic.

The stated goal for the resulting generation of technologies is threefold: better daily disease management, prevention of acute and chronic complications, and improved quality of life at all ages.

Areas of Interest as published

NIH lists the following as examples, and states that the list is not exhaustive:

• Novel cell replacement therapies and related technologies, including immune protection, immune-evasion engineering, smart biomaterials and scaffolds, and functional organoid development

• Gene therapy strategies

• Advanced digital systems for automated closed-loop sensing and delivery

• Glucose-responsive insulin and glucagon platforms

• AI and synthetic biology applied to advance hormone replacement research and therapies

• Developing or adapting novel diabetes management technologies for older adults and populations with special needs

• Building multidisciplinary research teams to support novel approaches

The NIDDK responsiveness list, broken down

NIDDK published a more granular list of what it considers responsive. This is the section to write against, because it reflects how program staff think about the portfolio.

Cell replacement. Immune evasion cell engineering. Biocompatible materials for immune isolation or immune modulation. Enhanced vascularization and oxygenation of implanted constructs. Automation for cell generation and for functional stability assessment. Interventions to prevent cell exhaustion and preserve function over time. Novel in vitro and in vivo preclinical testing methods for cellular products.

What this tells you: NIDDK is interested in the unsolved engineering problems around cell therapy, not just the cells. Oxygen transport, graft survival, manufacturing consistency, and assay development are all fundable in their own right. A company with a biomaterial or a bioreactor rather than a cell line still has a clear lane here.

Gene therapies and editing for hormone replacement. Gene reprogramming to create alternative insulin-producing cells. DNA-based insulin gene therapy. Targeted gene delivery for production of glucose-responsive insulin. Gene-edited cells for sustained hormone replacement.

What this tells you: delivery and durability are the named pressure points. "Sustained" appears explicitly, so a Phase I aim that demonstrates persistence rather than only initial expression will read as responsive.

Glucose-responsive insulin and glucagon platforms. Dual smart insulin and glucagon closed-loop systems. Glucose-responsive implantable formulations.

What this tells you: NIDDK is signaling interest in bihormonal approaches, not insulin-only. If you have a glucagon component, or a platform that could accommodate one, foreground it.

Technologies for older adults and persons with disabilities. Algorithms and tools tailored for varying impairments. Telemonitoring and remote systems compatible with open-loop and closed-loop systems. Clinical validation of technologies, including closed-loop systems, for older adults.

What this tells you: this is where digital health and software companies fit most cleanly, and where clinical validation of an existing system is fundable rather than only novel hardware. Interoperability with open-source and commercial closed-loop systems is named directly.

What ORWH and OADR-ORWH add

ORWH and OADR-ORWH participate in this topic but do not award grants. Your application must still be relevant to the objectives of a participating Institute or Center, which in practice means NIDDK. Their participation matters because it defines a second axis on which your application can score well.

ORWH is interested in understanding sex-specific dynamics of hormone therapies and how those dynamics influence responsiveness to new T1D therapeutics and technologies. ORWH also wants to see evaluation of how new therapies serve women across the life course, accounting for hormonal status and responding to both reproductive and aging-related needs, in ways more likely to improve outcomes for women and men alike.

OADR-ORWH is interested in the development of novel therapies for Type 1 diabetes and in the implementation science of those novel therapies.

Practical read: build a sex-as-a-biological-variable analysis into your design that goes beyond the minimum NIH requirement, and if your product has an implementation or adoption question attached to it, name implementation science explicitly.

MAHA alignment and why it affects your framing

This topic is issued as part of the Make America Healthy Again initiative and is positioned against four named efforts. Referencing the right one in your Significance section is a low-cost way to demonstrate policy fluency.

• NIH MAHA Chronic Disease Initiative. Aligning existing NIH chronic disease research and generating actionable results for diseases arising in childhood and adulthood. Also a new Whole-Person-Health approach to chronic disease prevention, promoting wellness, resilience, and metabolic health at all life stages.

• Real World Data Platform. Linking claims data, electronic health records, and wearables into a single integrated dataset with rigorous privacy and consent protections. If your technology generates continuous glucose, activity, or device telemetry data, this is your hook.

• New Approach Methodologies. Expanded use of human-relevant models such as organoids, computational simulations, and real-world data integration to reduce reliance on animal studies that fail to replicate complex human conditions. EPA, FDA, and NIH have all committed to using NAMs where appropriate. If your preclinical package leans on organoids, organ-on-chip, or in silico modeling, frame it as a NAM contribution rather than apologizing for the absence of animal data.

Eligibility Requirements

To apply for an NIH SBIR or STTR award, your company must meet the core SBA criteria:

• Organized for profit, with a place of business located in the United States

• More than 50 percent directly owned and controlled by one or more individuals who are U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, by other for-profit small business concerns each majority owned by such individuals, or by a combination. Multiple venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership structures may be permitted under certain conditions for SBIR.

• No more than 500 employees, including affiliates

• For SBIR, the Principal Investigator's primary employment must be with the small business at the time of award and for the duration of the project. For STTR, the PI may be primarily employed by the small business or by the partnering research institution.

• For SBIR Phase I, the small business must perform at least two thirds of the research. For SBIR Phase II, at least half. For STTR, the small business performs at least 40 percent and a single partner nonprofit research institution performs at least 30 percent.

Companies with a large volume of prior Phase I awards should also confirm they meet the SBIR and STTR Phase I to Phase II Transition Rate benchmarks, which can restrict eligibility for a period of one year if not met.

What a Competitive Application Looks Like

Reviewers on this topic will be looking for evidence that you understand where the field already is. NIH has stated that automated insulin delivery, cell replacement, and beta cell protection have all received substantial prior investment. An application that proposes an incremental improvement to insulin-only delivery, without addressing physiologic fidelity, patient burden, or accessibility, is competing against NIH's own stated view that such work is insufficient.

Five things strengthen an application against this specific topic:

1. A named unmet population. Shift workers, persons with visual, hearing, or cognitive impairment, or older adults. NIH wrote these into the topic. Very few applications will use them well.

2. A bihormonal or multi-hormone story. Glucagon and amylin are named alongside insulin. A platform that can extend beyond insulin reads as more physiologic.

3. A durability or sustained-function endpoint. Cell exhaustion, graft survival, and sustained hormone replacement all appear in the responsiveness list. Milestones that measure persistence rather than initial function align directly.

4. A credible commercialization plan. NIH small business awards are product development awards. Regulatory pathway, reimbursement thinking, manufacturing scale, and a specific customer are all scored, and they are where most first-time academic applicants lose ground.

5. Program officer contact before you write. NIDDK explicitly directs applicants to contact program staff with a draft Specific Aims page, particularly for budgets above their standard ranges. That conversation is free and it is the single highest-return hour in the process.

Common Reasons Applications Miss

• Treating the Highlighted Topic as a NOFO and searching Grants.gov for a topic-specific number that does not exist

• Submitting to the wrong Institute, or leaving the assignment request blank and letting the application route somewhere without a stake in T1D hormone replacement

• Choosing Fast-Track when Phase I results would have changed the Phase II design

• Choosing STTR for a project that includes a clinical trial, which NIDDK accepts through SBIR only

• Starting federal registrations after the writing begins, then missing the receipt date on an eRA Commons error

• Building the budget without the fee, then discovering it cannot be added after submission

• A research strategy with no unresolved technical risk, which reads as development work rather than research

• Omitting a Phase IIB matching funds plan when the technology clearly needs a later bridge, which signals a company that has not thought past the current award

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this a grant I can apply to directly?

No. This is an NIH Highlighted Topic, which is a statement of scientific priority rather than a Notice of Funding Opportunity. You apply through a broad NIH announcement, and for small businesses that means the NIH SBIR or STTR parent announcement.

Which funding opportunity number do I actually use?

For most small businesses it is PA-27-100, the NIH, CDC, and FDA Parent SBIR announcement covering R43 and R44 awards. If your project requires a formal university or nonprofit research partner, use PA-27-102, the Parent STTR announcement covering R41 and R42. Confirm the active announcement number at the time you submit, since NIH reissues these periodically.

How much money can my company request?

NIDDK generally considers Phase I budgets up to $350,000 in total costs and Phase II budgets up to $2,200,000 in total costs. The underlying SBA statutory guidelines for the current cycle are $323,090 for Phase I and $2,153,927 for Phase II. Requests above these levels require justification and a conversation with NIDDK program staff.

When is the deadline?

There is no deadline specific to this topic. You submit on the NIH standard small business receipt dates of January 5, April 5, and September 5 each year, with dates falling on weekends or federal holidays moving to the next business day. The topic itself expires on September 2, 2028, so January 5, 2027 through April 5, 2028 represent the realistic competing cycles.

How long until I receive funding?

Plan on approximately 9 months from submission to award start. An application submitted in the January 2027 cycle would typically have an earliest start date in the fall of 2027.

Do I have to give up equity or match the funds?

No. NIH SBIR and STTR Phase I and Phase II awards are non-dilutive and require no cost share. The exception is the Phase IIB Strategic Breakthrough Award, which requires not less than 100 percent matching funds from new private capital or from a non-SBIR/STTR government source.

Which NIH Institute will fund this?

NIDDK is the awarding Institute for this topic. ORWH and OADR-ORWH participate and have stated interests, but they do not award grants. Your application must be relevant to the objectives of a participating Institute or Center, which means NIDDK.

Can I include a clinical trial?

Yes, through SBIR. NIDDK currently accepts SBIR clinical trial applications through the parent omnibus but does not accept STTR clinical trial applications. Review the NIH Clinical Trial Definition before deciding, because the definition captures more study designs than most founders expect.

I already have feasibility data. Do I still need a Phase I?

Not necessarily. SBIR Direct to Phase II allows a company that has demonstrated the scientific merit and feasibility normally expected from a Phase I, without having received a Phase I award for that project, to apply directly for Phase II. This authority is available for SBIR only, not STTR.

Does NIDDK set aside money for this topic?

Not guaranteed. NIDDK states that it may dedicate available funds to support applications in this topic area depending on the availability of funds, the number of meritorious applications, and competing priorities, and that it may give special consideration to meritorious applications in the topic area. Treat it as a favorable tilt, not a reserved pool.

My company builds software, not biology. Is there a place for us?

Yes. The topic explicitly names advanced digital systems for automated closed-loop sensing and delivery, AI and synthetic biology applied to hormone replacement, algorithms and tools tailored for varying impairments, and telemonitoring or remote systems compatible with open-loop and closed-loop systems. Clinical validation of closed-loop systems for older adults is also named as responsive.

We use organoids and computational models instead of animal studies. Is that a problem?

It is an advantage if framed correctly. The topic aligns with the New Approach Methodologies effort, under which EPA, FDA, and NIH have committed to using human-relevant models such as organoids, computational simulations, and real-world data integration where appropriate. Present your approach as a NAM contribution.

Who should I contact at NIH before applying?

The NIDDK scientific contact listed for this topic is Guillermo Arreaza-Rubin, M.D., Ph.D., at guillermo.arreazarubin@nih.gov. NIDDK also directs applicants considering larger budgets to contact program staff with a draft Specific Aims page before submitting.

What registrations do I need, and how long do they take?

SAM.gov with a Unique Entity ID, the SBA Company Registry, eRA Commons, and Grants.gov. eRA Commons access depends on completing the SBA registration first. Allow at least six weeks, and start before you begin writing.

How BW&CO Helps

BW&CO is a non-dilutive federal funding advisory firm. We help deep-tech, biotech, medtech, and health technology founders convert agency priority signals like this one into funded awards. That work includes mechanism selection, program officer strategy, Specific Aims development, full proposal build, budget and fee construction, commercialization plan development, and Phase IIB matching capital positioning.

Our team has helped clients secure more than $350 million in funding. Innovation Funding Simplified.

If you are developing hormone replacement technology for Type 1 diabetes and want an honest read on whether you are competitive for the January 2027 cycle, contact us for a fit assessment.

USSOCOM SBIR SOC26BZ06-DV006: RIPTIDE, Resilient Integrated Photonic Transport in Denied Environments

Quick Answer

SOC26BZ06-DV006, called RIPTIDE, is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic from United States Special Operations Command under the FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. USSOCOM wants a laser crosslink payload small enough for a Group 3 unmanned aircraft that simultaneously carries data, transfers time, finds direction, and measures range, so that a chain of eight to twelve aircraft spanning 200 to 300 nautical miles can navigate without GPS. The SBIR award maximum is $1,500,000 not to exceed, with up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance for an overall maximum of $1,525,000, over a period of performance not to exceed 18 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The technical requirement is stated precisely and it is demanding. The swarm shall maintain a navigation accuracy of 8 to 11 meters circular error probable, or better, at the most distant node of a distributed formation spanning 200 to 300 nautical miles over feature-sparse terrain, with the formation anchored to land-based references at one end and extending beyond visual navigation range at the other.

Before any of the technology, understand that USSOCOM disqualifies proposals for more reasons than any other component in this cycle, and several of those reasons have nothing to do with technical merit. A Government Letter of Support makes your proposal non-responsive. Subcontractor costs without copies of the subcontract agreements make it non-responsive. A consultant without an agreement letter makes it non-responsive. A missing Feasibility Appendix, a price above the ceiling, or a work share below 50 percent by an explicit formula all stop the evaluation. Those are covered in their own section below, and they deserve reading before you write a word.

One more thing to notice early. The Phase I feasibility study, which is prior work you must already have completed, is described as culminating in fabrication of a prototype payload and demonstration of a single optical flight link validating acquisition, precision tracking, and single-link state exchange. That is not a paper study. If you have not flown an optical link, read that sentence carefully before committing.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV010

‍ ‍

Title: Architected Energy Dissipation Structures With Tunable Rigid-Flexible Behaviors

‍ ‍

Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program

‍ ‍

Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Phase I

‍ ‍

Award: must not exceed $250,000

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Area: Advanced Materials

‍ ‍

Critical Technology Area: Contested Logistics Technologies

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release

‍ ‍

Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level

‍ ‍

Material class: polycatenated architected materials, essentially 3D chainmail, realized through additive manufacturing

‍ ‍

Phase I specimen geometry: an approximate rectangular configuration of 82 mm by 87 mm by 19.5 mm thickness, approximating a commonly tested helmet pad configuration

‍ ‍

Conformability requirement: architected sheets shall display conformability to various geometries including features with radii of curvature ranging from approximately 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters

‍ ‍

Mechanical objectives: maximize energy absorption efficiency in through-thickness compression as described in Equation 1 of the cited Clough reference, while minimizing shear stiffness in the thickness direction

‍ ‍

Phase I specimen count: a minimum of 10 test specimens

‍ ‍

Phase I impact testing: across the range of 1 to 50 joules, using legacy foam pads as a comparison

‍ ‍

Phase II specimen count: a minimum of 20 specimens in the Phase I geometrical configuration

‍ ‍

Government collaboration: teams will be expected to work alongside Army scientists and engineers, and in Phase II will work with Army Research Laboratory scientists to design, manufacture, and deliver test specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL

‍ ‍

Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected

‍ ‍

Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: conformable structures, lightweight armor, Soldier protection, metamaterial, architected material, additive manufacturing

‍ ‍

What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write

‍ ‍

The S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs, and it is stated plainly.

‍ ‍

The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.

‍ ‍

The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.

‍ ‍

The consequence for your technical volume

‍ ‍

In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.

‍ ‍

The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Both must be included within the 15-page limit.

‍ ‍

So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget before you draft.

‍ ‍

What the Topic Is Actually Asking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Develop and demonstrate architected energy dissipation structures with rigid responsiveness at large tensile, compressive, and shear strains, but capable of conformability to surfaces of complex topographies and other fluid-like behaviors in response to small strains.

‍ ‍

The strain-dependent behavior is the whole idea. Rigid at large strain, fluid-like at small strain. That inversion of ordinary material behavior is what polycatenated structures make possible and what no conventional material offers.

‍ ‍

The problem

‍ ‍

The Department requires lightweight protection materials for a variety of applications, including personal protection, vehicle safety, and shielding sensitive electronics.

‍ ‍

Most protection structures are either rigid materials, for example metals, ceramics, and composites, designed to carry significant mechanical loads or blunt kinetic threats, or flexible materials, for example elastomers, foam structures, and structures based on polymeric fibers, intended to compress or stretch, which are conformable and effective at reducing peak accelerations.

‍ ‍

However, most protection solutions cannot provide both rigid material response and conformability, which limits applications for the Warfighter.

‍ ‍

That is a real and familiar tradeoff. A rigid plate spreads load and stops penetration but does not follow the body. A foam pad conforms and reduces peak acceleration but offers little structural resistance. The Warfighter carries both, at weight and bulk cost.

‍ ‍

The enabling discovery

‍ ‍

Recently, a new family of energy dissipating structures known as polycatenated architected materials has been introduced that may display both solid-like and fluid-like behaviors.

‍ ‍

These structures, essentially 3D chainmail and realized through additive manufacturing, derive their mechanical behaviors not through intrinsic material properties, but rather through geometric arrangement of internal solid elements, for example rings or cage-like particles interconnected into 3D networks. Note that these materials consist entirely of solid linkages, collectively displaying fluid-like behaviors in response to small deformations.

‍ ‍

In response to severe loading, rigid elements may align and develop complex force chains that exhibit high strength and offer significant protection mechanisms not possible through conventional flexible options.

‍ ‍

However, elements may also reorganize, slide, or rotate, which offers novel design mechanisms for dissipating energy, and new ways to enable comfort for applications related to personal protection.

‍ ‍

Two mechanisms, and they are worth distinguishing because they are the levers you design against. Force chain formation under severe load is where the strength comes from, and it depends on element geometry and how elements interlock when they align. Element reorganization, sliding, and rotation is where the dissipation and the conformability come from, and it depends on linkage clearance and friction.

‍ ‍

The phrase "consist entirely of solid linkages" is doing real work. There is no fluid, no fill, no phase change. The fluid-like response is purely geometric, which is what makes the material manufacturable in one additive build and what makes it robust.

‍ ‍

The design task

‍ ‍

The goal of this topic is to create architected structures with tunable mechanical energy dissipating behaviors that can vary spatially throughout the material.

‍ ‍

Teams will investigate element and linkage materials, geometries, and nearest neighbor spacings to design architected structures that perform optimally for various static and dynamic loading conditions, for example via tensile, compression, impact, and rheology characterization.

‍ ‍

Teams will then design, process, characterize, and simulate energy dissipating behaviors of materials in multiple geometrical configurations, for example through comparisons to legacy impact attenuating materials like foams that are used for impact protection such as knee pads, elbow pads, and helmet pads.

‍ ‍

Teams will be expected to work alongside Army scientists and engineers to guide the design, manufacturing, and testing of materials.

‍ ‍

If successful, this effort would enable new materials design tools for the Department to create customized protection structures for the expeditionary Soldier.

‍ ‍

Three design variables are named: element and linkage materials, geometries, and nearest neighbor spacings. Four characterization modes are named: tensile, compression, impact, and rheology. The inclusion of rheology is notable and appropriate, because a material with fluid-like small-strain behavior genuinely has rheological properties, and measuring them is how you quantify the conformability side.

‍ ‍

Note also "vary spatially throughout the material." Spatial tunability is the Phase II objective, and it is what turns a material into a design tool: stiffer where load must be carried, more compliant where the body needs to move.

‍ ‍

And note that working alongside Army scientists and engineers is stated as an expectation in Phase I, becoming a specific Army Research Laboratory collaboration in Phase II.

‍ ‍

Phase I Requirements

‍ ‍

Design architected structures with individual linked grains in the following approximate rectangular configuration: 82 mm by 87 mm by 19.5 mm thickness. The given geometry approximates a commonly tested helmet pad configuration and will allow teams to make comparisons to known technologies.

‍ ‍

Architected sheets shall display conformability to various geometries including features with radii of curvature ranging from approximately 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters.

‍ ‍

The through-thickness compression response of the material should seek to maximize energy absorption efficiency as described in Equation 1 of reference 4. Simultaneously, the material should minimize shear stiffness in the thickness direction.

‍ ‍

Teams will use advanced processing techniques, for example additive manufacturing approaches, to fabricate a minimum of 10 test specimens.

‍ ‍

Teams will perform computer simulations and initial experimental mechanical characterization to estimate in-plane and out-of-plane loads required to initiate solid-to-fluid transitions in the architected materials.

‍ ‍

Teams will perform impact tests across the range of 1 to 50 joules and use legacy foam pads as a comparison.

‍ ‍

Reading this scope

‍ ‍

This is the most prescriptive Phase I in the release, and that is helpful. A fixed specimen geometry, a fixed specimen count, a fixed energy range, a named comparison baseline, and a named equation for the figure of merit. Very little is left to interpretation, which means the evaluation will turn on how well you execute rather than on how you scoped it.

‍ ‍

The 82 by 87 by 19.5 millimeter geometry is deliberately a helmet pad, and the topic says so: it will allow teams to make comparisons to known technologies. The first cited reference is an Army Research Laboratory technical report on improving Advanced Combat Helmet low-velocity impact performance through pad material response optimization, which is almost certainly where that geometry and the comparison baseline come from. Read it.

‍ ‍

The radius of curvature range of 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters is tight. Conforming to a 5 millimeter radius with a 19.5 millimeter thick structure is a demanding bend, and it constrains your element size and linkage clearance directly. Work that geometry out early, because it may be the binding constraint on your architecture.

‍ ‍

The two mechanical objectives pull against each other in a productive way: maximize energy absorption efficiency in through-thickness compression while minimizing shear stiffness in the thickness direction. Compression stiffness and shear compliance in the same structure is exactly the rigid-plus-conformable combination the objective describes, expressed as two measurable quantities. Note that the energy absorption efficiency definition is specified by equation rather than described, so use that equation and cite it.

‍ ‍

The 1 to 50 joule impact range spans a wide dynamic regime, from a light bump to a substantial blunt impact. Fifty joules is in the neighborhood of helmet impact test energies, and 1 joule probes the low-strain fluid-like regime. Testing across both is how you demonstrate the strain-dependent transition.

‍ ‍

And the solid-to-fluid transition loads, in-plane and out-of-plane, are a named Phase I output to be estimated through both simulation and initial experiment. That transition threshold is the single most characteristic number of this material class, and it is what a designer would tune.

‍ ‍

Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes

‍ ‍

Phase II

‍ ‍

Design and demonstrate architected structures with variable energy dissipating properties with respect to spatial position. Teams may consider multi-material or variable grain and linkage architectures to achieve the tunable behaviors.

‍ ‍

Process a minimum of 20 specimens in the geometrical configurations provided for Phase I and develop test techniques to assess the response of structures whose energy dissipation behaviors vary spatially.

‍ ‍

Simulate the mechanical behaviors of the architected structures in response to compressive, tensile, shear, and impact loads. Determine loads required to initiate flexible-rigid transitions at various spatial positions within the structure.

‍ ‍

Work with Army Research Laboratory scientists to design, manufacture, and deliver test specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL.

‍ ‍

Develop commercial and outreach plans to market the technology for civilian and defense markets, and develop plans to scale manufacturing.

‍ ‍

Two things to plan for now. Spatial variation is the Phase II leap, and the topic names two routes: multi-material builds, or variable grain and linkage architectures within a single material. The second is more manufacturable in a single additive build and is arguably the more elegant answer.

‍ ‍

And delivering specimens to ARL for advanced dynamic mechanical testing is a concrete transition step with a named laboratory. Your specimens will be tested by someone else on their equipment, which argues for conservative claims, well-documented specimen fabrication, and enough specimen count to send parts away. Note that Phase II asks for a minimum of 20 specimens partly for that reason.

‍ ‍

Note also that developing test techniques to assess spatially varying response is itself a Phase II deliverable. Standard mechanical test methods assume a homogeneous specimen, and a structure whose properties vary across its area needs new measurement approaches. That is a real research contribution and it is easy to underplan.

‍ ‍

Phase III

‍ ‍

The discovery of polycatenated mechanical metamaterials has introduced a new family of structures that may display both solid-like and fluid-like behaviors. The additional degrees of freedom associated with granular elements linked to nearest neighbors may enable a variety of new civilian and defense technologies, for example Soldier and vehicle protection, sports equipment, law enforcement, and lightweight concepts for dissipating vibrational energy.

‍ ‍

Phase III efforts shall include outreach efforts based on market research to leverage opportunities in both civilian and defense markets. Implement plans to rapidly modify designs for specific customer needs. In addition, teams shall implement plans to scale manufacturing.

‍ ‍

The commercial case here is unusually strong for a defense materials topic, because the helmet pad geometry the topic specifies is shared with sports equipment. Football, cycling, hockey, and motorsport helmet padding is a large existing market with active regulatory pressure on impact performance and a demonstrated willingness to pay for better protection. Law enforcement and industrial protective equipment follow the same path.

‍ ‍

The vibrational energy dissipation application is a different and broader market, covering equipment mounts, electronics isolation, and machinery, and it exploits the same small-strain fluid-like behavior from a different direction.

‍ ‍

The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights

‍ ‍

This is an STTR, so a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.

‍ ‍

If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.

‍ ‍

What the split looks like on this topic

‍ ‍

The natural division follows design and science against processing and testing. The research institution owns the mechanics: the simulation of force chain formation and element reorganization, the parametric design of element geometry and nearest neighbor spacing, the theory of the solid-to-fluid transition, and the rheological characterization, since granular and architected material mechanics is where that expertise lives. The small business owns the manufacturing and evaluation: additive process development, specimen fabrication at count, impact and compression test execution against legacy foam baselines, the ARL specimen delivery relationship, and manufacturing scale-up.

‍ ‍

Because the enabling discovery is a 2025 Science paper and the field is very new, the institution's contribution is substantive. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the additive equipment and mechanical test capability, and the tasks. Note that the topic also expects teams to work alongside Army scientists and engineers from Phase I onward, so the government is a third participant in the technical work rather than only a customer.

‍ ‍

Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now

‍ ‍

This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.

‍ ‍

The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.

‍ ‍

This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

Why this changes your Phase I plan

‍ ‍

The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.

‍ ‍

Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.

‍ ‍

Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.

‍ ‍

The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate

‍ ‍

The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work

‍ ‍

Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.

‍ ‍

With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.

‍ ‍

All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, manufacturing scale-up consulting is the standout use, since Phase II requires plans to scale manufacturing and Phase III requires implementing them, and additive manufacturing of interlinked structures at production volume is a genuine process engineering problem. Commercial market development is a close second, given the strong sports equipment and protective equipment adjacency the topic identifies.

‍ ‍

The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated

‍ ‍

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.

‍ ‍

Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance

‍ ‍

This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.

‍ ‍

Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.

‍ ‍

Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.

‍ ‍

Notification and debriefings

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.

‍ ‍

Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.

‍ ‍

The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.

‍ ‍

Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.

‍ ‍

Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.

‍ ‍

The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.

‍ ‍

Questions

‍ ‍

Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Four, and they are exceptionally well chosen. Two are the enabling discovery, one is the Army baseline, and one supplies the figure of merit you are asked to maximize.

‍ ‍

Staniszeski, J., and colleagues, "Improved Low-Velocity Impact Performance of the Advanced Combat Helmet at 17 ft/s through Optimization of Pad Material Response," ARL-TR-8808, September 2019. This is the Army Research Laboratory report on helmet pad optimization, and it is almost certainly where the 82 by 87 by 19.5 millimeter specimen geometry and the legacy foam pad comparison come from. Read it first, because it defines the incumbent you must beat and the test conditions the Army uses.

‍ ‍

Zhou, W., and colleagues, "3D polycatenated architected materials," Science 387:6731, 269 to 277, 2025. This is the discovery paper the whole topic rests on. Read it closely, because the element geometries, linkage topologies, and the solid-to-fluid transition behavior it reports are your starting design space.

‍ ‍

Liu, T., and colleagues, "3D self-locking granular metamaterial," Science 12(15), 2026. Self-locking is the force chain mechanism under severe load, viewed from the granular materials side.

‍ ‍

Clough, E., and colleagues, "Elastomeric Microlattice Impact Attenuators," Matter 1, 1519 to 1531, 2019. This is the reference whose Equation 1 defines the energy absorption efficiency you are asked to maximize. You must have this paper, because the Phase I requirement cites its equation by number rather than restating it.

‍ ‍

The set tells you exactly how to write. Ground the design space in Zhou 2025, use Clough 2019 for the figure of merit, and benchmark against the foam pads characterized in the ARL report. A proposal that does those three things is answering the topic in its own terms. A proposal that does not have the Clough equation right has failed a stated requirement.

‍ ‍

Note that the Liu citation as printed lists Science with volume 12(15) and a 2026 date, which does not match Science's volume numbering. If you cite it yourself, verify the bibliographic details rather than copying them forward.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record

‍ ‍

Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is USSOCOM SBIR topic SOC26BZ06-DV006?

‍ ‍

SOC26BZ06-DV006, called RIPTIDE, is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic titled "Resilient Integrated Photonic Transport in Denied Environments," released under the USSOCOM FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is applied research toward a capability providing resilient, jam-resistant communications and cooperative navigation for distributed Group 3 UAS formations operating in GPS-denied environments across a theater-scale formation spanning 200 to 300 nautical miles over feature-sparse terrain.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

The SBIR award maximum is not to exceed $1,500,000, with TABA not to exceed $25,000, for an overall award maximum not to exceed $1,525,000, over a period of performance not to exceed 18 months. Any proposal above the price limit will not be evaluated or considered for award.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal?

‍ ‍

No. The USSOCOM instructions cover Direct to Phase II proposals only, and the topics are accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

Not to exceed 10 pages. USSOCOM will only evaluate the first 10 pages; additional pages will not be considered or evaluated. Note that the Feasibility Appendix in Volume 5 has no minimum or maximum page limitation, which is the most important structural fact about writing this proposal.

‍ ‍

Will a Government Letter of Support help my proposal?

‍ ‍

The opposite. USSOCOM prohibits the inclusion of a Government Letter of Support, and any proposal response that includes one will be deemed non-responsive, meaning disqualified. This inverts what several other components in this cycle encourage.

‍ ‍

What makes a proposal non-responsive?

‍ ‍

Several things independent of technical merit. Including a Government Letter of Support. Including subcontractor costs without copies of the subcontract agreements. Proposing consultants without a separate agreement letter for each. Missing the Technical Volume, the Cost Volume, or the Feasibility Appendix. Exceeding the maximum price in Table 1. And a work share below 50 percent by USSOCOM's stated calculation.

‍ ‍

How is the 50 percent work share calculated?

‍ ‍

USSOCOM divides the overall price submitted or negotiated, minus the total cost of subcontractors and consultants with applied indirects, by the total price of the proposal. The resulting offeror percentage must be 50 percent or higher, and if it is lower the proposal will not be evaluated. Note separately that consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements together may not exceed one-half of the total contract price unless approved in writing by the Agreements Officer.

‍ ‍

What must my feasibility documentation show?

‍ ‍

That the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of the objectives described have been met, with potential commercial applications, documented through technical reports, test data, prototype designs and models, and performance goals and results. The work must have been performed and be owned, meaning data rights, by the offeror or the Principal Investigator. The Feasibility Appendix is evaluated first, and USSOCOM will not continue evaluating the proposal if feasibility is not established or if the work was not substantially performed by the offeror or the PI.

‍ ‍

What specifically should the feasibility study have covered?

‍ ‍

Eight things. Define the system architecture. Select the platform configuration. Model navigation performance across the full 200 to 300 nautical-mile multi-hop relay geometry including error propagation, time-transfer degradation, and observability across all hops. Study payload integration on a representative Group 3 UAS. Analyze attitude sensor bias instability. Trade front-end optics magnification against coarse pointer precision. And culminate in fabrication of a prototype payload and demonstration of a single optical flight link validating acquisition, precision tracking, and single-link state exchange.

‍ ‍

Does the feasibility study really require a flight demonstration?

‍ ‍

That is what the topic says: the study should culminate in fabrication of a prototype payload and demonstration of a single optical flight link. It is described as a Technology Readiness Level 3 study, which is normally analytical and experimental proof of concept rather than flight demonstration, so the label and the substance sit oddly together. The substance is what an evaluator will look for. If your prior work is ground-to-ground or analytical only, present exactly what you have and what it demonstrates rather than letting an evaluator find the gap.

‍ ‍

What is the navigation accuracy requirement?

‍ ‍

The swarm shall maintain 8 to 11 meters circular error probable, or better, at the most distant node of a formation spanning 200 to 300 nautical miles over feature-sparse terrain, anchored to land-based references at one end and extending beyond visual navigation range at the other. The requirement is defined at the scale of the full swarm, and the formation-level requirement takes precedence over any single link.

‍ ‍

What relay geometry is expected?

‍ ‍

Approximately 8 to 12 optical hops with per-hop ranges of 20 to 30 nautical miles is given as representative. Proposers may trade hop count against per-hop range, provided the architecture closes the full formation span and meets the formation-level CEP requirement.

‍ ‍

What are the three architectural obligations?

‍ ‍

Maintain a shared, formation-wide navigation solution across all nodes in the chain. Bound error growth across successive hops such that accumulated drift at the seaward edge remains within the formation-level accuracy requirement. And preserve formation coherence under the loss of individual nodes or links.

‍ ‍

What four functions must each crosslink provide?

‍ ‍

Simultaneously: high-capacity coherent optical communications with low probability of intercept and detection, two-way precision time transfer, precision optical direction finding, and ranging. Adjacent nodes exchange state vectors, time-transfer references, optical angle measurements, range measurements, and navigation corrections, and a distributed estimator fuses these with local inertial data.

‍ ‍

What are the pointing and acquisition targets?

‍ ‍

Wide-field acquisition sensing at tens of microradians of precision after approximately 1 second of integration, combined with high-bandwidth photonic beam steering and coherent detection for navigation-grade closed-loop tracking at sub-microradian angular resolution in less than 1 millisecond. Candidate payloads should provide broad angular coverage within Group 3 UAS SWaP constraints, including multi-sector optical apertures.

‍ ‍

Why does the topic emphasize atmospheric ducting?

‍ ‍

Because it appears three times: as a robustness condition in the feasibility attributes, and in Phase II as ducting effects on pointing-error bias and navigation state estimation. Over water at low altitude, ducting bends the optical path and biases apparent angle, which corrupts direction finding in a way that is correlated across a chain rather than random. That is the mechanism most likely to break a naive multi-hop error budget.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II require?

‍ ‍

Develop, install, and demonstrate a prototype system on a representative Group 3 UAS formation, extending from one link to multiple cooperating assets. Demonstrate a feature-rich-to-feature-sparse relay chain representative of a 200 to 300 nautical-mile formation, extend optical link range toward 20 to 30 nautical miles, investigate atmospheric ducting effects on pointing-error bias and navigation state estimation, validate cooperative navigation under degraded external-reference conditions, and characterize multi-hop distributed operation across multiple assets. Measured results will be scaled against the 8 to 11 meter CEP objective.

‍ ‍

Do I have to fly the full formation in Phase II?

‍ ‍

No. The measured results will be scaled against the formation-level objective, which means you demonstrate enough of the chain, at enough range, to support a scaled prediction. That makes the scaling methodology itself a deliverable, and a proposal promising the full 300 nautical mile formation on $1.5 million in 18 months is not credible.

‍ ‍

What contract instrument will be used?

‍ ‍

A fixed price, level of effort type, Other Transactions Agreement issued in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4022. Successful completion of the prototype may result in a follow-on production OTA or contract, and follow-on production awards may be FAR-based contracts or Other Transactions. The OTA template is completed only by offerors selected for award.

‍ ‍

How is prototype success defined?

‍ ‍

Successful completion of the prototype is defined as meeting one or more threshold requirements. On a topic with many stated parameters, that is a materially generous definition and it is worth understanding as you decide which thresholds to commit to.

‍ ‍

Is this topic ITAR restricted, and what does that mean for foreign nationals?

‍ ‍

Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774, and offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and assigned SOW tasks. More consequentially, USSOCOM states that firms employing foreign nationals to work on USSOCOM ITAR topics must possess an export license to receive a USSOCOM SBIR contract. That is a possession requirement, and export licenses take months.

‍ ‍

Can I talk to the topic author?

‍ ‍

No. USSOCOM does not allow direct communication with the topic authors, which differs from the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA instructions. All technical questions must go through DSIP Topic Q&A, and all questions and answers will be released to the general public. Only proposal preparation questions go to sbir@socom.mil, with the topic number in the subject line. Physical site visits are not permitted during the Pre-release and Open Periods.

‍ ‍

What questions will USSOCOM not answer?

‍ ‍

Programmatic questions such as providing the technical point of contact, the number of contracts to be awarded, the source of funding, or transition strategy.

‍ ‍

Is there any interactive opportunity?

‍ ‍

Yes. The USSOCOM SBIR/STTR Program Office will host a virtual USSOCOM Industry Day to specify requirements and stimulate small business and research institute partnership building, with date and time information at events.sofwerx.org.

‍ ‍

Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?

‍ ‍

Yes. Information contained in the CCR will be considered by USSOCOM during proposal evaluations. Note the two-step mechanic: complete and certify it at sbir.gov, then have the Firm Admin upload it to Volume 4 in the Firm Information section of DSIP. That administrative dependency is a common cause of last-minute failures.

‍ ‍

What goes in Volume 5?

‍ ‍

Four USSOCOM items beyond the DoW BAA requirements. The Feasibility Study, with no page limit. A completed Section K, Representations, Certifications, and other statements of Offerors, which does not count toward the page limit and is where foreign national involvement is identified. Key Personnel resumes. And detailed TABA request documentation if TABA is requested.

‍ ‍

What is the Statement of Objectives and what do I do with it?

‍ ‍

The SOO and the Contract Data Requirements List are provided on DSIP and are meant to help you consider the required goals, scope, and deliverables. Your technical proposal shall include a non-proprietary Statement of Work with planned tasks and descriptions meeting the SOO goals. Do not upload the whole SOO as your SOW. Exceptions to the requirements need to be identified and explained. If selected, you will submit a separate non-proprietary SOW following the SOO format as Attachment 3, plus company information and expected milestones as Attachment 1.

‍ ‍

What are the TABA rules?

‍ ‍

Up to $25,000 for the initial Phase II award and up to an additional $25,000 for one sequential Phase II award, for $50,000 total per Phase II for a topic. TABA must fit within the maximum base value in Table 1 and its value must be in the Cost Volume. It cannot include profit or fee by the proposing small business, must be inclusive of provider indirects, and cannot be used in your G&A calculation. Fifty percent is provided at award and 50 percent upon approval of the final TABA report and provider invoices, and a report is required at the end of the base period. Five documentation items are required, and omitting any means denial. Five arrangements are prohibited, including proposing yourself, an affiliate, an investor, or an existing subcontractor or consultant as the provider.

‍ ‍

When will I hear back, and can I get feedback?

‍ ‍

Within 90 calendar days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, by email to the Corporate Official via DSIP. Non-responsive proposals are also notified. A non-selected offeror may make a written request to the Contracting Officer within 30 calendar days of receipt of notification for informal feedback, which the Contracting Officer will provide rather than a formal debriefing.

‍ ‍

What CMMC level applies?

‍ ‍

The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2 with self-assessment.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Settle the export license question before anything else. If you employ foreign nationals who will work on this ITAR topic, USSOCOM requires that you possess an export license to receive the award. That is possession, not disclosure, and licenses are not quick. On a topic where optical and photonics talent is internationally sourced, this is the most likely reason a technically strong firm cannot take the award.

‍ ‍

Remove any Government Letter of Support. It is a disqualifier, it contradicts what other components encourage, and it is the kind of thing that survives in a proposal template reused from another agency.

‍ ‍

Put the real analysis in the Feasibility Appendix, not the technical volume. Ten pages against unlimited pages is the structural fact that should drive your whole writing plan. The multi-hop error budget, the link budgets, the trade study across all viable design options, the flown single-link evidence, the attitude bias analysis, and the optics magnification trade all belong in the appendix, which is also evaluated first as a gate. The technical volume is for the Phase II plan and the non-proprietary Statement of Work.

‍ ‍

Build the error budget across hops, with the correlation structure stated. Eight to eleven meters CEP at the far end of a twelve-hop chain is the requirement, and whether it closes depends entirely on whether per-hop errors are independent or share a common bias. That is why ducting matters. Presenting a per-hop budget, a correlation assumption, and the resulting formation-level number is the single most persuasive thing you can do, and it directly answers the obligation to bound error growth across successive hops.

‍ ‍

Make the hop count versus per-hop range trade explicitly. The topic permits it and it is a real design lever: fewer longer hops reduce accumulated terms but demand more link margin, larger apertures, and tighter pointing at range, while more shorter hops relax the optics and stress the estimator. Show both ends of the trade and defend your choice.

‍ ‍

Treat ducting as your differentiator. It is named three times, no reference is supplied for it, and it is the mechanism most likely to invalidate a naive error budget over water. Bring the maritime propagation and evaporation duct literature yourself and show how your architecture detects or bounds a correlated pointing bias. Most proposals will list ducting as a risk and move on.

‍ ‍

Do not lead with a superb single terminal. The topic says explicitly that the formation-level requirement takes precedence over any single link. A proposal organized around terminal specifications, however good, is answering a question USSOCOM told you was subordinate. Organize around the formation and let the terminal follow.

‍ ‍

Justify your SWaP against Group 3 numerically. Existing free-space optical terminals often exceeding Group 3 constraints is named as one of the three reasons the capability does not exist. Mass, volume, prime power, and thermal dissipation, against a stated aircraft, is the answer. And if you propose a gimbal rather than multi-sector apertures with photonic steering, you owe a strong SWaP argument, because the topic points toward the latter.

‍ ‍

Map your architecture onto the four reference pillars. Link and atmosphere from Kaushal and Trichili, acquisition and pointing from Kaymak and Bashir, alternative PNT from the NAVIGATION work, and distributed estimation from Ou. Every reference carries a Government annotation explaining its relevance, which is effectively the reviewer's mental model handed to you. Use their vocabulary.

‍ ‍

Get subcontract agreements and consultant letters executed early. Missing either is non-responsive, not merely weak. On a topic likely requiring an optical terminal specialist, a beam steering supplier, and a UAS integrator, that is several agreements with statements of work and detailed cost proposals to have in hand by October 21.

‍ ‍

Run the 50 percent formula yourself. USSOCOM published the arithmetic, subcontractor and consultant costs are counted with applied indirects, and falling below stops the evaluation. Also watch the separate one-half ceiling on consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and subcontracts combined, which is where flight range and aircraft access costs land.

‍ ‍

Lock down aircraft and range access now. Eighteen months to install and demonstrate on a representative Group 3 UAS formation, over a feature-rich to feature-sparse terrain transition, with multi-hop operation, means platform and range access are on your critical path from award. Naming them converts a plan into a commitment.

‍ ‍

State your Phase II demonstration configuration and scaling methodology. Results will be scaled against the formation-level objective, so how many aircraft, at what ranges, over what terrain, and by what analysis you extrapolate is the deliverable. Being explicit here is more credible than promising the full formation.

‍ ‍

Ask public questions carefully. All Topic Q&A questions and answers are released to the general public and there is no back channel. Ask about ambiguities in the requirement; do not reveal your architecture in a question.

‍ ‍

Attend the Industry Day. It is the only interactive opportunity, its stated purpose includes stimulating small business and research institute partnership building, and this topic is one where the winning team is likely a terminal firm plus an integrator.

‍ ‍

Complete and certify the CCR early. It is evaluated by USSOCOM, and the mechanic requires certifying on sbir.gov and then a specific Firm Admin uploading to DSIP. That dependency has ended more submissions than most technical problems.

OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV010: Architected Energy Dissipation Structures With Tunable Rigid-Flexible Behaviors

Quick Answer

OSW26TZ06-NV010 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. Protection materials are usually either rigid or flexible, and the Department wants both in the same material: rigid under severe loading, fluid-like and conformable under gentle loading. The vehicle is a newly discovered family of structures called polycatenated architected materials, essentially 3D chainmail made by additive manufacturing. The award must not exceed $250,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 15 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The problem statement is compact and correct. Most protection structures are either rigid materials such as metals, ceramics, and composites designed to carry significant mechanical loads or blunt kinetic threats, or flexible materials such as elastomers, foam structures, and structures based on polymeric fibers intended to compress or stretch, which are conformable and effective at reducing peak accelerations. Most protection solutions cannot provide both rigid material response and conformability, which limits applications for the Warfighter.

What makes this topic timely is a 2025 Science paper. Polycatenated architected materials derive their mechanical behaviors not through intrinsic material properties but rather through geometric arrangement of internal solid elements, rings or cage-like particles interconnected into 3D networks. Under severe loading, rigid elements may align and develop complex force chains that exhibit high strength. Under gentle loading, elements reorganize, slide, and rotate, which reads as fluid-like.

Phase I is unusually concrete for a basic research topic. Design architected structures in an approximate rectangular configuration of 82 by 87 by 19.5 millimeters, which is a helmet pad footprint, fabricate a minimum of 10 test specimens, and run impact tests from 1 to 50 joules against legacy foam pads.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV010

‍ ‍

Title: Architected Energy Dissipation Structures With Tunable Rigid-Flexible Behaviors

‍ ‍

Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program

‍ ‍

Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Phase I

‍ ‍

Award: must not exceed $250,000

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Area: Advanced Materials

‍ ‍

Critical Technology Area: Contested Logistics Technologies

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release

‍ ‍

Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level

‍ ‍

Material class: polycatenated architected materials, essentially 3D chainmail, realized through additive manufacturing

‍ ‍

Phase I specimen geometry: an approximate rectangular configuration of 82 mm by 87 mm by 19.5 mm thickness, approximating a commonly tested helmet pad configuration

‍ ‍

Conformability requirement: architected sheets shall display conformability to various geometries including features with radii of curvature ranging from approximately 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters

‍ ‍

Mechanical objectives: maximize energy absorption efficiency in through-thickness compression as described in Equation 1 of the cited Clough reference, while minimizing shear stiffness in the thickness direction

‍ ‍

Phase I specimen count: a minimum of 10 test specimens

‍ ‍

Phase I impact testing: across the range of 1 to 50 joules, using legacy foam pads as a comparison

‍ ‍

Phase II specimen count: a minimum of 20 specimens in the Phase I geometrical configuration

‍ ‍

Government collaboration: teams will be expected to work alongside Army scientists and engineers, and in Phase II will work with Army Research Laboratory scientists to design, manufacture, and deliver test specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL

‍ ‍

Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected

‍ ‍

Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: conformable structures, lightweight armor, Soldier protection, metamaterial, architected material, additive manufacturing

‍ ‍

What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write

‍ ‍

The S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs, and it is stated plainly.

‍ ‍

The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.

‍ ‍

The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.

‍ ‍

The consequence for your technical volume

‍ ‍

In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.

‍ ‍

The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Both must be included within the 15-page limit.

‍ ‍

So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget before you draft.

‍ ‍

What the Topic Is Actually Asking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Develop and demonstrate architected energy dissipation structures with rigid responsiveness at large tensile, compressive, and shear strains, but capable of conformability to surfaces of complex topographies and other fluid-like behaviors in response to small strains.

‍ ‍

The strain-dependent behavior is the whole idea. Rigid at large strain, fluid-like at small strain. That inversion of ordinary material behavior is what polycatenated structures make possible and what no conventional material offers.

‍ ‍

The problem

‍ ‍

The Department requires lightweight protection materials for a variety of applications, including personal protection, vehicle safety, and shielding sensitive electronics.

‍ ‍

Most protection structures are either rigid materials, for example metals, ceramics, and composites, designed to carry significant mechanical loads or blunt kinetic threats, or flexible materials, for example elastomers, foam structures, and structures based on polymeric fibers, intended to compress or stretch, which are conformable and effective at reducing peak accelerations.

‍ ‍

However, most protection solutions cannot provide both rigid material response and conformability, which limits applications for the Warfighter.

‍ ‍

That is a real and familiar tradeoff. A rigid plate spreads load and stops penetration but does not follow the body. A foam pad conforms and reduces peak acceleration but offers little structural resistance. The Warfighter carries both, at weight and bulk cost.

‍ ‍

The enabling discovery

‍ ‍

Recently, a new family of energy dissipating structures known as polycatenated architected materials has been introduced that may display both solid-like and fluid-like behaviors.

‍ ‍

These structures, essentially 3D chainmail and realized through additive manufacturing, derive their mechanical behaviors not through intrinsic material properties, but rather through geometric arrangement of internal solid elements, for example rings or cage-like particles interconnected into 3D networks. Note that these materials consist entirely of solid linkages, collectively displaying fluid-like behaviors in response to small deformations.

‍ ‍

In response to severe loading, rigid elements may align and develop complex force chains that exhibit high strength and offer significant protection mechanisms not possible through conventional flexible options.

‍ ‍

However, elements may also reorganize, slide, or rotate, which offers novel design mechanisms for dissipating energy, and new ways to enable comfort for applications related to personal protection.

‍ ‍

Two mechanisms, and they are worth distinguishing because they are the levers you design against. Force chain formation under severe load is where the strength comes from, and it depends on element geometry and how elements interlock when they align. Element reorganization, sliding, and rotation is where the dissipation and the conformability come from, and it depends on linkage clearance and friction.

‍ ‍

The phrase "consist entirely of solid linkages" is doing real work. There is no fluid, no fill, no phase change. The fluid-like response is purely geometric, which is what makes the material manufacturable in one additive build and what makes it robust.

‍ ‍

The design task

‍ ‍

The goal of this topic is to create architected structures with tunable mechanical energy dissipating behaviors that can vary spatially throughout the material.

‍ ‍

Teams will investigate element and linkage materials, geometries, and nearest neighbor spacings to design architected structures that perform optimally for various static and dynamic loading conditions, for example via tensile, compression, impact, and rheology characterization.

‍ ‍

Teams will then design, process, characterize, and simulate energy dissipating behaviors of materials in multiple geometrical configurations, for example through comparisons to legacy impact attenuating materials like foams that are used for impact protection such as knee pads, elbow pads, and helmet pads.

‍ ‍

Teams will be expected to work alongside Army scientists and engineers to guide the design, manufacturing, and testing of materials.

‍ ‍

If successful, this effort would enable new materials design tools for the Department to create customized protection structures for the expeditionary Soldier.

‍ ‍

Three design variables are named: element and linkage materials, geometries, and nearest neighbor spacings. Four characterization modes are named: tensile, compression, impact, and rheology. The inclusion of rheology is notable and appropriate, because a material with fluid-like small-strain behavior genuinely has rheological properties, and measuring them is how you quantify the conformability side.

‍ ‍

Note also "vary spatially throughout the material." Spatial tunability is the Phase II objective, and it is what turns a material into a design tool: stiffer where load must be carried, more compliant where the body needs to move.

‍ ‍

And note that working alongside Army scientists and engineers is stated as an expectation in Phase I, becoming a specific Army Research Laboratory collaboration in Phase II.

‍ ‍

Phase I Requirements

‍ ‍

Design architected structures with individual linked grains in the following approximate rectangular configuration: 82 mm by 87 mm by 19.5 mm thickness. The given geometry approximates a commonly tested helmet pad configuration and will allow teams to make comparisons to known technologies.

‍ ‍

Architected sheets shall display conformability to various geometries including features with radii of curvature ranging from approximately 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters.

‍ ‍

The through-thickness compression response of the material should seek to maximize energy absorption efficiency as described in Equation 1 of reference 4. Simultaneously, the material should minimize shear stiffness in the thickness direction.

‍ ‍

Teams will use advanced processing techniques, for example additive manufacturing approaches, to fabricate a minimum of 10 test specimens.

‍ ‍

Teams will perform computer simulations and initial experimental mechanical characterization to estimate in-plane and out-of-plane loads required to initiate solid-to-fluid transitions in the architected materials.

‍ ‍

Teams will perform impact tests across the range of 1 to 50 joules and use legacy foam pads as a comparison.

‍ ‍

Reading this scope

‍ ‍

This is the most prescriptive Phase I in the release, and that is helpful. A fixed specimen geometry, a fixed specimen count, a fixed energy range, a named comparison baseline, and a named equation for the figure of merit. Very little is left to interpretation, which means the evaluation will turn on how well you execute rather than on how you scoped it.

‍ ‍

The 82 by 87 by 19.5 millimeter geometry is deliberately a helmet pad, and the topic says so: it will allow teams to make comparisons to known technologies. The first cited reference is an Army Research Laboratory technical report on improving Advanced Combat Helmet low-velocity impact performance through pad material response optimization, which is almost certainly where that geometry and the comparison baseline come from. Read it.

‍ ‍

The radius of curvature range of 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters is tight. Conforming to a 5 millimeter radius with a 19.5 millimeter thick structure is a demanding bend, and it constrains your element size and linkage clearance directly. Work that geometry out early, because it may be the binding constraint on your architecture.

‍ ‍

The two mechanical objectives pull against each other in a productive way: maximize energy absorption efficiency in through-thickness compression while minimizing shear stiffness in the thickness direction. Compression stiffness and shear compliance in the same structure is exactly the rigid-plus-conformable combination the objective describes, expressed as two measurable quantities. Note that the energy absorption efficiency definition is specified by equation rather than described, so use that equation and cite it.

‍ ‍

The 1 to 50 joule impact range spans a wide dynamic regime, from a light bump to a substantial blunt impact. Fifty joules is in the neighborhood of helmet impact test energies, and 1 joule probes the low-strain fluid-like regime. Testing across both is how you demonstrate the strain-dependent transition.

‍ ‍

And the solid-to-fluid transition loads, in-plane and out-of-plane, are a named Phase I output to be estimated through both simulation and initial experiment. That transition threshold is the single most characteristic number of this material class, and it is what a designer would tune.

‍ ‍

Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes

‍ ‍

Phase II

‍ ‍

Design and demonstrate architected structures with variable energy dissipating properties with respect to spatial position. Teams may consider multi-material or variable grain and linkage architectures to achieve the tunable behaviors.

‍ ‍

Process a minimum of 20 specimens in the geometrical configurations provided for Phase I and develop test techniques to assess the response of structures whose energy dissipation behaviors vary spatially.

‍ ‍

Simulate the mechanical behaviors of the architected structures in response to compressive, tensile, shear, and impact loads. Determine loads required to initiate flexible-rigid transitions at various spatial positions within the structure.

‍ ‍

Work with Army Research Laboratory scientists to design, manufacture, and deliver test specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL.

‍ ‍

Develop commercial and outreach plans to market the technology for civilian and defense markets, and develop plans to scale manufacturing.

‍ ‍

Two things to plan for now. Spatial variation is the Phase II leap, and the topic names two routes: multi-material builds, or variable grain and linkage architectures within a single material. The second is more manufacturable in a single additive build and is arguably the more elegant answer.

‍ ‍

And delivering specimens to ARL for advanced dynamic mechanical testing is a concrete transition step with a named laboratory. Your specimens will be tested by someone else on their equipment, which argues for conservative claims, well-documented specimen fabrication, and enough specimen count to send parts away. Note that Phase II asks for a minimum of 20 specimens partly for that reason.

‍ ‍

Note also that developing test techniques to assess spatially varying response is itself a Phase II deliverable. Standard mechanical test methods assume a homogeneous specimen, and a structure whose properties vary across its area needs new measurement approaches. That is a real research contribution and it is easy to underplan.

‍ ‍

Phase III

‍ ‍

The discovery of polycatenated mechanical metamaterials has introduced a new family of structures that may display both solid-like and fluid-like behaviors. The additional degrees of freedom associated with granular elements linked to nearest neighbors may enable a variety of new civilian and defense technologies, for example Soldier and vehicle protection, sports equipment, law enforcement, and lightweight concepts for dissipating vibrational energy.

‍ ‍

Phase III efforts shall include outreach efforts based on market research to leverage opportunities in both civilian and defense markets. Implement plans to rapidly modify designs for specific customer needs. In addition, teams shall implement plans to scale manufacturing.

‍ ‍

The commercial case here is unusually strong for a defense materials topic, because the helmet pad geometry the topic specifies is shared with sports equipment. Football, cycling, hockey, and motorsport helmet padding is a large existing market with active regulatory pressure on impact performance and a demonstrated willingness to pay for better protection. Law enforcement and industrial protective equipment follow the same path.

‍ ‍

The vibrational energy dissipation application is a different and broader market, covering equipment mounts, electronics isolation, and machinery, and it exploits the same small-strain fluid-like behavior from a different direction.

‍ ‍

The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights

‍ ‍

This is an STTR, so a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.

‍ ‍

If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.

‍ ‍

What the split looks like on this topic

‍ ‍

The natural division follows design and science against processing and testing. The research institution owns the mechanics: the simulation of force chain formation and element reorganization, the parametric design of element geometry and nearest neighbor spacing, the theory of the solid-to-fluid transition, and the rheological characterization, since granular and architected material mechanics is where that expertise lives. The small business owns the manufacturing and evaluation: additive process development, specimen fabrication at count, impact and compression test execution against legacy foam baselines, the ARL specimen delivery relationship, and manufacturing scale-up.

‍ ‍

Because the enabling discovery is a 2025 Science paper and the field is very new, the institution's contribution is substantive. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the additive equipment and mechanical test capability, and the tasks. Note that the topic also expects teams to work alongside Army scientists and engineers from Phase I onward, so the government is a third participant in the technical work rather than only a customer.

‍ ‍

Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now

‍ ‍

This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.

‍ ‍

The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.

‍ ‍

This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

Why this changes your Phase I plan

‍ ‍

The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.

‍ ‍

Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.

‍ ‍

Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.

‍ ‍

The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate

‍ ‍

The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work

‍ ‍

Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.

‍ ‍

With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.

‍ ‍

All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, manufacturing scale-up consulting is the standout use, since Phase II requires plans to scale manufacturing and Phase III requires implementing them, and additive manufacturing of interlinked structures at production volume is a genuine process engineering problem. Commercial market development is a close second, given the strong sports equipment and protective equipment adjacency the topic identifies.

‍ ‍

The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated

‍ ‍

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.

‍ ‍

Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance

‍ ‍

This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.

‍ ‍

Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.

‍ ‍

Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.

‍ ‍

Notification and debriefings

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.

‍ ‍

Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.

‍ ‍

The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.

‍ ‍

Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.

‍ ‍

Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.

‍ ‍

The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.

‍ ‍

Questions

‍ ‍

Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Four, and they are exceptionally well chosen. Two are the enabling discovery, one is the Army baseline, and one supplies the figure of merit you are asked to maximize.

‍ ‍

Staniszeski, J., and colleagues, "Improved Low-Velocity Impact Performance of the Advanced Combat Helmet at 17 ft/s through Optimization of Pad Material Response," ARL-TR-8808, September 2019. This is the Army Research Laboratory report on helmet pad optimization, and it is almost certainly where the 82 by 87 by 19.5 millimeter specimen geometry and the legacy foam pad comparison come from. Read it first, because it defines the incumbent you must beat and the test conditions the Army uses.

‍ ‍

Zhou, W., and colleagues, "3D polycatenated architected materials," Science 387:6731, 269 to 277, 2025. This is the discovery paper the whole topic rests on. Read it closely, because the element geometries, linkage topologies, and the solid-to-fluid transition behavior it reports are your starting design space.

‍ ‍

Liu, T., and colleagues, "3D self-locking granular metamaterial," Science 12(15), 2026. Self-locking is the force chain mechanism under severe load, viewed from the granular materials side.

‍ ‍

Clough, E., and colleagues, "Elastomeric Microlattice Impact Attenuators," Matter 1, 1519 to 1531, 2019. This is the reference whose Equation 1 defines the energy absorption efficiency you are asked to maximize. You must have this paper, because the Phase I requirement cites its equation by number rather than restating it.

‍ ‍

The set tells you exactly how to write. Ground the design space in Zhou 2025, use Clough 2019 for the figure of merit, and benchmark against the foam pads characterized in the ARL report. A proposal that does those three things is answering the topic in its own terms. A proposal that does not have the Clough equation right has failed a stated requirement.

‍ ‍

Note that the Liu citation as printed lists Science with volume 12(15) and a 2026 date, which does not match Science's volume numbering. If you cite it yourself, verify the bibliographic details rather than copying them forward.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record

‍ ‍

Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV010?

‍ ‍

OSW26TZ06-NV010 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Architected Energy Dissipation Structures With Tunable Rigid-Flexible Behaviors," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop and demonstrate architected energy dissipation structures with rigid responsiveness at large tensile, compressive, and shear strains, but capable of conformability to surfaces of complex topographies and other fluid-like behaviors in response to small strains.

‍ ‍

What are polycatenated architected materials?

‍ ‍

A recently introduced family of energy dissipating structures, essentially 3D chainmail realized through additive manufacturing, that may display both solid-like and fluid-like behaviors. They derive their mechanical behaviors not from intrinsic material properties but from the geometric arrangement of internal solid elements such as rings or cage-like particles interconnected into 3D networks. They consist entirely of solid linkages, with the fluid-like response arising purely from geometry.

‍ ‍

What are the two mechanisms at work?

‍ ‍

Under severe loading, rigid elements may align and develop complex force chains that exhibit high strength, offering protection mechanisms not possible through conventional flexible options. Under gentler loading, elements may reorganize, slide, or rotate, which provides energy dissipation and conformability. The first depends on how elements interlock when aligned; the second depends on linkage clearance and friction.

‍ ‍

What is the Phase I specimen geometry?

‍ ‍

An approximate rectangular configuration of 82 mm by 87 mm by 19.5 mm thickness. The topic states this geometry approximates a commonly tested helmet pad configuration and will allow teams to make comparisons to known technologies.

‍ ‍

What conformability is required?

‍ ‍

Architected sheets shall display conformability to various geometries including features with radii of curvature ranging from approximately 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters. Conforming to a 5 millimeter radius with a 19.5 millimeter thick structure is demanding and directly constrains element size and linkage clearance.

‍ ‍

What are the mechanical objectives?

‍ ‍

Two, and they pull against each other productively. The through-thickness compression response should seek to maximize energy absorption efficiency as described in Equation 1 of the cited Clough reference. Simultaneously, the material should minimize shear stiffness in the thickness direction. Compression stiffness with shear compliance in the same structure is the rigid-plus-conformable requirement expressed measurably.

‍ ‍

What is Equation 1 and where do I find it?

‍ ‍

It defines energy absorption efficiency and appears in Clough and colleagues, "Elastomeric Microlattice Impact Attenuators," Matter 1, 1519 to 1531, 2019. The Phase I requirement cites it by number without restating it, so you need that paper. Reproduce the equation, state your predicted value, and compare against the legacy foam baseline.

‍ ‍

How many specimens and what testing does Phase I require?

‍ ‍

A minimum of 10 test specimens, fabricated using advanced processing techniques such as additive manufacturing. Impact tests across the range of 1 to 50 joules using legacy foam pads as a comparison. Plus computer simulations and initial experimental mechanical characterization to estimate in-plane and out-of-plane loads required to initiate solid-to-fluid transitions.

‍ ‍

What design variables should I investigate?

‍ ‍

Element and linkage materials, geometries, and nearest neighbor spacings, to design structures that perform optimally for various static and dynamic loading conditions. The topic names four characterization modes: tensile, compression, impact, and rheology.

‍ ‍

Why does the topic list rheology?

‍ ‍

Because a material with genuinely fluid-like small-strain behavior has measurable rheological properties, and rheological characterization is how you quantify the conformability side rather than asserting it. It is the unusual entry in the list and most proposals will skip it.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II require?

‍ ‍

Design and demonstrate architected structures with energy dissipating properties that vary with spatial position, considering multi-material or variable grain and linkage architectures. Process a minimum of 20 specimens in the Phase I geometry, and develop test techniques to assess spatially varying response. Simulate behavior under compressive, tensile, shear, and impact loads, and determine loads required to initiate flexible-rigid transitions at various spatial positions. Work with Army Research Laboratory scientists to design, manufacture, and deliver test specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL. And develop commercial and outreach plans plus plans to scale manufacturing.

‍ ‍

Do I work directly with the Army?

‍ ‍

Yes. The topic states that teams will be expected to work alongside Army scientists and engineers to guide the design, manufacturing, and testing of materials, and Phase II specifically requires working with Army Research Laboratory scientists and delivering specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase III applications?

‍ ‍

Soldier and vehicle protection, sports equipment, law enforcement, and lightweight concepts for dissipating vibrational energy. Phase III efforts shall include outreach based on market research in both civilian and defense markets, plans to rapidly modify designs for specific customer needs, and implementation of manufacturing scale-up plans.

‍ ‍

What is the strongest commercial market?

‍ ‍

Sports equipment padding is the closest adjacency, since the specified specimen geometry is a helmet pad and football, cycling, hockey, and motorsport padding is a large existing market with regulatory pressure on impact performance. Law enforcement and industrial protective equipment follow the same path, and vibrational energy dissipation for equipment mounts and electronics isolation is a separate broader market.

‍ ‍

Why is the ARL helmet pad report important?

‍ ‍

Staniszeski and colleagues, ARL-TR-8808, is the Army Research Laboratory report on improving Advanced Combat Helmet low-velocity impact performance through pad material response optimization. It is almost certainly the source of the specimen geometry and the legacy foam comparison, and it defines the Army's own test conditions and the incumbent's performance.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

Not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated, which is stricter than simply disregarding the extra pages. The transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both count inside that limit.

‍ ‍

What extra content does this program require in the technical volume?

‍ ‍

Two things beyond the standard DoW STTR Phase I content. A narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity. And a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II. Both must fit inside the 15 pages.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is an STTR, which requires a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares of at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the institution per the DoW STTR Program solicitation. If selected, you must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and the research institution allocating intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization, using the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

How does the Phase II submission window work?

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and all Phase I awardees are eligible. A 30-day submission window is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, with details provided by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office. This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics, and proposals received outside the established window will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

What does that mean for how I plan Phase I?

‍ ‍

You will be writing the Phase II proposal on partial Phase I results, six to nine months into a twelve-month effort. Front-load the work so your most persuasive results land early. The program also says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, so establish that relationship early in performance.

‍ ‍

How is Phase II funded?

‍ ‍

A 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

How are proposals evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the DoW solicitation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach first, then qualifications of key personnel, then commercialization potential. The evaluation includes an assessment not only of the Phase I feasibility studies but of the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II. Only Government personnel evaluate proposals, except personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance.

‍ ‍

Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?

‍ ‍

No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in it will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?

‍ ‍

Yes. Deviations from the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program BAA are not permitted. With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, model the arithmetic before finalizing the subaward.

‍ ‍

What CMMC level applies?

‍ ‍

The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.

‍ ‍

Is this work classified?

‍ ‍

No. Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level, and no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic or on any of the seven topics in this release.

‍ ‍

Can I employ foreign nationals?

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. The unclassified expectation makes this program more compatible with an open university research environment than several other components in this cycle.

‍ ‍

Can I request a debriefing if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official within 30 days of receipt of the request. Oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.

‍ ‍

When will I hear back, and who is notified?

‍ ‍

Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Get the Clough Equation 1 right. The Phase I requirement says the through-thickness compression response should seek to maximize energy absorption efficiency as described in Equation 1 of that reference, citing the equation by number without restating it. Reproduce it in your proposal, state your predicted value, and compare against the legacy foam baseline. Getting this wrong or omitting it fails a stated requirement.

‍ ‍

Read the ARL helmet pad report before designing. Staniszeski and colleagues, ARL-TR-8808, is where the specimen geometry and the foam comparison almost certainly come from, and it defines the Army's own test conditions and the performance of the incumbent. Designing against it rather than against generic foam is the difference between a proposal aimed at this topic and one aimed at metamaterials generally.

‍ ‍

Solve the 0.5 centimeter radius problem early. Conforming to a 5 millimeter radius of curvature with a 19.5 millimeter thick architected structure is a demanding bend, and it directly constrains element size, linkage clearance, and the number of layers through the thickness. It may well be the binding constraint on your architecture, so work the geometry before you write.

‍ ‍

Frame the two mechanical objectives as one design problem. Maximize energy absorption efficiency in through-thickness compression while minimizing shear stiffness in the thickness direction. That combination is the rigid-plus-conformable requirement expressed measurably, and showing how your element geometry and linkage clearance achieve both is the core technical argument.

‍ ‍

Report the solid-to-fluid transition loads as your headline number. In-plane and out-of-plane loads required to initiate the transition are a named Phase I output, they are the most characteristic property of this material class, and they are what a protection designer would tune. Estimate them by simulation and confirm by initial experiment, as the topic asks.

‍ ‍

Include rheology, because the topic named it. Tensile, compression, impact, and rheology are the four listed characterization modes, and rheology is the unusual one. A material with genuinely fluid-like small-strain behavior has measurable rheological properties, and measuring them is how you quantify conformability rather than asserting it. Most proposals will skip it.

‍ ‍

Distinguish the two mechanisms explicitly. Force chain formation under severe load gives strength and depends on how elements interlock when they align. Element reorganization, sliding, and rotation gives dissipation and conformability and depends on clearance and friction. Treating them as one phenomenon loses the design insight that makes this material class interesting.

‍ ‍

Plan the ARL collaboration from Phase I. The topic expects teams to work alongside Army scientists and engineers in Phase I and to work with ARL scientists in Phase II to design, manufacture, and deliver specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL. Naming a contact or a prior relationship, if you have one, is worth real credibility, and knowing ARL's test capabilities shapes how you fabricate.

‍ ‍

Fabricate more than the minimum. Ten specimens is the Phase I floor and 20 is the Phase II floor, but impact testing across 1 to 50 joules with a foam comparison, plus specimens delivered to ARL, consumes parts. Additive manufacturing makes extra specimens cheap. Budget generously and say so.

‍ ‍

Think about spatial variation in Phase I even though it is a Phase II task. Variable grain and linkage architectures within a single build are more manufacturable than multi-material approaches, and sketching that path in your preliminary Phase II Plan shows you understand where the program is going.

‍ ‍

Lead the commercial case with sports equipment. The specified geometry is a helmet pad, and football, cycling, hockey, and motorsport padding is a large existing market with regulatory pressure on impact performance and demonstrated willingness to pay. That is a stronger and more immediate commercialization story than defense procurement alone, and the topic names sports equipment itself.

‍ ‍

Address manufacturing scale honestly. Additive manufacturing of interlinked, non-assembled structures is elegant at specimen scale and challenging at production volume, and Phase II requires plans to scale it while Phase III requires implementing them. Build rate, post-processing of unfused powder or resin trapped in linkages, and inspection of internal linkages are the real issues.

‍ ‍

Write the transition narrative as a real plan, not a paragraph. This program exists to move academic discoveries into small businesses. Whose discovery, moving how, through what mechanism, with what people, and what does the small business own afterward. That narrative is a program requirement and it is where the S&T Foundations mission lives.

‍ ‍

Put key personnel forward. Qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization potential. On a basic research transition topic, naming the people who actually did the underlying science is worth more proposal space than a market sizing exercise.

‍ ‍

Take the preliminary Phase II Plan seriously. The evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II, not just the Phase I studies. Fit it to the program's own structure of a base plus option, each 10 to 12 months and each up to $1,000,000, and make the product concrete.

‍ ‍

Front-load the Phase I schedule. The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months in and it is the only one. Whatever a Phase II reviewer needs to see must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.

‍ ‍

Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated, which is a harsher rule than most components apply, and it applies to a volume that must also contain the transition narrative and the Phase II Plan.

‍ ‍

Start the allocation of rights conversation now. A written agreement allocating intellectual property and follow-on rights is required upon selection. On a topic where the core science originates in a university laboratory, that negotiation determines whether you have a commercial product at the end. Do not leave it until award.

‍ ‍

Use the debriefing if you lose. A written debrief within 30 days of notification is available on request, and this program recurs. That is cheap, specific feedback most applicants never ask for.

OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV009: Expeditionary Solar Refinery for Direct Synthesis of Methanol Feedstock from Water and Air

Quick Answer

OSW26TZ06-NV009 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The ask is a portable device that takes sunlight, water, and air, and makes fuel. Specifically a system with solar, water, and carbon dioxide inputs that generates greater than 66 percent methanol in water at a rate of half a liter per hour, weighing under 90 pounds. The award must not exceed $250,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 15 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The operational logic is a contested logistics argument. Modern warfare tactics have demonstrated the need to shift toward small, specialized, dismounted tactical units which can operate free from the supply line. Systems enabling Soldier power sustainment are essential to facilitate zero-resupply operations amid increasing energy requirements on the battlefield.

Three design constraints follow from that framing and they are unusual. The energy source needs to impart minimal cognitive load on the warfighters, acting passively until put into use. It should be invisible to modern uncrewed aircraft mounted sensors, meaning infrared detection, so heat emissions must keep the system near ambient to an IR camera. And the whole thing must fit inside 90 pounds and half a cubic meter.

The performance target is precise enough to design against: a single unit should meet the daily power requirements of up to four dismounted Soldiers, feeding direct or reformed methanol fuel cell systems including the Honey-Badger 20/50W PEM Power Generator, from a 0.5 liter potable water input cartridge equivalent to a standard water bottle.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV009

‍ ‍

Title: Expeditionary Solar Refinery for Direct Synthesis of Methanol Feedstock from Water and Air

‍ ‍

Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program

‍ ‍

Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Phase I

‍ ‍

Award: must not exceed $250,000

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Areas: Advanced Materials, Renewable Energy Generation and Storage, Sustainment and Logistics

‍ ‍

Critical Technology Area: Contested Logistics Technologies

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release

‍ ‍

Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level

‍ ‍

Inputs: solar energy, concentrated or ambient; water, potable or otherwise; and carbon dioxide, ambient or concentrated. These are the only chemical inputs

‍ ‍

Output: greater than or equal to 66 percent methanol in water, immediately usable in direct or reformed fuel cell systems

‍ ‍

Production rate: at least 0.5 liters of methanol per hour under direct fresh water access, ambient CO2, and clear weather

‍ ‍

Weight limit: total system weight should not exceed 90 pounds, equivalent to a typical T6 battery

‍ ‍

Volume limit: dimensions should not exceed 0.5 cubic meters

‍ ‍

Thermal signature: heat emissions should be minimal such that the system remains near ambient to infrared cameras

‍ ‍

Input cartridge: 0.5 liter, approximately 16.9 ounces of potable water, equivalent to a standard plastic water bottle volume

‍ ‍

Named fuel cell: the Honey-Badger 20/50W PEM Power Generator

‍ ‍

Deployment modes: operable in remote, austere locations without a direct Soldier interface, placed on the ground or secured to a light tactical off-road vehicle such as the Flyer 60

‍ ‍

Power sourcing: ideally the system can also be directly powered by alternative sources such as military standard generators or wind

‍ ‍

Phase II end state: Technology Readiness Level 6, with demonstration and delivery to a DoW transition partner required

‍ ‍

Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected

‍ ‍

Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: photocatalysis, water-splitting, hydrogen, nanomaterial, semiconductor, fuel, portable

‍ ‍

What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write

‍ ‍

The S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs, and it is stated plainly.

‍ ‍

The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.

‍ ‍

The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.

‍ ‍

The consequence for your technical volume

‍ ‍

In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.

‍ ‍

The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Both must be included within the 15-page limit.

‍ ‍

So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget before you draft.

‍ ‍

What the Topic Is Actually Asking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Generate a minimally viable component system with solar, water, and carbon dioxide inputs which generates greater than 66 percent methanol in water fuel at a rate of 0.5 liters per hour with a total system weight under 90 pounds.

‍ ‍

Three numbers, all specific: 66 percent concentration, half a liter per hour, 90 pounds. Note that the objective calls for a minimally viable component system, not a product. Phase I is feasibility concepts.

‍ ‍

The operational problem

‍ ‍

Modern warfare tactics have demonstrated the need to shift toward small, specialized, dismounted tactical units which can operate free from the supply line. Systems enabling Soldier power sustainment are essential to facilitate zero-resupply operations amid increasing energy requirements on the battlefield.

‍ ‍

To accomplish this demand, we need investments to capitalize on energy sources that can be replenished in austere environments, whether to directly power devices or charge batteries.

‍ ‍

Further, this energy source needs to impart minimal cognitive load on the warfighters, acting passively until put into use.

‍ ‍

Finally, it should be invisible to modern uncrewed aircraft mounted sensors, for example infrared detection.

‍ ‍

A technology that enables continuous methanol fuel cell usage from just sunlight, water, and atmospheric gases can accomplish these goals for uninterrupted power in contested logistics environments.

‍ ‍

Read the three non-performance requirements carefully, because they are the ones most proposals will neglect. Minimal cognitive load and passive operation until put into use means the device cannot need tending, monitoring, or intervention. Invisibility to infrared means the thermal design is a signature problem, not just an efficiency problem. And both of those constrain the chemistry, because an exothermic process with active thermal management is both hot and attention-demanding.

‍ ‍

Why the Department believes this is now possible

‍ ‍

The motivation for this topic has arisen from recent research that showed efficient utilization of locally available carbon resources and the selective synthesis of liquid fuels under austere conditions.

‍ ‍

In one study, a solar-driven artificial photosynthesis platform was demonstrated that directly converts carbon dioxide and water into methanol, enabling onsite fuel generation without the high temperatures, pressures, and complex infrastructure required by conventional syngas-based processes.

‍ ‍

In a complementary effort, a pathway was developed for converting stranded natural gas and methane emissions into transportable liquid fuel using only sunlight and water, overcoming long-standing challenges associated with methane activation and overoxidation.

‍ ‍

Together, these advances establish scalable photocatalytic technologies for producing methanol from diverse carbon feedstocks, providing a foundation for expeditionary fuel manufacturing with reduced logistics burdens and enhanced energy resilience for distributed military operations.

‍ ‍

The key claim is the avoidance of the conventional route. Industrial methanol comes from syngas at high temperature and pressure with substantial infrastructure. A photocatalytic route runs near ambient, which is exactly what makes a 90-pound portable version conceivable and what makes the low thermal signature achievable.

‍ ‍

The system requirements in detail

‍ ‍

Based on these advances, the proposed system will leverage solar, concentrated or ambient, energetic inputs along with water, potable or otherwise, and carbon dioxide, ambient or concentrated, as the only chemical inputs to generate methanol fuel capable of meeting the daily power requirements of up to 4 Soldiers.

‍ ‍

This approach will produce greater than or equal to 66 percent methanol in water that is immediately available for use with direct or reformed fuel cell systems including the Honey-Badger 20/50W PEM Power Generator.

‍ ‍

The system will be operable in remote, austere locations without a direct Soldier interface, while placed on the ground, or while secured to a light tactical off-road vehicle, for example a Flyer 60.

‍ ‍

Operation with direct access to fresh water, ambient CO2, and clear weather conditions should generate at least 0.5 liters of methanol per hour, with increased efficiency if concentrated CO2 sources are available.

‍ ‍

The total system weight should not exceed 90 pounds, equivalent to a typical T6 battery, nor the dimensions exceed 0.5 cubic meters.

‍ ‍

Heat emissions from the system should be minimal such that the system remains near ambient to infrared cameras.

‍ ‍

The system will be designed with a 0.5 liter input cartridge containing potable water, equivalent to a standard plastic water bottle volume, which will be converted into a 66 percent methanol and 33 percent water fuel stream.

‍ ‍

Ideally, the system can also be directly powered by alternative sources, for example military standard generators or wind.

‍ ‍

Achieving the desired production rate while remaining lightweight and utilizing onboard vehicle power will require an innovative approach.

‍ ‍

The arithmetic worth checking before you propose

‍ ‍

Two observations that a serious proposer should work through carefully.

‍ ‍

Half a liter of methanol per hour from a half-liter water cartridge is a specific stoichiometric statement. Producing methanol from CO2 and water consumes water as the hydrogen source, and the output is specified as 66 percent methanol with 33 percent water, so the mass and mole balance between the input cartridge, the ambient CO2 capture rate, and the output stream is the first calculation to do. The topic asks for heat and mass balance calculations in Phase I for exactly this reason.

‍ ‍

Half a liter per hour of methanol is a substantial energy flux. Methanol has a lower heating value around 20 megajoules per kilogram and a density near 0.79 kilograms per liter, so half a liter per hour is on the order of two kilowatts of chemical energy. Even at generous solar-to-fuel efficiency, the required solar collection area is well beyond what fits in 0.5 cubic meters unless the system deploys a much larger collector or the intended duty cycle differs from continuous operation.

‍ ‍

That tension is worth raising through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes on October 7. It may be that concentrated solar with a deployable collector is intended, or that the rate applies to a burst rather than sustained operation, or that alternative power sourcing is expected to carry most of the load. The topic does say the system can ideally be directly powered by alternative sources such as military standard generators or wind, and it notes that achieving the desired production rate while remaining lightweight and utilizing onboard vehicle power will require an innovative approach, which hints that vehicle power is part of the answer.

‍ ‍

Handle it transparently. Do the energy balance, state your assumptions about solar input and collector area, show what rate closes under what conditions, and say where you are interpreting the requirement. A proposal that presents the arithmetic honestly and proposes a defensible operating envelope is far stronger than one that asserts the number without showing it could work.

‍ ‍

One small inconsistency in the source text

‍ ‍

The description specifies a 0.5 liter input cartridge described as 16.9 ounces, and the Phase III section refers to a standard 16.8 ounce plastic water bottle. The difference is immaterial, but if you quote the figure, note that the document uses both.

‍ ‍

The Phase III section also refers to on-site synthesis at lower temperatures stated as greater than 200 degrees C, which reads as a typographical inversion, since the argument is that photocatalysis operates below conventional syngas temperatures rather than above them. The intended meaning is almost certainly less than 200 degrees C.

‍ ‍

Phase I Requirements

‍ ‍

Create feasibility concepts for a methanol generation system with solar, water, and carbon dioxide inputs which generates greater than 66 percent methanol in water fuel at a rate of 0.5 liters per hour and a total system weight under 90 pounds.

‍ ‍

Feasibility will be established by light harvesting toward methanol synthesis, catalytic or otherwise, and kinetics, turnover, and selectivity evaluation, and analytical modeling to include engineering diagrams, heat and mass balance calculations, and computer-aided design models of possible prototype architectures.

‍ ‍

The final product is a Phase II development plan with performance goals and key technical milestones that address technical risk reduction.

‍ ‍

Reading this scope

‍ ‍

Phase I is concepts, chemistry evaluation, and analytical modeling. Not a working refinery.

‍ ‍

Three chemistry deliverables are named: light harvesting toward methanol synthesis, and kinetics, turnover, and selectivity evaluation. Selectivity is the one to emphasize. CO2 reduction produces a spectrum of products, from carbon monoxide and formate through methane and methanol and beyond, and a low-selectivity catalyst produces a mixture no fuel cell can use. The requirement for 66 percent methanol in water, immediately available for use with a direct methanol fuel cell, is fundamentally a selectivity requirement.

‍ ‍

Three modeling deliverables are named: engineering diagrams, heat and mass balance calculations, and computer-aided design models of possible prototype architectures. That is a systems engineering package, and it is where the weight, volume, and thermal signature constraints get resolved. The heat balance in particular does double duty, since it feeds the infrared signature requirement.

‍ ‍

The final product is a Phase II development plan with performance goals and key technical milestones addressing technical risk reduction. Note that this coincides with the program's separately required preliminary Phase II Plan, so the two can be written as one artifact.

‍ ‍

Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes

‍ ‍

Phase II

‍ ‍

Produce a prototype minimally viable product system for evaluation and assessment in accordance with the criteria established in the topic.

‍ ‍

Demonstration and delivery to a DoW transition partner, for example DEVCOM C5ISR, DEVCOM Soldier Center, or DEVCOM GVSC, is required to establish compatibility with DoW systems and direct future product iterations.

‍ ‍

The results of the evaluation will be leveraged to generate refinement plans for the prototype to better meet DoW requirements and determine product effectiveness in an operationally relevant environment.

‍ ‍

The final products of Phase II include the prototype, evaluation with a DoW partner, and a Phase III development plan. The technology should reach Technology Readiness Level 6 at the conclusion of this phase.

‍ ‍

Two items to plan for now. Delivery to a DoW transition partner is required, not optional, and three specific organizations are named. Identifying which one you would work with, and ideally having a contact there, strengthens your Phase I proposal considerably, because it turns an abstract transition claim into a named path. DEVCOM Soldier Center is the natural fit for dismounted Soldier power, DEVCOM C5ISR for the power and energy portfolio, and DEVCOM GVSC for the vehicle-mounted variant.

‍ ‍

And TRL 6 at the end of Phase II means a system demonstrated in a relevant environment. From feasibility concepts to TRL 6 in one Phase II is aggressive, and your preliminary Phase II Plan should be honest about the intermediate steps.

‍ ‍

Phase III

‍ ‍

The end-state will be the introduction of an innovative strategy and prototype for producing methanol fuel in-field for use with DoW methanol fuel cell platforms. Because use of available materials represents an essential logistics benefit, the system will be designed to produce fuel from a standard plastic water bottle, carbon dioxide, and direct or indirect solar energy. Such a system will permit Soldier power sustainment for mounted or dismounted teams, facilitating zero-resupply operations.

‍ ‍

A single unit should be able to meet the daily power requirements of 4 dismounted Soldiers. Multiple units should be able to link up and provide auxiliary power to a forward operating base. As the Department expands toward fuel cells for uncrewed aircraft and ground vehicles, the fuel produced will directly transition to power those technologies. In some military and commercial cases where methanol fuel cells are prevalent, the projected devices will be able to easily and cheaply replace solar panels and batteries.

‍ ‍

Further, a simple, scalable method for methanol production can be directly plugged into commercial use cases, such as industrial feedstock for other reactions, for example formaldehyde, hydrocarbons, and olefins, for a wide array of applications such as polymers. In such cases, the methanol produced will enable on-site synthesis near factories at lower temperatures and energy costs than the current state of the art.

‍ ‍

The linking claim is worth noting: multiple units combining to provide auxiliary power to a forward operating base is a scaling story that changes the addressable requirement from a squad-level accessory to a base-level capability. And the commercial case is genuinely large, since methanol is a major industrial feedstock and distributed low-temperature production would be a significant change to that supply chain.

‍ ‍

The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights

‍ ‍

This is an STTR, so a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.

‍ ‍

If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.

‍ ‍

What the split looks like on this topic

‍ ‍

The natural division is chemistry against systems. The research institution owns the photocatalysis: light harvesting materials, the CO2 reduction and methane activation chemistry, kinetics, turnover, and above all selectivity, since that is where the cited recent research and the requisite characterization capability live. The small business owns the system: the reactor architecture, gas and water handling, the CO2 capture front end, thermal design for the infrared signature requirement, weight and volume budgeting, integration with the named fuel cell, and the transition path to a DEVCOM partner.

‍ ‍

The topic states that its motivation arose from recent research on solar-driven artificial photosynthesis and on photocatalytic methane-to-methanol conversion, which is academic work. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the specific catalytic system, and the tasks.

‍ ‍

Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now

‍ ‍

This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.

‍ ‍

The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.

‍ ‍

This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

Why this changes your Phase I plan

‍ ‍

The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.

‍ ‍

Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.

‍ ‍

Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.

‍ ‍

The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate

‍ ‍

The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work

‍ ‍

Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.

‍ ‍

With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.

‍ ‍

All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, manufacturing and transition consulting is the standout use, since Phase II requires demonstration and delivery to a named DoW transition partner and reaching Technology Readiness Level 6. Intellectual property counsel is a close second, since photocatalyst compositions emerging from university laboratories are patent-dense and an allocation of rights agreement is required upon selection.

‍ ‍

The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated

‍ ‍

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.

‍ ‍

Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance

‍ ‍

This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.

‍ ‍

Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.

‍ ‍

Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.

‍ ‍

Notification and debriefings

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.

‍ ‍

Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.

‍ ‍

The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.

‍ ‍

Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.

‍ ‍

Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.

‍ ‍

The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.

‍ ‍

Questions

‍ ‍

Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Six, and they split into two useful groups: the Army fuel cell context and the photocatalysis science.

‍ ‍

The fuel cell and Soldier power context, both Defense Technical Information Center reports.

‍ ‍

Chu, Deryn, and colleagues, "Direct Methanol Fuel Cell Systems for Future Force Warriors: From Experimental and Simulations for Water And Methanol Crossover And Recycling To High Performance Fuel Cell Systems," DTIC technical report.

‍ ‍

Cristiani, Jonathan, and colleagues, "Test and Evaluation of the Smart Fuel Cell C20-MP Direct Methanol Hybrid Fuel Cell System as a Soldier Power Source," DTIC technical report.

‍ ‍

These two matter more than they look. They are the Army's own history with direct methanol fuel cells as Soldier power, including the water and methanol crossover problems that determine what fuel composition a direct methanol fuel cell can actually accept. The 66 percent methanol specification is not arbitrary, and these reports are where the reasoning behind that kind of number lives. Read them, and connect your output specification to what the fuel cell needs.

‍ ‍

The CO2 to methanol science.

‍ ‍

Navarro-Jaen, Virginie, Bonin, and colleagues, "Highlights and challenges in the selective reduction of carbon dioxide to methanol," Nature Reviews Chemistry 5, 564 to 579, 2021. Note "selective" in the title. This is the review that frames selectivity as the central challenge.

‍ ‍

Ganesh, Ibram, "Conversion of carbon dioxide into methanol, a potential liquid fuel: Fundamental challenges and opportunities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31, 221 to 257, 2014.

‍ ‍

The recent enabling results, which are the two studies the topic's motivation paragraph describes.

‍ ‍

Tang, Songtao, and colleagues, "Dual-state stepwise methane-to-methanol conversion by water droplets with excellent yield and selectivity," PNAS 123(1), e2511126123, 2025.

‍ ‍

Zhou, Peng, and colleagues, "Water-promoted selective photocatalytic methane oxidation for methanol production," Chemical Science 15, 1505 to 1510, 2024.

‍ ‍

Note that the two most recent papers, which the topic calls the motivation, are both about methane to methanol rather than CO2 to methanol. The topic's own description says one study demonstrated a solar-driven artificial photosynthesis platform converting CO2 and water into methanol, and a complementary effort developed a pathway for converting stranded natural gas and methane emissions into liquid fuel. The reference list supports the methane pathway strongly and the direct CO2 pathway through the two review articles.

‍ ‍

That asymmetry is worth attending to. The topic's stated inputs are water and carbon dioxide, with methane nowhere in the requirements, but its most recent cited results are methane activation work. If your approach is CO2 reduction, the two reviews are your grounding and you should be candid that the recent breakthroughs cited are in an adjacent chemistry. If your approach involves methane, note that methane is not among the permitted inputs, which are solar, water, and carbon dioxide only.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record

‍ ‍

Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV009?

‍ ‍

OSW26TZ06-NV009 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Expeditionary Solar Refinery for Direct Synthesis of Methanol Feedstock from Water and Air," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to generate a minimally viable component system with solar, water, and carbon dioxide inputs which generates greater than 66 percent methanol in water fuel at a rate of 0.5 liters per hour with a total system weight under 90 pounds.

‍ ‍

What are the permitted inputs?

‍ ‍

Solar energy, concentrated or ambient; water, potable or otherwise; and carbon dioxide, ambient or concentrated. These are the only chemical inputs. Note that methane is not among them, even though two of the six cited references are methane activation papers.

‍ ‍

What are the size and weight limits?

‍ ‍

The total system weight should not exceed 90 pounds, described as equivalent to a typical T6 battery, and the dimensions should not exceed 0.5 cubic meters.

‍ ‍

Is the production rate physically achievable in that envelope?

‍ ‍

That is the central feasibility question and it deserves careful arithmetic. Half a liter of methanol per hour corresponds to roughly two kilowatts of chemical energy output, which sets a substantial floor on solar collection area at any plausible solar-to-fuel efficiency. The topic hints that the answer may not be solar-only continuous operation, noting that achieving the rate while remaining lightweight and utilizing onboard vehicle power will require an innovative approach, and that the system can ideally be directly powered by alternative sources such as military standard generators or wind. Raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A before October 7, do the heat and mass balance the topic asks for, and state your operating envelope explicitly.

‍ ‍

Why 66 percent methanol specifically?

‍ ‍

Because the output must be immediately available for use with direct or reformed fuel cell systems including the Honey-Badger 20/50W PEM Power Generator. Direct methanol fuel cells have specific fuel composition requirements driven by water and methanol crossover behavior, which is exactly what the two cited DTIC reports address.

‍ ‍

What is the infrared signature requirement?

‍ ‍

Heat emissions from the system should be minimal such that the system remains near ambient to infrared cameras. The topic frames this as the system needing to be invisible to modern uncrewed aircraft mounted sensors. It is a signature requirement on a chemical reactor and it interacts with exothermicity, concentrator optics, and any active cooling.

‍ ‍

What does passive operation mean here?

‍ ‍

The energy source needs to impart minimal cognitive load on the warfighters, acting passively until put into use, and the system must be operable in remote, austere locations without a direct Soldier interface. That rules out designs requiring monitoring, tuning, or manual catalyst regeneration.

‍ ‍

How is the system deployed?

‍ ‍

Placed on the ground in a remote austere location, or secured to a light tactical off-road vehicle such as a Flyer 60. Those are different mechanical, thermal, and power-availability situations, and the vehicle case is where onboard power may help close the energy balance.

‍ ‍

What does Phase I have to deliver?

‍ ‍

Feasibility concepts for the system, with feasibility established by light harvesting toward methanol synthesis, catalytic or otherwise, and kinetics, turnover, and selectivity evaluation, plus analytical modeling including engineering diagrams, heat and mass balance calculations, and computer-aided design models of possible prototype architectures. The final product is a Phase II development plan with performance goals and key technical milestones addressing technical risk reduction.

‍ ‍

Why does selectivity matter more than yield?

‍ ‍

Because CO2 reduction naturally produces a spectrum of products, from carbon monoxide and formate through methane and methanol. A low-selectivity catalyst produces a mixture no fuel cell can use. The requirement for 66 percent methanol in water usable directly is fundamentally a selectivity requirement, and the cited Navarro-Jaen review names selective reduction as the field's central challenge.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II require?

‍ ‍

Produce a prototype minimally viable product system for evaluation against the topic's criteria. Demonstration and delivery to a DoW transition partner, for example DEVCOM C5ISR, DEVCOM Soldier Center, or DEVCOM GVSC, is required to establish compatibility with DoW systems. The final products include the prototype, the evaluation with a DoW partner, and a Phase III development plan, and the technology should reach Technology Readiness Level 6.

‍ ‍

Do I need a DEVCOM partner?

‍ ‍

For Phase II, yes. Demonstration and delivery to a DoW transition partner is required, with three DEVCOM organizations named. Identifying which one you would work with in your Phase I proposal turns an abstract transition claim into a named path.

‍ ‍

How much power does one unit provide?

‍ ‍

The topic states a single unit should be able to meet the daily power requirements of up to 4 dismounted Soldiers, and that multiple units should be able to link up and provide auxiliary power to a forward operating base.

‍ ‍

What is the commercial case?

‍ ‍

Methanol as an industrial feedstock for other reactions such as formaldehyde, hydrocarbons, and olefins, supporting applications including polymers, with on-site synthesis near factories at lower temperatures and energy costs than the current state of the art. Also replacing solar panels and batteries in military and commercial cases where methanol fuel cells are prevalent.

‍ ‍

Are there inconsistencies in the source text?

‍ ‍

Two minor ones. The input cartridge is described as 0.5 liters and 16.9 ounces in the description but as a standard 16.8 ounce bottle in Phase III. And the Phase III section refers to lower temperatures stated as greater than 200 degrees C, which reads as a typographical inversion, since the argument is that photocatalysis operates below conventional syngas temperatures.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

Not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated, which is stricter than simply disregarding the extra pages. The transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both count inside that limit.

‍ ‍

What extra content does this program require in the technical volume?

‍ ‍

Two things beyond the standard DoW STTR Phase I content. A narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity. And a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II. Both must fit inside the 15 pages.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is an STTR, which requires a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares of at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the institution per the DoW STTR Program solicitation. If selected, you must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and the research institution allocating intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization, using the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

How does the Phase II submission window work?

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and all Phase I awardees are eligible. A 30-day submission window is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, with details provided by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office. This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics, and proposals received outside the established window will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

What does that mean for how I plan Phase I?

‍ ‍

You will be writing the Phase II proposal on partial Phase I results, six to nine months into a twelve-month effort. Front-load the work so your most persuasive results land early. The program also says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, so establish that relationship early in performance.

‍ ‍

How is Phase II funded?

‍ ‍

A 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

How are proposals evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the DoW solicitation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach first, then qualifications of key personnel, then commercialization potential. The evaluation includes an assessment not only of the Phase I feasibility studies but of the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II. Only Government personnel evaluate proposals, except personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance.

‍ ‍

Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?

‍ ‍

No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in it will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?

‍ ‍

Yes. Deviations from the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program BAA are not permitted. With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, model the arithmetic before finalizing the subaward.

‍ ‍

What CMMC level applies?

‍ ‍

The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.

‍ ‍

Is this work classified?

‍ ‍

No. Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level, and no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic or on any of the seven topics in this release.

‍ ‍

Can I employ foreign nationals?

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. The unclassified expectation makes this program more compatible with an open university research environment than several other components in this cycle.

‍ ‍

Can I request a debriefing if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official within 30 days of receipt of the request. Oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.

‍ ‍

When will I hear back, and who is notified?

‍ ‍

Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Do the energy balance and show it. Half a liter of methanol per hour is roughly two kilowatts of chemical energy output, which sets a hard floor on collection area at any plausible solar-to-fuel efficiency. Reconciling that with 90 pounds and half a cubic meter is the central feasibility question, and the topic asks for heat and mass balance calculations precisely so a reviewer can check it. A proposal that presents the arithmetic honestly, states its solar input and collector assumptions, and defines the operating envelope where the rate closes is far stronger than one that restates the target.

‍ ‍

Ask about the rate and the power source. The topic notes that achieving the desired production rate while remaining lightweight and utilizing onboard vehicle power will require an innovative approach, and separately says the system can ideally be directly powered by alternative sources. That suggests the intended answer may not be solar-only continuous operation. Raise it in Topic Q&A before October 7 and state your interpretation in the proposal.

‍ ‍

Lead with selectivity, not yield. Producing 66 percent methanol in water usable directly in a fuel cell is a selectivity requirement more than a rate requirement, because CO2 reduction naturally yields a product spectrum. The cited Navarro-Jaen review names selective reduction as the challenge in its title. Report selectivity, turnover, and the full product distribution, not just methanol formation rate.

‍ ‍

Treat the infrared signature as a design constraint, not a footnote. Heat emissions must keep the system near ambient to IR cameras. That is a signature requirement in a topic about a chemical reactor, and it interacts with everything: exothermicity, concentrator optics, and any active cooling, which itself radiates. Most proposals will mention it once. Working it into the thermal design is a differentiator.

‍ ‍

Honor the passive operation requirement. The energy source needs to impart minimal cognitive load, acting passively until put into use, and the system must be operable without a direct Soldier interface. That rules out anything needing monitoring, tuning, or catalyst regeneration by hand. Say what happens across a full day and night cycle with nobody attending it.

‍ ‍

Connect your output spec to the fuel cell. The two DTIC references are the Army's own direct methanol fuel cell history, including water and methanol crossover, which is what determines acceptable fuel composition. Naming the Honey-Badger 20/50W PEM Power Generator and showing your output stream meets its input requirement turns a chemistry claim into a system claim.

‍ ‍

Name your DEVCOM transition partner. Phase II requires demonstration and delivery to a DoW transition partner, with DEVCOM C5ISR, DEVCOM Soldier Center, and DEVCOM GVSC named. Identifying which one and, ideally, having a contact converts an abstract transition claim into a path. Soldier Center is the natural fit for dismounted power, GVSC for the vehicle-mounted variant.

‍ ‍

Design against both deployment modes. The system must work placed on the ground in a remote austere location and secured to a light tactical off-road vehicle such as a Flyer 60. Those are different mechanical, thermal, and power-availability situations, and the vehicle case is where onboard power may resolve the energy balance problem.

‍ ‍

Respect the input list. Solar, water, and carbon dioxide are the only chemical inputs. Water may be potable or otherwise and CO2 may be ambient or concentrated, but methane is not on the list even though two of the six references are methane activation papers. If your chemistry needs another feedstock, that is a scope problem to address explicitly.

‍ ‍

Be honest about TRL 6 in one Phase II. Phase I is feasibility concepts; Phase II ends at a system demonstrated in a relevant environment with delivery to a DEVCOM partner. That is a large step, and a preliminary Phase II Plan that lays out credible intermediate milestones reads better than one that asserts the endpoint.

‍ ‍

Use the linking and commercial stories. Multiple units combining to provide auxiliary power to a forward operating base changes the requirement from a squad accessory to a base capability. And methanol as an industrial feedstock for formaldehyde, hydrocarbons, olefins, and polymers is a genuinely large commercial market where distributed low-temperature production would matter. Both are in the topic and both strengthen a commercialization section that would otherwise be niche.

‍ ‍

Write the transition narrative as a real plan, not a paragraph. This program exists to move academic discoveries into small businesses. Whose discovery, moving how, through what mechanism, with what people, and what does the small business own afterward. That narrative is a program requirement and it is where the S&T Foundations mission lives.

‍ ‍

Put key personnel forward. Qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization potential. On a basic research transition topic, naming the people who actually did the underlying science is worth more proposal space than a market sizing exercise.

‍ ‍

Take the preliminary Phase II Plan seriously. The evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II, not just the Phase I studies. Fit it to the program's own structure of a base plus option, each 10 to 12 months and each up to $1,000,000, and make the product concrete.

‍ ‍

Front-load the Phase I schedule. The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months in and it is the only one. Whatever a Phase II reviewer needs to see must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.

‍ ‍

Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated, which is a harsher rule than most components apply, and it applies to a volume that must also contain the transition narrative and the Phase II Plan.

‍ ‍

Start the allocation of rights conversation now. A written agreement allocating intellectual property and follow-on rights is required upon selection. On a topic where the core science originates in a university laboratory, that negotiation determines whether you have a commercial product at the end. Do not leave it until award.

‍ ‍

Use the debriefing if you lose. A written debrief within 30 days of notification is available on request, and this program recurs. That is cheap, specific feedback most applicants never ask for.

OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV008: Bio-Inspired Underwater Teams

Quick Answer

OSW26TZ06-NV008 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The premise is that fish swimming near each other get real hydrodynamic benefits from each other's wakes, that recent computational and experimental work has quantified those benefits, and that a team of unmanned underwater vehicles could capture them. The award must not exceed $250,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 15 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The framing is explicitly a technology push. Bio-inspired underwater vehicles have nearly matched the speeds and efficiencies of real fish. Now these platforms are on the cusp of operating as multiagent teams, which would further improve efficiency and unlock novel mission utility. The topic says this STTR will provide increased capabilities for UUV teams based on the technology push from the fundamental understanding we now have of how hydrodynamic benefits arise from underwater swimming in groups.

Two scoping decisions define who can bid. Conventional designs and propulsors such as propellers and jets are not in scope. And research and development into energy storage and into path planning are both explicitly out of scope, with the design required to use state-of-the-art energy storage and off-the-shelf path planning components. So the novelty must live in the propulsor, the body, the formation, and the sensing and control that maintains it.

The performance targets are concrete: untethered vehicles 1 to 5 meters in length, operating in salt water to 50 feet depth, minimum 4 meters per second with an objective of 6 or higher, with cost of transport optimized and demonstrably better than the state of the art.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV008

‍ ‍

Title: Bio-inspired Underwater Teams

‍ ‍

Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program

‍ ‍

Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Phase I

‍ ‍

Award: must not exceed $250,000

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Area: Trusted AI and Autonomy

‍ ‍

Critical Technology Area: Contested Logistics Technologies

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release

‍ ‍

Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level

‍ ‍

Vehicle envelope: a group of untethered UUVs, each between 1 and 5 meters in length, capable of operating in salt water to depths of 50 feet, to support Phase II and Phase III testing

‍ ‍

Speed: minimum 4 meters per second, with an objective of 6 meters per second or higher

‍ ‍

Cost of transport: the project should optimize cost of transport and demonstrate clear improvement over the state of the art for the chosen vehicle length and speed

‍ ‍

Quietness: underwater acoustic energy generated by the vehicles should be minimized by design

‍ ‍

Out of scope: conventional designs and propulsors such as propellers and jets; research and development into energy storage; research and development into path planning

‍ ‍

Power: the design shall not rely on energy harvesting from the environment but may incorporate energy recovery from mechanical motion itself, and shall use state-of-the-art energy storage

‍ ‍

Transition customer: the Navy, with Phase I framed as demonstrating feasibility in meeting Navy needs and Phase III including support to Government testing

‍ ‍

Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected

‍ ‍

Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: biological propulsion, unmanned underwater vehicle teams, biologically-inspired design

‍ ‍

What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write

‍ ‍

The S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs, and it is stated plainly.

‍ ‍

The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.

‍ ‍

The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.

‍ ‍

The consequence for your technical volume

‍ ‍

In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.

‍ ‍

The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Both must be included within the 15-page limit.

‍ ‍

So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget before you draft.

‍ ‍

What the Topic Is Actually Asking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Utilize the fundamental understanding of hydrodynamic benefits from underwater vehicles swimming in proximity to each other to develop and demonstrate a design for an underwater vehicle team optimized for range, endurance, speed and quietness.

‍ ‍

The design should be based on rigorous analysis and leverage results from recent computational and experimental fluid dynamics investigations that have shown significant gains in efficiency resulting from group swimming.

‍ ‍

The design should also leverage new vehicle design spaces that result from the platform being unmanned, which might include novel propulsors, for example fins, tails or other bio-inspired mechanisms, that utilize unsteady propulsion, body shape and body deformation.

‍ ‍

Three design levers are named: novel propulsors using unsteady propulsion, body shape, and body deformation. All three are things a manned vehicle cannot easily do and an unmanned one can, which is the point of the phrase "new vehicle design spaces that result from the platform being unmanned."

‍ ‍

The premise, and why now

‍ ‍

Bio-inspired underwater vehicles have nearly matched the speeds and efficiencies of real fish. Now, these platforms are on the cusp of operating as multiagent teams, which would further improve efficiency and unlock novel mission utility.

‍ ‍

Recent work has shown how the hydrodynamic benefits of schooling can be translated into groups of underwater vehicles.

‍ ‍

In this STTR, the use of physical models and 3D simulations of sufficient fidelity are expected to enable exploration and understanding of the effects of controlled variation of key parameters such as geometric positioning with respect to other wakes and body deformation in developing prototype underwater teams.

‍ ‍

Recent progress in this area, combined with the wide availability of 3D physical and computational methods, presents a significant new opportunity for the application of fundamental knowledge to exploit the hydrodynamic benefits that result from schooling fish.

‍ ‍

Note the two named key parameters: geometric positioning with respect to other wakes, and body deformation. Those are the variables the topic expects you to explore, and they correspond directly to the cited literature on formation geometry and on in-phase versus anti-phase body motion.

‍ ‍

The scope exclusions, which are unusually explicit

‍ ‍

This topic tells you what not to work on in more detail than most, and each exclusion is a gift because it removes a way to waste your fifteen pages.

‍ ‍

Conventional designs and propulsors, such as propellers and jets, are not in scope for this topic.

‍ ‍

The design shall not rely on energy harvesting from the environment, but can incorporate methods of energy recovery from mechanical motion itself. It shall utilize state-of-the-art energy storage, and research and development into energy storage is outside the scope of this topic.

‍ ‍

The design shall use state-of-the-art means of transferring power to the propulsor.

‍ ‍

Path planning should use off-the-shelf components to provide sufficient capability for the platforms to perform the demonstrations during Phase II and Phase III, including straight line tracks and simple maneuvers sufficient to demonstrate speed, range, endurance and acoustics. Research and development into path planning is outside the scope of this topic.

‍ ‍

Read those together and the intended proposal shape is clear. Do not propose a better battery. Do not propose an autonomy stack. Do propose a propulsor, a body, a formation, and the sensing and control that holds the formation while capturing wake energy.

‍ ‍

The energy distinction is subtle and worth getting right. Energy harvesting from the environment is excluded, meaning no solar, thermal gradient, or current harvesting. Energy recovery from mechanical motion itself is permitted, meaning recovering energy from the propulsor's own oscillation or from the incoming wake is in scope. That second permission is important, because extracting energy from a leading vehicle's wake is arguably the central mechanism the topic is funding.

‍ ‍

The performance criteria

‍ ‍

The overall design objective and targeted capabilities apply to a group of untethered UUVs, each between 1 and 5 meters in length, and capable of operating in salt water to depths of 50 feet, to support Phase II and Phase III testing.

‍ ‍

The design will be evaluated according to measurable performance criteria.

‍ ‍

Speed: a minimum of 4 meters per second, with an objective of 6 meters per second or higher.

‍ ‍

Cost of transport: the proposed project should optimize cost of transport and demonstrate clear improvement over the state of the art for the chosen vehicle length and speed.

‍ ‍

Quietness: underwater acoustic energy generated by the vehicles should be minimized by design.

‍ ‍

Power: state-of-the-art energy storage, with energy recovery from mechanical motion permitted and environmental harvesting excluded.

‍ ‍

Power transmission: state-of-the-art means of transferring power to the propulsor, with successful proposals explaining how the proposed means will contribute to meeting the performance objectives.

‍ ‍

Sensing and control: approaches to sensing and dynamic control that optimize hydrodynamic interactions and flow physics are in scope, and the successful proposal will explain how these contribute to meeting the performance objectives.

‍ ‍

Path planning: off-the-shelf components sufficient for the Phase II and Phase III demonstrations.

‍ ‍

Vehicle cost: estimated cost of scaled manufacturing is a factor in the proposal evaluations and can be used to guide material and design selection. The successful proposal will identify supply chain risks and a mitigation plan.

‍ ‍

Reading the speed and cost of transport requirements together

‍ ‍

Four meters per second is roughly eight knots, and six meters per second is nearly twelve. For a bio-inspired oscillating-propulsor vehicle in the 1 to 5 meter class, that is fast. Most published bio-inspired platforms operate well below it.

‍ ‍

Cost of transport is energy per unit mass per unit distance, and it is the right figure of merit because it captures the schooling benefit directly: if formation swimming works, the team's cost of transport is lower than a single vehicle's at the same speed. Note that the requirement is a clear improvement over the state of the art for the chosen vehicle length and speed, which means you pick the operating point and then must beat the incumbent at it. Choose deliberately and defend the choice.

‍ ‍

Quietness is stated as a design objective rather than a number, which gives you latitude but also means you should propose your own acoustic metric. Oscillating propulsors are inherently different acoustically from propellers, generally with energy concentrated at low frequency harmonics of the flapping rate rather than in blade-rate tonals and cavitation. That is a genuine advantage worth quantifying rather than asserting.

‍ ‍

Vehicle cost and supply chain, which are scored

‍ ‍

Estimated cost of scaled manufacturing is explicitly a factor in proposal evaluations, and the successful proposal will identify supply chain risks and a mitigation plan.

‍ ‍

That is unusual in a basic research topic and it should not be treated as boilerplate. A team of vehicles means unit cost multiplies, so an expensive vehicle makes the whole concept unaffordable. Give a cost estimate at scale, name the materials and components driving it, and identify the supply chain risks, which for a bio-inspired vehicle typically means actuators, high-energy-density cells, and any specialty compliant materials.

‍ ‍

Phase I Requirements

‍ ‍

The small business shall demonstrate the feasibility of the concept in meeting Navy needs for a team of UUVs capable of meeting the desired performance objectives, via model-scale experiments, computation, previous results and data, or fabrication of components, if feasible, for any difficult-to-manufacture component.

‍ ‍

This body of evidence shall support the high-risk aspects of the design.

‍ ‍

The Phase I should convincingly show that the design is sufficiently robust to undergo the testing described in Phases II and III.

‍ ‍

Reading this scope

‍ ‍

Four permitted forms of evidence, and the list is generous: model-scale experiments, computation, previous results and data, or component fabrication for difficult-to-manufacture parts. You may use any combination, and previous results and data are explicitly acceptable, which rewards a team that already has a platform or a body of wake-interaction results.

‍ ‍

The organizing principle is "the high-risk aspects of the design." That phrasing invites you to name your risks explicitly and then show evidence against each one. For this topic the high-risk items are plausibly: achieving 4 to 6 meters per second with an unsteady propulsor, holding formation precisely enough to capture wake benefit, the actuator and power transmission at that speed and duty cycle, and the acoustic signature.

‍ ‍

The last sentence is the real test: convincingly show that the design is sufficiently robust to undergo Phase II and Phase III testing. Phase II is in-water untethered testing at a facility the small business arranges, so Phase I has to make a reviewer believe the vehicles will survive and perform in salt water at depth.

‍ ‍

Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes

‍ ‍

Phase II

‍ ‍

The small business shall fabricate a prototype team of UUVs according to the requirements stated in the topic, and evaluate the design via in-water tests conducted at a facility arranged by the small business. These tests shall target the STTR performance objectives via untethered operations.

‍ ‍

At a minimum, the prototype testing shall consist of basic operability testing, speed trials, range and endurance trials, and acoustic testing. The small business may propose other tests as needed to demonstrate the benefits of their design.

‍ ‍

It shall also perform analyses to establish reliability, identify areas for further improvement, and analyze manufacturing scalability to transition the design to the Navy.

‍ ‍

Two things to plan for now. The facility is arranged by the small business, which means test facility access is your responsibility and your cost. Salt water testing to 50 feet with acoustic instrumentation is not a swimming pool, and identifying that facility in your Phase I proposal is a credibility marker.

‍ ‍

And four minimum test categories are named, with acoustic testing among them. Acoustic characterization of multiple vehicles operating in formation requires a hydrophone array and a quiet enough environment to measure against, which is a real facility constraint. Cost it.

‍ ‍

Phase III

‍ ‍

The small business shall apply the knowledge gained in Phase II to build an advanced prototype UUV team, test the advanced prototype according to the Phase II test goals, and support Government testing of the advanced prototype.

‍ ‍

Note "support Government testing." That is a transition step with a Navy customer implied throughout, and it means the vehicles have to be robust and documented enough for someone else to operate.

‍ ‍

The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights

‍ ‍

This is an STTR, so a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.

‍ ‍

If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.

‍ ‍

What the split looks like on this topic

‍ ‍

The natural division follows the topic's own structure. The research institution owns the hydrodynamics: the wake interaction physics, the 3D simulations of sufficient fidelity, the formation geometry and body deformation parameter studies, and the cost of transport modeling. That is precisely where the cited literature comes from. The small business owns the vehicle: propulsor mechanism and actuation, structural design for salt water at depth, power transmission, sensing and control implementation, manufacturing cost and supply chain, and the in-water test campaign.

‍ ‍

The topic itself frames the effort as a technology push from fundamental understanding, and it expects physical models and 3D simulations of sufficient fidelity, which is university-scale computational and experimental fluid dynamics work. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the towing tank or flume and computational resources, and the tasks.

‍ ‍

Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now

‍ ‍

This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.

‍ ‍

The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.

‍ ‍

This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

Why this changes your Phase I plan

‍ ‍

The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.

‍ ‍

Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.

‍ ‍

Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.

‍ ‍

The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate

‍ ‍

The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work

‍ ‍

Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.

‍ ‍

With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.

‍ ‍

All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, manufacturing and supply chain consulting is the standout use, since estimated cost of scaled manufacturing is explicitly a proposal evaluation factor and the successful proposal must identify supply chain risks with a mitigation plan. Intellectual property counsel is a close second given the required allocation of rights agreement.

‍ ‍

The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated

‍ ‍

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.

‍ ‍

Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance

‍ ‍

This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.

‍ ‍

Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.

‍ ‍

Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.

‍ ‍

Notification and debriefings

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.

‍ ‍

Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.

‍ ‍

The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.

‍ ‍

Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.

‍ ‍

Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.

‍ ‍

The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.

‍ ‍

Questions

‍ ‍

Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Five, all from 2025, and all on the fluid mechanics of fish and foil interaction. That recency is itself the argument for the topic: this is a field where the fundamental understanding arrived recently enough that nobody has built vehicles around it yet.

‍ ‍

Han, Seyedmirzaei Sarraf, Mivehchi, and Moored, "Tailoring formations of self-organizing hydrofoil schools towards high-efficiency," Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1012, A26, 2025. Self-organizing schools and formation tailoring, which is directly the formation geometry question.

‍ ‍

Guo, Lauder, Thandiackal, and Dong, "Computational analysis of fish-foil pairing and wake energy extraction in low-speed flow," Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 20(5), 056011, 2025. Note "wake energy extraction," which is the mechanism the topic permits when it allows energy recovery from mechanical motion.

‍ ‍

Menzer, Pan, Lauder, and Dong, "Fish schools in a vertical diamond formation: Effect of vertical spacing on hydrodynamic interactions," Physical Review Fluids 10(4), 2025. Vertical formation structure, a dimension most treatments neglect.

‍ ‍

Guo and Dong, "A computational Study of In-Phase and Anti-Phase Interactions of Fish in a Phalanx School," Journal of Fluids Engineering 147(7), 2025. Phase relationship between neighboring swimmers, which is a control variable as much as a geometric one.

‍ ‍

Huang, Wang, and Dong, "Vortex Dynamics in Wake-Body and Wake-Fin Interactions of Tuna-Like Staggered Swimming," Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 20(4), 2025.

‍ ‍

The set is dominated by two groups, with Dong appearing on four of the five and Lauder on two, which points at the research lineage this topic expects you to draw on. If your research institution partner is one of those groups, the transition narrative is direct.

‍ ‍

Note what the papers collectively tell you to control: formation geometry including vertical spacing, phase relationship between neighbors, and wake-body and wake-fin interaction. Those are exactly the parameters the topic names, and a proposal that maps its design variables onto this literature is speaking the reviewer's language. Note also that all five are computational or laboratory fluid mechanics; none is a vehicle paper. The vehicle engineering literature is yours to bring.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record

‍ ‍

Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV008?

‍ ‍

OSW26TZ06-NV008 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Bio-inspired Underwater Teams," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to use the fundamental understanding of hydrodynamic benefits from underwater vehicles swimming in proximity to each other to develop and demonstrate a design for an underwater vehicle team optimized for range, endurance, speed, and quietness.

‍ ‍

What is explicitly out of scope?

‍ ‍

Three things. Conventional designs and propulsors such as propellers and jets. Research and development into energy storage, with the design required to use state-of-the-art energy storage instead. And research and development into path planning, with off-the-shelf components required to be sufficient for the Phase II and Phase III demonstrations.

‍ ‍

Can the vehicles harvest energy?

‍ ‍

Not from the environment. The design shall not rely on energy harvesting from the environment, but it can incorporate methods of energy recovery from mechanical motion itself. That second permission matters, because extracting energy from a leading vehicle's wake is arguably the central mechanism the topic is funding, and one of the cited papers studies wake energy extraction directly.

‍ ‍

What are the vehicle specifications?

‍ ‍

A group of untethered UUVs, each between 1 and 5 meters in length, capable of operating in salt water to depths of 50 feet, to support Phase II and Phase III testing.

‍ ‍

What speed is required?

‍ ‍

A minimum of 4 meters per second, with an objective of 6 meters per second or higher. That is roughly eight to twelve knots, which is fast for an oscillating-propulsor vehicle in this size class and well above most published bio-inspired platforms.

‍ ‍

How is efficiency measured?

‍ ‍

Cost of transport. The proposed project should optimize cost of transport and demonstrate clear improvement over the state of the art for the chosen vehicle length and speed. Since you choose the length and speed, you also choose which incumbent you must beat, so name it and cite its cost of transport.

‍ ‍

Is there a quietness number?

‍ ‍

No. The topic states that underwater acoustic energy generated by the vehicles should be minimized by design, without a numeric target. That gives latitude but also means you should propose your own acoustic metric and predict it.

‍ ‍

What design approaches does the topic want?

‍ ‍

Novel propulsors, for example fins, tails, or other bio-inspired mechanisms, that utilize unsteady propulsion, plus body shape and body deformation. The topic frames these as new vehicle design spaces that result from the platform being unmanned.

‍ ‍

What parameters should I be exploring?

‍ ‍

The topic names two key parameters explicitly: geometric positioning with respect to other wakes, and body deformation. The cited literature adds vertical spacing within formations, in-phase versus anti-phase motion between neighbors, and wake-body and wake-fin interaction.

‍ ‍

What does Phase I have to deliver?

‍ ‍

A demonstration of the feasibility of the concept in meeting Navy needs for a team of UUVs capable of meeting the desired performance objectives, via model-scale experiments, computation, previous results and data, or fabrication of components for any difficult-to-manufacture component. That body of evidence shall support the high-risk aspects of the design, and Phase I should convincingly show the design is robust enough to undergo Phase II and Phase III testing.

‍ ‍

Can I use prior results as Phase I evidence?

‍ ‍

Yes. Previous results and data are explicitly among the four permitted forms of evidence, alongside model-scale experiments, computation, and component fabrication.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II require?

‍ ‍

Fabricate a prototype team of UUVs and evaluate the design via in-water tests conducted at a facility arranged by the small business, targeting the performance objectives via untethered operations. At a minimum the testing shall consist of basic operability testing, speed trials, range and endurance trials, and acoustic testing. It also requires analyses to establish reliability, identify areas for improvement, and analyze manufacturing scalability to transition the design to the Navy.

‍ ‍

Who arranges and pays for the Phase II test facility?

‍ ‍

The small business. Phase II tests are conducted at a facility arranged by the small business, and the requirement includes acoustic testing in salt water to 50 feet, which is a substantial facility need. Identifying that facility in your Phase I proposal is a credibility marker.

‍ ‍

Is manufacturing cost evaluated?

‍ ‍

Yes. Estimated cost of scaled manufacturing is explicitly a factor in the proposal evaluations and can be used to guide material and design selection, and the successful proposal will identify supply chain risks and a mitigation plan. For a team of vehicles, unit cost multiplies, so this is not boilerplate.

‍ ‍

Who is the transition customer?

‍ ‍

The Navy. Phase I is framed as demonstrating feasibility in meeting Navy needs, Phase II analyzes manufacturing scalability to transition the design to the Navy, and Phase III requires supporting Government testing of the advanced prototype.

‍ ‍

Is sensing and control in scope?

‍ ‍

Yes. Approaches to sensing and dynamic control that optimize hydrodynamic interactions and flow physics are in scope, and the successful proposal will explain how these contribute to meeting the performance objectives. Note the distinction from path planning, which is out of scope.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

Not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated, which is stricter than simply disregarding the extra pages. The transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both count inside that limit.

‍ ‍

What extra content does this program require in the technical volume?

‍ ‍

Two things beyond the standard DoW STTR Phase I content. A narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity. And a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II. Both must fit inside the 15 pages.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is an STTR, which requires a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares of at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the institution per the DoW STTR Program solicitation. If selected, you must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and the research institution allocating intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization, using the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

How does the Phase II submission window work?

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and all Phase I awardees are eligible. A 30-day submission window is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, with details provided by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office. This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics, and proposals received outside the established window will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

What does that mean for how I plan Phase I?

‍ ‍

You will be writing the Phase II proposal on partial Phase I results, six to nine months into a twelve-month effort. Front-load the work so your most persuasive results land early. The program also says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, so establish that relationship early in performance.

‍ ‍

How is Phase II funded?

‍ ‍

A 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

How are proposals evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the DoW solicitation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach first, then qualifications of key personnel, then commercialization potential. The evaluation includes an assessment not only of the Phase I feasibility studies but of the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II. Only Government personnel evaluate proposals, except personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance.

‍ ‍

Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?

‍ ‍

No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in it will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?

‍ ‍

Yes. Deviations from the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program BAA are not permitted. With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, model the arithmetic before finalizing the subaward.

‍ ‍

What CMMC level applies?

‍ ‍

The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.

‍ ‍

Is this work classified?

‍ ‍

No. Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level, and no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic or on any of the seven topics in this release.

‍ ‍

Can I employ foreign nationals?

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. The unclassified expectation makes this program more compatible with an open university research environment than several other components in this cycle.

‍ ‍

Can I request a debriefing if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official within 30 days of receipt of the request. Oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.

‍ ‍

When will I hear back, and who is notified?

‍ ‍

Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Respect the exclusions, and say that you have. No propellers or jets, no energy storage research, no path planning research. A proposal that spends pages on an autonomy stack or a battery chemistry has spent them on work the topic removed from scope, and a reviewer will read that as not having read the topic.

‍ ‍

Use the energy recovery permission deliberately. Environmental harvesting is excluded, but energy recovery from mechanical motion itself is permitted, and wake energy extraction is exactly what the cited Guo and colleagues paper studies. That permission is arguably the heart of the topic, and building your efficiency argument on it is stronger than treating formation flying as merely drafting.

‍ ‍

Defend your operating point on cost of transport. The requirement is clear improvement over the state of the art for the chosen vehicle length and speed. You choose the length between 1 and 5 meters and the speed at or above 4 meters per second, which means you also choose which incumbent you are beating. Name it, cite its cost of transport, and show yours.

‍ ‍

Take 4 to 6 meters per second seriously as a hard problem. Eight to twelve knots from an oscillating propulsor in this size class is well above most published bio-inspired platforms. If your evidence base is at lower speed, say so and show the scaling argument rather than letting a reviewer discover the gap.

‍ ‍

Quantify quietness, since the topic only asks you to minimize it. Propose your own acoustic metric and predict it. Oscillating propulsors concentrate energy at low-frequency harmonics of the flapping rate rather than in blade-rate tonals and cavitation, which is a real advantage over a propeller and worth showing with numbers rather than asserting.

‍ ‍

Address formation-holding as a control problem with a tolerance. Capturing wake benefit requires being in the right place relative to a leader's wake, and the cited literature shows the benefit depends on spacing and phase. What positioning accuracy do you need, how do you sense it underwater without external references, and what happens to the efficiency gain when you drift? That question is where sensing and control earns its place in the proposal.

‍ ‍

Map your design variables onto the cited literature. Formation geometry including vertical spacing, in-phase versus anti-phase motion, and wake-body and wake-fin interaction are the parameters those five papers isolate, and they are the same parameters the topic names. Showing the mapping demonstrates you have read the science the topic is pushing.

‍ ‍

Cost the vehicle and name the supply chain risks. Estimated cost of scaled manufacturing is explicitly an evaluation factor, and a team multiplies unit cost. Actuators, energy storage cells, and specialty compliant materials are the usual risk items for a bio-inspired platform. Give numbers and a mitigation plan.

‍ ‍

Identify your Phase II test facility in Phase I. Phase II requires in-water untethered testing at a facility the small business arranges, including acoustic testing, in salt water to 50 feet. That facility is your cost and your risk, and naming it converts a plan into a commitment.

‍ ‍

Name your high-risk items and show evidence against each. Phase I asks for a body of evidence supporting the high-risk aspects of the design, which is an invitation to structure the proposal around risks rather than around tasks. Speed from unsteady propulsion, formation-holding accuracy, actuator and power transmission at duty, and acoustics are the plausible four.

‍ ‍

Remember the customer is the Navy. Phase I is framed as demonstrating feasibility in meeting Navy needs, Phase II analyzes manufacturing scalability to transition the design to the Navy, and Phase III supports Government testing. Write to a Navy program reader, and if you have any Navy engagement, say so.

‍ ‍

Write the transition narrative as a real plan, not a paragraph. This program exists to move academic discoveries into small businesses. Whose discovery, moving how, through what mechanism, with what people, and what does the small business own afterward. That narrative is a program requirement and it is where the S&T Foundations mission lives.

‍ ‍

Put key personnel forward. Qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization potential. On a basic research transition topic, naming the people who actually did the underlying science is worth more proposal space than a market sizing exercise.

‍ ‍

Take the preliminary Phase II Plan seriously. The evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II, not just the Phase I studies. Fit it to the program's own structure of a base plus option, each 10 to 12 months and each up to $1,000,000, and make the product concrete.

‍ ‍

Front-load the Phase I schedule. The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months in and it is the only one. Whatever a Phase II reviewer needs to see must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.

‍ ‍

Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated, which is a harsher rule than most components apply, and it applies to a volume that must also contain the transition narrative and the Phase II Plan.

‍ ‍

Start the allocation of rights conversation now. A written agreement allocating intellectual property and follow-on rights is required upon selection. On a topic where the core science originates in a university laboratory, that negotiation determines whether you have a commercial product at the end. Do not leave it until award.

‍ ‍

Use the debriefing if you lose. A written debrief within 30 days of notification is available on request, and this program recurs. That is cheap, specific feedback most applicants never ask for.

OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV007: Scalable Processing of Large Area, Oriented 2-Dimensional Polymer Films

Quick Answer

OSW26TZ06-NV007 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The program moves discoveries out of university laboratories and into small businesses. This topic is about manufacturing: covalent organic frameworks and other two-dimensional polymers have remarkable properties but almost always come out of synthesis as an insoluble powder nobody can use. The ask is a continuous process that makes them into large-area films with the sheets aligned perpendicular to the film plane. The award must not exceed $250,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 15 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The Phase I target is specific and it is a manufacturing number, not a materials number. Develop a continuous process producing 2D polymer ensemble films at a rate of 100 feet per minute, at least 1 foot wide, and 1 to 50 microns thick. That is a roll-to-roll line rate, and stating it that way tells you the government is not asking for a better film in a beaker. It is asking whether this class of material can be made industrially at all.

The problem the topic identifies is orientation and defects. Methods that cast directly from monomer solution can be scaled up in a roll-to-roll process but often result in films that are mechanically weak, because it is difficult to control the size and orientation of the individual sheets and they often lack sufficient intermolecular interactions. That is the gap: scalable processes give you weak films, and processes that give you good films do not scale.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV007

‍ ‍

Title: Scalable Processing of Large Area, Oriented 2-Dimensional Polymer Films

‍ ‍

Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program

‍ ‍

Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Phase I

‍ ‍

Award: must not exceed $250,000

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Area: Advanced Materials

‍ ‍

OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Contested Logistics Technologies

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release

‍ ‍

Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level

‍ ‍

Material class: 2-dimensional polymers, including covalent organic frameworks

‍ ‍

Orientation requirement: individual sheets highly oriented perpendicular to the film plane, for membrane applications

‍ ‍

Phase I process target: 100 feet per minute, film at least 1 foot wide, 1 to 50 microns thick

‍ ‍

Phase II process target: deposition rate increased by 2 to 5 times, with expanded film width and thickness range

‍ ‍

Process requirement: amenable to roll-to-roll processing or a related method to produce continuous films

‍ ‍

Named defect categories to control: point and stacking defects within 2D polymer crystals, stacking defects between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination, and crystallite size distribution

‍ ‍

Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected

‍ ‍

Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: 2-dimensional polymers, covalent organic frameworks, polymer processing, crystallization, roll-to-roll

‍ ‍

What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write

‍ ‍

The S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs, and it is stated plainly.

‍ ‍

The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.

‍ ‍

The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.

‍ ‍

The consequence for your technical volume

‍ ‍

In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.

‍ ‍

The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Both must be included within the 15-page limit.

‍ ‍

So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget before you draft.

‍ ‍

What the Topic Is Actually Asking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Develop a reliable, cost-effective method to produce large area films of mechanically robust 2-dimensional polymers where the individual sheets are highly oriented perpendicular to the film plane, for membrane applications.

‍ ‍

Every phrase in that sentence is a requirement. Reliable and cost-effective, which is a manufacturing standard rather than a research standard. Large area. Mechanically robust. Sheets oriented perpendicular to the film plane. And membrane applications as the target, which is what makes the orientation matter: a sheet lying flat blocks transport, while a sheet standing perpendicular to the film plane presents its pores as through-channels.

‍ ‍

Why 2D polymers matter, and why nobody uses them

‍ ‍

2-dimensional polymers such as covalent organic frameworks are an emerging class of materials which have displayed significant potential in applications ranging from catalysis, energy storage, dielectrics, nanofiltration, gas storage, and mechanically robust engineering materials. They are synthesized from geometrically pre-defined building blocks and can accommodate a wide variety of pore shapes, sizes, and functionality.

‍ ‍

Most methods used to produce 2D polymers result in an insoluble microporous powder that cannot be processed into a functional form factor, which limits their relevance in commercial or military applications.

‍ ‍

That is the whole problem in one sentence. The chemistry works. The material has designed pores. And it comes out as a powder you cannot make into anything.

‍ ‍

What has been tried and why each approach falls short

‍ ‍

The topic surveys the field with unusual candor, and each named limitation is a design constraint on your answer.

‍ ‍

Top-down methods such as exfoliation or solution casting, and bottom-up methods that form films directly from cast monomer solutions, have been used to varying levels of success to access films and membranes. Interfacial polymerization has also been used to form films at the interface of two immiscible solvents.

‍ ‍

Exfoliation based approaches are low-yielding.

‍ ‍

Solution casting techniques often involve appending solubilizing groups to the pore wall, which can block access to the pore itself.

‍ ‍

Methods that cast directly from monomer solution can be scaled up in a roll-to-roll process but often result in films that are mechanically weak, as it is difficult to control the size and orientation of the individual sheets and they often lack sufficient intermolecular interactions.

‍ ‍

Read those three together and the design space narrows usefully. Exfoliation does not scale. Solubilizing groups defeat the purpose by blocking the pores you designed. Direct casting scales but gives weak, poorly oriented films. Your process has to scale like direct casting while controlling orientation and intermolecular interaction like the slower methods.

‍ ‍

What the topic says is missing scientifically

‍ ‍

More work is needed to understand the underlying kinetics and thermodynamics of the film forming processes as it relates to monomer selection, layer alignment, domain size, and formation of defects.

‍ ‍

New engineering approaches are also needed to further control film formation, thickness, functionality, and orientation during deposition and post-processing.

‍ ‍

Note the two halves. A science gap in kinetics and thermodynamics, and an engineering gap in process control. That pairing is exactly what an STTR partnership is for, and it maps onto the work split naturally.

‍ ‍

The defect taxonomy, which is a gift

‍ ‍

Special focus should be given to controlling and minimizing defects that could mitigate material performance: point and stacking defects within 2D polymer crystals, stacking defects in between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination within the films, and crystallite size distributions, to name a few.

‍ ‍

Five named defect categories at three length scales. Within a crystal, between crystallites, and across the film. Plus contamination and size distribution.

‍ ‍

That list is a checklist a reviewer can grade against, and most proposals will address pinholes and stop. A proposal that says, for each of the five, how it forms, how it is measured, and how the process controls it, is doing what the topic asked. Note also that residual solvent and reactant contamination is a chemistry problem in a manufacturing context, and it is exactly what bites a membrane in service.

‍ ‍

The process requirements

‍ ‍

The objective of this topic is to develop a scalable, cost-effective method to produce large area 2D polymer ensemble films with superb control over structural evolution.

‍ ‍

Designed processes must consider monomer composition, long range structural order in lateral and parallel planes, interlayer interactions and flaw tolerance.

‍ ‍

The process should be amenable to roll-to-roll processing or a related method to produce continuous films.

‍ ‍

Note "flaw tolerance" alongside long range order. Those pull in opposite directions and the topic asks for both. A perfectly ordered film is brittle and a single flaw propagates. A flaw-tolerant film has some mechanism, whether crystallite size distribution, interlayer sliding, or a compliant phase, that arrests propagation. Addressing that tension directly is a strong move.

‍ ‍

Note also "ensemble films." The topic uses that term repeatedly, and it signals that the film is understood as an assembly of crystallites rather than a single crystal. Your structural argument should be about the ensemble: crystallite size, orientation distribution, and the interfaces between them.

‍ ‍

Phase I Requirements

‍ ‍

Develop a continuous process to produce 2D polymer ensemble films from predefined monomer building blocks. The process should achieve a rate of 100 feet per minute of a film that is at least 1 foot wide and 1 to 50 microns thick.

‍ ‍

Using computational modeling or experimental studies, identify the role of defects and flaws and quantify needed levels of domain size, layer alignment, and intermolecular interactions to achieve mechanically robust films.

‍ ‍

Using insights gained from understanding the underlying film forming mechanism, develop a framework to be implemented in Phase II to achieve required structural ordering.

‍ ‍

Reading these numbers

‍ ‍

One hundred feet per minute is a real industrial line rate, comparable to commercial coating operations, and it is stated as a Phase I target rather than a Phase III aspiration. That is aggressive, and it tells you the topic is written for a team that already has continuous-processing capability rather than one that will build it.

‍ ‍

One foot wide is modest for a roll-to-roll line and appropriate for a pilot. One to fifty microns is a wide thickness window, spanning thin membrane to substantial free-standing film, and it gives you latitude to choose where in that range your chemistry works.

‍ ‍

The second task is a quantification task: identify the role of defects and quantify the needed levels of domain size, layer alignment, and intermolecular interactions. Note "needed levels." You are being asked to establish the structure-property relationship, not just to make a film. What domain size do you actually need for mechanical robustness, and what alignment, and what interlayer interaction strength.

‍ ‍

The third task is a framework for Phase II. That is a design deliverable, and it connects directly to the required preliminary Phase II Plan.

‍ ‍

How to structure a credible Phase I

‍ ‍

The topic explicitly permits computational modeling or experimental studies, or both, for the defect and structure-property work, which is a real accommodation at this budget. A sensible plan pairs a modest continuous-coating demonstration with modeling that establishes the targets, rather than trying to fund both a full process development and a full characterization campaign at $250,000.

‍ ‍

Be explicit about which monomer chemistry you use and why. The topic says films are made from predefined monomer building blocks and that the process must consider monomer composition, so monomer selection is part of the process design rather than a given.

‍ ‍

And say how you measure orientation, because perpendicular sheet orientation is the defining requirement and it is not trivial to characterize in a thin film. Grazing-incidence X-ray scattering, polarized spectroscopy, cross-sectional electron microscopy, and transport measurements through the membrane are all defensible, and naming your method with its resolution is worth more than asserting the orientation.

‍ ‍

Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes

‍ ‍

Phase II

‍ ‍

Further develop the processing approach from Phase I to increase deposition rate by 2 to 5 times while expanding the range of film width and thickness, while achieving domain sizes and orientations needed to form robust films.

‍ ‍

The method should be amenable to post-processing including annealing, tensioning, or post-polymerization modification to further increase ordering and alignment.

‍ ‍

Proxy measurement techniques may be developed to rapidly assess ordering and alignment.

‍ ‍

Three things worth planning for now. A 2 to 5 times rate increase on top of 100 feet per minute puts you at 200 to 500 feet per minute, which is a commercial converting line rate. Three named post-processing routes are given, and annealing, tensioning, and post-polymerization modification are all standard polymer film operations, which suggests the topic wants this to fit existing converting infrastructure. And proxy measurement techniques for rapid ordering assessment is effectively an in-line quality control ask, which is what a manufacturing process needs and which almost no research effort builds.

‍ ‍

That last item is a differentiator. If your Phase I includes even a preliminary in-line or rapid proxy metric for orientation, you have addressed a Phase II requirement early and shown you are thinking like a manufacturer.

‍ ‍

Phase III

‍ ‍

Phase III efforts will further optimize the processing method and scale production to manufacturing-relevant levels and rates to achieve films with large, highly aligned domains with minimal defects.

‍ ‍

A variety of dual-use applications would benefit from an efficient production pipeline for 2D polymer films including nanofiltration membranes, battery separators, gas impermeable films, and critical mineral recovery.

‍ ‍

Four applications, and they are worth separating by market character. Nanofiltration membranes and battery separators are large existing commercial markets with incumbent materials and known price points. Gas impermeable films is a packaging and barrier market. Critical mineral recovery is the one most aligned with the Contested Logistics Technologies Critical Technology Area, and it is a stated national priority with a supply chain argument behind it.

‍ ‍

Because the Critical Technology Area here is Contested Logistics rather than Advanced Materials alone, the critical mineral recovery and water treatment angles are the strongest defense framing. A deployable membrane that recovers lithium or rare earths, or purifies water in an austere setting, connects a polymer processing result to a logistics problem.

‍ ‍

The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights

‍ ‍

This is an STTR, so a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.

‍ ‍

If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.

‍ ‍

What the split looks like on this topic

‍ ‍

The natural division follows the topic's own two-part gap statement. The research institution owns the science: the kinetics and thermodynamics of film formation, the relationship between monomer selection and layer alignment, the defect taxonomy and its characterization, and the computational modeling that establishes needed domain size and interlayer interaction levels. The small business owns the engineering: the continuous deposition process, the line rate and web handling, thickness and width control, post-processing operations, and the path to manufacturing-relevant rates.

‍ ‍

That split is unusually clean because the topic states both gaps explicitly, saying more work is needed to understand the underlying kinetics and thermodynamics, and that new engineering approaches are also needed to control film formation. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the characterization instruments, and the tasks.

‍ ‍

Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now

‍ ‍

This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.

‍ ‍

The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.

‍ ‍

This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

Why this changes your Phase I plan

‍ ‍

The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.

‍ ‍

Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.

‍ ‍

Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.

‍ ‍

The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate

‍ ‍

The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work

‍ ‍

Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.

‍ ‍

With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.

‍ ‍

All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, manufacturing and process scale-up consulting is the standout use, given that Phase II asks for a 2 to 5 times rate increase toward commercial converting line rates. Intellectual property counsel is a close second, since covalent organic framework chemistries and processing methods emerging from university laboratories carry real IP complexity and an allocation of rights agreement is required upon selection.

‍ ‍

The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated

‍ ‍

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.

‍ ‍

Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance

‍ ‍

This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.

‍ ‍

Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.

‍ ‍

Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.

‍ ‍

Notification and debriefings

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.

‍ ‍

Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.

‍ ‍

The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.

‍ ‍

Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.

‍ ‍

Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.

‍ ‍

The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.

‍ ‍

Questions

‍ ‍

Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Three, and all three are polymer chemistry papers from groups working on covalent organic framework processing. Notably, two of the three include a common author, which points at the research lineage.

‍ ‍

Burke, Sun, Castano, Flanders, Evans, Vitaku, McLeod, Lambeth, Chen, Gianneschi, and Dichtel, Angewandte Chemie 132, 5203, 2020. The Dichtel group is among the most prominent in covalent organic framework synthesis and processing, and this paper is the most cited of the three.

‍ ‍

Barnes, McLeod, and Lambeth, ACS Applied Polymer Materials 4 (3), 2017 to 2021, 2022.

‍ ‍

Senarathna, Li, Perera, Torres-Correas, Diwakara, Boardman, Al-Kharji, Liu, and Smaldone, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 62, e202312617, 2023.

‍ ‍

Two observations. McLeod and Lambeth appear on both the 2020 and 2022 papers, and the Army Research Laboratory has a polymer program with people of those names, which suggests this topic emerged from an internal Department research line with academic collaborators rather than purely from outside academia. If your research institution partner connects to that lineage, say so.

‍ ‍

And the reference set is entirely chemistry, with nothing on roll-to-roll processing, web handling, coating fluid mechanics, or in-line metrology. That asymmetry mirrors the topic's own statement that new engineering approaches are needed. It also means your Related Work section carries the burden of demonstrating awareness of the manufacturing state of the art, so bring the coating and converting literature yourself. That is where the small business half of an STTR should be visibly strong.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record

‍ ‍

Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV007?

‍ ‍

OSW26TZ06-NV007 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Scalable Processing of Large Area, Oriented 2-Dimensional Polymer Films," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop a reliable, cost-effective method to produce large area films of mechanically robust 2-dimensional polymers where the individual sheets are highly oriented perpendicular to the film plane, for membrane applications.

‍ ‍

What are 2-dimensional polymers and why are they hard to use?

‍ ‍

2-dimensional polymers such as covalent organic frameworks are synthesized from geometrically pre-defined building blocks and can accommodate a wide variety of pore shapes, sizes, and functionality, with potential in catalysis, energy storage, dielectrics, nanofiltration, gas storage, and mechanically robust engineering materials. The problem is that most methods used to produce them result in an insoluble microporous powder that cannot be processed into a functional form factor, which limits their relevance in commercial or military applications.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase I process targets?

‍ ‍

A continuous process producing 2D polymer ensemble films from predefined monomer building blocks at a rate of 100 feet per minute, with the film at least 1 foot wide and 1 to 50 microns thick.

‍ ‍

Is 100 feet per minute really a Phase I target?

‍ ‍

Yes, as written. That is a real industrial line rate comparable to commercial coating operations, and it is stated as a Phase I target rather than a later goal. It suggests the topic is written for a team that already has continuous processing capability.

‍ ‍

What else does Phase I require?

‍ ‍

Using computational modeling or experimental studies, identify the role of defects and flaws and quantify needed levels of domain size, layer alignment, and intermolecular interactions to achieve mechanically robust films. And using insights from understanding the film forming mechanism, develop a framework to be implemented in Phase II to achieve required structural ordering.

‍ ‍

Can I do Phase I with modeling instead of experiments?

‍ ‍

The topic permits computational modeling or experimental studies, or both, for the defect and structure-property work. Given the budget, pairing a modest continuous-coating demonstration with modeling that establishes the needed structural targets is a defensible plan.

‍ ‍

Why does sheet orientation matter?

‍ ‍

Because the application is membranes. A sheet lying flat in the film plane blocks transport, while a sheet oriented perpendicular to the film plane presents its designed pores as through-channels. Perpendicular orientation is the defining requirement in both the title and the objective.

‍ ‍

What is wrong with existing processing methods?

‍ ‍

The topic names three limitations. Exfoliation based approaches are low-yielding. Solution casting often involves appending solubilizing groups to the pore wall, which can block access to the pore itself. And methods that cast directly from monomer solution can be scaled up in a roll-to-roll process but often result in mechanically weak films, because it is difficult to control the size and orientation of individual sheets and they often lack sufficient intermolecular interactions.

‍ ‍

What defects must I control?

‍ ‍

Five categories are named: point and stacking defects within 2D polymer crystals, stacking defects between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination within the films, and crystallite size distributions. The topic says special focus should be given to controlling and minimizing them.

‍ ‍

What does the topic mean by ensemble films?

‍ ‍

The term signals that the film is understood as an assembly of crystallites rather than a single crystal. Your structural argument should address crystallite size, orientation distribution, and the interfaces between crystallites, not just ideal in-crystal order.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II require?

‍ ‍

Further develop the Phase I processing approach to increase deposition rate by 2 to 5 times while expanding the range of film width and thickness, and while achieving the domain sizes and orientations needed for robust films. The method should be amenable to post-processing including annealing, tensioning, or post-polymerization modification to further increase ordering and alignment. Proxy measurement techniques may be developed to rapidly assess ordering and alignment.

‍ ‍

What is the proxy measurement requirement really asking for?

‍ ‍

Effectively in-line quality control. Rapid assessment of ordering and alignment is what a manufacturing process needs and what almost no research effort builds. Sketching one in Phase I addresses a Phase II requirement early.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase III applications?

‍ ‍

Nanofiltration membranes, battery separators, gas impermeable films, and critical mineral recovery. Given that the Critical Technology Area for this topic is Contested Logistics Technologies, critical mineral recovery and water treatment are the strongest defense framing.

‍ ‍

Does the process have to be roll-to-roll?

‍ ‍

The topic says the process should be amenable to roll-to-roll processing or a related method to produce continuous films. Roll-to-roll is the named example, and the Phase I line rate and film width targets are stated in roll-to-roll terms, but a related continuous method is acceptable.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

Not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated, which is stricter than simply disregarding the extra pages. The transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both count inside that limit.

‍ ‍

What extra content does this program require in the technical volume?

‍ ‍

Two things beyond the standard DoW STTR Phase I content. A narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity. And a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II. Both must fit inside the 15 pages.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is an STTR, which requires a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares of at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the institution per the DoW STTR Program solicitation. If selected, you must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and the research institution allocating intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization, using the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

How does the Phase II submission window work?

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and all Phase I awardees are eligible. A 30-day submission window is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, with details provided by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office. This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics, and proposals received outside the established window will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

What does that mean for how I plan Phase I?

‍ ‍

You will be writing the Phase II proposal on partial Phase I results, six to nine months into a twelve-month effort. Front-load the work so your most persuasive results land early. The program also says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, so establish that relationship early in performance.

‍ ‍

How is Phase II funded?

‍ ‍

A 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

How are proposals evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the DoW solicitation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach first, then qualifications of key personnel, then commercialization potential. The evaluation includes an assessment not only of the Phase I feasibility studies but of the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II. Only Government personnel evaluate proposals, except personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance.

‍ ‍

Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?

‍ ‍

No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in it will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?

‍ ‍

Yes. Deviations from the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program BAA are not permitted. With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, model the arithmetic before finalizing the subaward.

‍ ‍

What CMMC level applies?

‍ ‍

The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.

‍ ‍

Is this work classified?

‍ ‍

No. Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level, and no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic or on any of the seven topics in this release.

‍ ‍

Can I employ foreign nationals?

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. The unclassified expectation makes this program more compatible with an open university research environment than several other components in this cycle.

‍ ‍

Can I request a debriefing if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official within 30 days of receipt of the request. Oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.

‍ ‍

When will I hear back, and who is notified?

‍ ‍

Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Lead with the line rate, because it is the real filter. One hundred feet per minute of a film at least a foot wide is a manufacturing capability, not a laboratory result, and it is a Phase I target rather than an eventual goal. If you have continuous coating capability, name the equipment and the rates you have run. If you do not, explain concretely how you get there in twelve months on $250,000, because a reviewer will ask.

‍ ‍

Answer the scale-versus-quality tension directly. The topic says direct casting scales but gives mechanically weak films with poor orientation, and that solubilizing groups block the pores you designed. Your process has to scale like the former while ordering like the latter. State the mechanism by which you get both, because that is the topic's central technical question.

‍ ‍

Walk all five defect categories. Point and stacking defects within crystals, stacking defects between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination, and crystallite size distribution. For each, say how it forms, how you measure it, and how the process controls it. Most proposals will address pinholes and thickness uniformity and stop.

‍ ‍

Say how you measure perpendicular orientation. It is the defining requirement in the title and objective, and it is hard to characterize in a thin film. Grazing-incidence X-ray scattering, polarized spectroscopy, cross-sectional microscopy, or transport measurement through the membrane are all defensible. Name the method and its resolution rather than asserting the result.

‍ ‍

Address flaw tolerance alongside long range order. The topic asks for both, and they conflict: a perfectly ordered film propagates a crack, while a flaw-tolerant film has some arresting mechanism. Naming that mechanism, whether crystallite size distribution, interlayer sliding, or a compliant secondary phase, shows you understand the material as an ensemble rather than an ideal crystal.

‍ ‍

Bring the manufacturing literature yourself. All three cited references are chemistry, and the topic itself says new engineering approaches are needed. Coating fluid mechanics, web handling, drying and solvent removal, and in-line metrology all belong in your Related Work, and that is where the small business half of the partnership should look strongest.

‍ ‍

Propose a proxy metric early. Phase II says proxy measurement techniques may be developed to rapidly assess ordering and alignment, which is an in-line quality control requirement in disguise. Sketching one in Phase I addresses a Phase II need ahead of schedule and signals manufacturing seriousness.

‍ ‍

Choose your monomer chemistry deliberately and say why. The topic says films are made from predefined monomer building blocks and that the process must consider monomer composition. Monomer selection is part of your process design, and connecting a specific chemistry to a specific alignment mechanism is stronger than treating the monomer as given.

‍ ‍

Lead the commercialization case with critical mineral recovery and water. The Critical Technology Area is Contested Logistics Technologies, not Advanced Materials alone. Nanofiltration membranes and battery separators are bigger markets, but a deployable membrane that recovers critical minerals or purifies water in an austere setting is the framing that connects a polymer film to the stated priority.

‍ ‍

Use the permitted modeling latitude. The topic explicitly allows computational modeling or experimental studies for the defect and structure-property work. At this budget, pairing a modest continuous-coating demonstration with modeling that establishes the needed domain size, alignment, and interaction levels is more achievable than funding both a full process build and a full characterization campaign.

‍ ‍

Write the transition narrative as a real plan, not a paragraph. This program exists to move academic discoveries into small businesses. Whose discovery, moving how, through what mechanism, with what people, and what does the small business own afterward. That narrative is a program requirement and it is where the S&T Foundations mission lives.

‍ ‍

Put key personnel forward. Qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization potential. On a basic research transition topic, naming the people who actually did the underlying science is worth more proposal space than a market sizing exercise.

‍ ‍

Take the preliminary Phase II Plan seriously. The evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II, not just the Phase I studies. Fit it to the program's own structure of a base plus option, each 10 to 12 months and each up to $1,000,000, and make the product concrete.

‍ ‍

Front-load the Phase I schedule. The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months in and it is the only one. Whatever a Phase II reviewer needs to see must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.

‍ ‍

Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated, which is a harsher rule than most components apply, and it applies to a volume that must also contain the transition narrative and the Phase II Plan.

‍ ‍

Start the allocation of rights conversation now. A written agreement allocating intellectual property and follow-on rights is required upon selection. On a topic where the core science originates in a university laboratory, that negotiation determines whether you have a commercial product at the end. Do not leave it until award.

‍ ‍

Use the debriefing if you lose. A written debrief within 30 days of notification is available on request, and this program recurs. That is cheap, specific feedback most applicants never ask for.

OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV006: Room Temperature THz and Infrared Sensing Using a Non-Toxic, Supply-Chain Secure Material Platform

Quick Answer

OSW26TZ06-NV006 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The program moves discoveries out of university laboratories into small businesses, and this topic descends from Department of War Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative investments. The ask is a chip-scale oxychalcogenide film sensor that detects terahertz and infrared radiation at room temperature. The award must not exceed $250,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 15 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The problem statement is one of the sharpest in this release. Infrared sensing sits at an inflection point. The industry-standard mercury cadmium telluride requires bulky cryogenic cooling and is built on toxic, supply-chain-fragile elements, while uncooled microbolometers are limited to millisecond response times. That leaves unaddressed the regime of fast, uncooled, low size-weight-power-and-cost detection from the long-wave infrared through the terahertz, which hypersonic threat warning, proliferated drone platforms, and contested-spectrum operations now demand.

The proposed answer is oxychalcogenide films containing heavy elements, with Bi2O2Se and InBiSe3 named specifically. Two properties make them interesting. The response does not depend on an inter-band transition, so no cryogenic cooling is needed. And the mechanism is hot-electron rectification and photothermoelectrics, with hot electrons thermally decoupled from the lattice, which is what makes it fast. And they are composed of non-toxic, earth-abundant elements, which is where the supply-chain argument comes from.

One thing to flag before drafting: the topic's stated response-speed figures appear internally inconsistent, and that is worth a question to the government. Details are in their own section below.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV006

‍ ‍

Title: Design Of Room Temperature THz And Infrared Sensing Devices Using Non-Toxic, Supply-Chain Secure Material Platform

‍ ‍

Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program

‍ ‍

Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Phase I

‍ ‍

Award: must not exceed $250,000

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Areas: Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Advanced Materials, Microelectronics

‍ ‍

OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release

‍ ‍

Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level

‍ ‍

Material platform: oxychalcogenide thin films with strong spin-orbit coupling, with Bi2O2Se and InBiSe3 named

‍ ‍

Mechanism: hot-electron rectification and photothermoelectrics, thermally decoupled from the lattice of heavy elements, rather than inter-band transition

‍ ‍

Phase I benchmarks: responsivity approximately 0.5 A/W, noise-equivalent power approximately 0.1 pW per root hertz, and response speed on the millisecond scale, at room temperature

‍ ‍

Phase I demonstrations required: direct absorption in the long-wavelength infrared and antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz frequencies

‍ ‍

Phase II array target: approximately 8 by 8, for dual-band imaging at up to kilohertz rates

‍ ‍

Incumbents to benchmark against: cooled mercury cadmium telluride and uncooled microbolometers

‍ ‍

Prior investment: Department of War Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative funding has already enabled development of high-mobility chalcogenide films and their characterization via optical and terahertz spectroscopy

‍ ‍

Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected

‍ ‍

Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: room temperature THz detection, low SWaP-C, supply chain fragility, high speed electronics, THz infrared sensing, long-wavelength infrared, oxychalcogenide films, THz spectroscopy

‍ ‍

What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write

‍ ‍

The S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs, and it is stated plainly.

‍ ‍

The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.

‍ ‍

The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.

‍ ‍

The consequence for your technical volume

‍ ‍

In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.

‍ ‍

The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Both must be included within the 15-page limit.

‍ ‍

So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget before you draft.

‍ ‍

What the Topic Is Actually Asking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Design a chip-scale oxychalcogenide film based room temperature terahertz and infrared sensor, on a non-toxic, supply-chain-secure material platform.

‍ ‍

Three constraints in one sentence: chip-scale, room temperature, and a material platform chosen partly for supply chain reasons. The third is unusual in a basic research topic and it is a real evaluation dimension, not decoration.

‍ ‍

The gap in the state of the art

‍ ‍

Infrared sensing sits at an inflection point. The industry-standard mercury cadmium telluride requires bulky cryogenic cooling and is built on toxic, supply-chain-fragile elements, while uncooled microbolometers are limited to millisecond response times.

‍ ‍

This leaves unaddressed the regime of fast, uncooled, low size-weight-power-and-cost detection from the long-wave infrared through the terahertz, which hypersonic threat warning, proliferated drone platforms, and contested-spectrum operations now demand.

‍ ‍

That is a well-drawn gap and you should use its structure. Two incumbents, each failing for a different reason. MCT is fast and sensitive but needs a cryocooler and depends on mercury and cadmium. Microbolometers are uncooled and cheap but slow. The unserved regime is fast plus uncooled plus small, extending past long-wave infrared into terahertz.

‍ ‍

The mechanism, and why it avoids cryogenics

‍ ‍

Recently, new mechanisms have emerged that can fill this technical gap. Oxychalcogenide films containing heavy elements have characteristic responses in the terahertz range and can enable detection responses in the terahertz and far-infrared spectral regions through hot-electron rectification and photothermoelectrics, thermally decoupled from the lattice of heavy elements.

‍ ‍

Notably, these phenomena do not require cryogenic cooling like the mercury cadmium telluride system because the signal is not based on an inter-band transition, and the response is driven by hot electrons decoupled from the lattice.

‍ ‍

Moreover, these materials, such as Bi2O2Se and InBiSe3, are composed of non-toxic, earth-abundant elements, and are supply-chain-secure material platforms.

‍ ‍

The physical argument is worth understanding because it is the whole basis of the topic. Cryogenic cooling in an MCT detector exists to suppress thermally generated carriers that would swamp a narrow-bandgap inter-band signal. If your signal does not come from an inter-band transition at all, that noise source is not the limiting one, and the cooling requirement goes away. Hot-electron detection instead relies on electrons heated above the lattice temperature, which is both why it works uncooled and why it can be fast: the electron subsystem cools much faster than the lattice.

‍ ‍

The response speed inconsistency, which is worth a question

‍ ‍

The topic makes three statements about speed that do not fit together cleanly.

‍ ‍

Uncooled microbolometers are described as limited to millisecond response times, and this is presented as a limitation to be overcome.

‍ ‍

Oxychalcogenide films are said to enable millisecond-scale detection responses in the terahertz and far-infrared.

‍ ‍

And the mechanism is said to have a response orders of magnitude faster than that of room-temperature bolometers because it is driven by hot electrons decoupled from the lattice.

‍ ‍

Those cannot all be right at once. If the new mechanism is orders of magnitude faster than a millisecond bolometer, its response is in the microsecond or nanosecond range, not the millisecond range. The Phase I benchmark then compounds it by specifying response speed on the millisecond scale, which matches the incumbent the topic says is too slow.

‍ ‍

The physics favors the "orders of magnitude faster" claim, since hot-electron relaxation times are typically picoseconds to nanoseconds and the whole point of decoupling electrons from the lattice is to escape the thermal time constant that limits bolometers. The most likely reading is that the millisecond figures are drafting artifacts.

‍ ‍

Send this to DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes on October 7. In the meantime, the defensible approach is to state your target response time explicitly with the physics that sets it, report it against both readings, and note that you are doing so because the topic's stated figures are inconsistent. Also address the topic's own later statement that the mechanism is fast enough to detect millisecond transients such as laser pulses and hypersonic signatures that slow uncooled microbolometers wash out, which is the operational requirement underneath the numbers.

‍ ‍

Why the Department is funding this now

‍ ‍

Department of War investments through the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative have already enabled the development of high-mobility chalcogenide films and their characterization via optical and terahertz spectroscopy.

‍ ‍

Building on this, oxychalcogenide films can serve as room-temperature detectors offering uncooled, chip-scale access to the jam-free terahertz and far-infrared bands, a regime current sensor technologies cannot reach without cryogenic cooling, and will directly advance Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance.

‍ ‍

Moreover, the hot-electron mechanism is fast, which allows detection of transients such as laser pulses and hypersonic signatures that slow uncooled microbolometers wash out.

‍ ‍

Note "jam-free." Terahertz and far-infrared bands are not congested with communications or jamming energy the way the microwave spectrum is, which is a contested-spectrum argument for pushing detection to those wavelengths. That framing connects the material science to the Critical Technology Area, and it is worth carrying into your proposal.

‍ ‍

The MURI provenance is again your transition narrative. Identify the MURI, the group, and the people who made those high-mobility films.

‍ ‍

Phase I Requirements

‍ ‍

Synthesis of oxychalcogenide thin film materials with strong spin-orbit coupling that can detect terahertz and long-wave infrared signals at room temperature.

‍ ‍

Demonstration of direct absorption in the long-wavelength infrared and antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz frequencies.

‍ ‍

These are to be benchmarked by responsivity of approximately 0.5 A/W, noise-equivalent power of approximately 0.1 pW per root hertz, and response speed on the millisecond scale, at room temperature.

‍ ‍

These results should anchor an electromagnetic and thermal design of an integrated dual-band terahertz and long-wave infrared pixel.

‍ ‍

Reading this scope

‍ ‍

Four deliverables, and unusually for this release, Phase I involves actual material synthesis and measurement rather than design alone.

‍ ‍

Synthesis, with a named material property requirement: strong spin-orbit coupling. That is not decoration. Heavy-element oxychalcogenides have strong spin-orbit coupling, and it is connected to the terahertz response and to the topological character several of the cited references explore.

‍ ‍

Two distinct detection demonstrations with different physics. Direct absorption in the long-wave infrared, meaning the film itself absorbs. And antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz, meaning an antenna captures the field and the film rectifies it. Those are different device architectures on the same material, and a proposal that treats them as one thing has missed the requirement.

‍ ‍

Three quantitative benchmarks. Responsivity around 0.5 amperes per watt and noise-equivalent power around 0.1 picowatts per root hertz are both specific and checkable, and both are respectable for a room-temperature detector. Note the word "approximately" on all three, which gives you some latitude, and note the speed ambiguity discussed above.

‍ ‍

An electromagnetic and thermal design of an integrated dual-band pixel. That is the design deliverable the measurements feed, and it is what makes Phase II possible. Dual-band means one pixel serving both terahertz and long-wave infrared, which is a genuinely hard co-design problem: the antenna that couples terahertz efficiently is large compared to a long-wave infrared absorber, and the thermal design has to serve both.

‍ ‍

Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes

‍ ‍

Phase II

‍ ‍

Fabricate and validate the dual-band pixels, while adding quarter-wave cavity enhancement to the long-wave infrared channel and demonstrating simultaneous, low-crosstalk two-band readout.

‍ ‍

Refine multilayer architectures and investigate the feasibility of even higher-mobility layers and quantum wells.

‍ ‍

Scale to a small-format array of approximately 8 by 8 for as high as kilohertz-rate dual-band imaging of test scenes.

‍ ‍

Deliver a size-weight-power-and-cost and manufacturability assessment benchmarked against cooled mercury cadmium telluride and microbolometer incumbents.

‍ ‍

Four items, each concrete. Quarter-wave cavity enhancement is a standard infrared absorber technique and its inclusion tells you the topic author knows detector engineering. Low-crosstalk two-band readout is the hard part of dual-band operation and it is called out explicitly. An 8 by 8 array is deliberately modest, which is appropriate for a first array of a novel material. And the SWaP-C and manufacturability assessment against both incumbents is the commercialization argument in measurable form.

‍ ‍

Note "kilohertz-rate dual-band imaging." A kilohertz frame rate is far beyond microbolometer capability and is the operational payoff of the fast mechanism. That figure also supports the reading that the intended detector response is much faster than a millisecond.

‍ ‍

Phase III

‍ ‍

Terahertz and infrared sensing devices operating at room temperature represent a critical dual-use technology. By eliminating the need for bulky, power-intensive cryogenic cooling systems, these sensors enable highly portable, lightweight, and low-cost systems.

‍ ‍

The topic names two dual-use features specifically.

‍ ‍

A fast uncooled oxychalcogenide focal plane enables short-range terahertz and infrared inspection of packages, vehicles, and surfaces, penetrating clothing, packaging, and dielectric coatings to reveal concealed weapons or contraband while keeping the operator at a safe standoff distance.

‍ ‍

The same long-wavelength response allows the sensor to see through smoke, dust, and brownout obscurants, and makes a drone-borne payload effective in degraded visual environments where electro-optical and shortwave infrared imagers fail.

‍ ‍

Both are strong commercial stories. Security screening is an existing market with a known terahertz interest and a known cost barrier, and the obscurant penetration case connects directly to rotorcraft brownout and to the proliferated drone platforms named in the problem statement.

‍ ‍

The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights

‍ ‍

This is an STTR, so a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.

‍ ‍

If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.

‍ ‍

What the split looks like on this topic

‍ ‍

The natural division is clear. The research institution owns the film synthesis, the spin-orbit coupling and transport physics, and the optical and terahertz spectroscopy characterization, since that is where the MURI-funded capability and the instrumentation live. The small business owns the device architecture, the antenna design for terahertz coupling, the quarter-wave cavity and multilayer engineering, the readout electronics, the array packaging, and the SWaP-C and manufacturability assessment against MCT and microbolometer incumbents.

‍ ‍

Because the topic explicitly credits MURI investments with enabling the high-mobility chalcogenide films and their spectroscopic characterization, the institution's contribution is central rather than supporting, which makes a 30 percent share straightforward to justify.

‍ ‍

Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now

‍ ‍

This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.

‍ ‍

The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.

‍ ‍

This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

Why this changes your Phase I plan

‍ ‍

The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.

‍ ‍

Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.

‍ ‍

Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.

‍ ‍

The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate

‍ ‍

The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work

‍ ‍

Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.

‍ ‍

With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.

‍ ‍

All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, manufacturing and foundry transition consulting is the standout use, since the Phase II deliverable includes a manufacturability assessment benchmarked against two mature incumbent technologies. Intellectual property counsel is a close second, given MURI-derived material IP and a required allocation of rights agreement.

‍ ‍

The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated

‍ ‍

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.

‍ ‍

Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance

‍ ‍

This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.

‍ ‍

Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.

‍ ‍

Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.

‍ ‍

Notification and debriefings

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.

‍ ‍

Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.

‍ ‍

The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.

‍ ‍

Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.

‍ ‍

Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.

‍ ‍

The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.

‍ ‍

Questions

‍ ‍

Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Six, split cleanly into two groups of three, and the split tells you what the topic expects you to know.

‍ ‍

The first three are the topic's own physics lineage, from the terahertz spectroscopy and topological materials side.

‍ ‍

Romero III, Ralph, and colleagues, "Planckian scattering and parallel conduction channels in an iron chalcogenide superconductor," Nature Physics, 2026.

‍ ‍

Mekonen, Sirak M., and colleagues, "Coupled metamaterial-phonon terahertz range polaritons in a topological insulator," ACS Photonics 11.6, 2242 to 2246, 2024.

‍ ‍

Tagay, Zhenisbek, and colleagues, "Electrodynamics of the quantum anomalous Hall state in a magnetically doped topological insulator," Physical Review B 110.24, L241106, 2024.

‍ ‍

These are the MURI-derived work the topic refers to when it says Department investments enabled high-mobility chalcogenide films and their characterization via optical and terahertz spectroscopy. Note that all three are spectroscopy and fundamental physics papers, not device papers.

‍ ‍

The second three are the device precedents in the specific materials named.

‍ ‍

Chen and colleagues, "Broadband Bi2O2Se photodetectors from infrared to terahertz," Advanced Functional Materials 31.14, 2009554, 2021.

‍ ‍

Chen, Hang, and colleagues, "Broadband InBiSe3 alloy photoelectric detector from visible to terahertz," AIP Advances 14.3, 035324, 2024.

‍ ‍

Ding, Xiang, and colleagues, "Bi2O2Se: A rising star for semiconductor devices," Matter 5.12, 4274 to 4314, 2022.

‍ ‍

These are where your device performance baseline comes from. The two Chen papers are the closest published analogues to what you are proposing, and the Ding review is the survey of Bi2O2Se as a device material. Read all three and position your responsivity, noise-equivalent power, and response speed against their reported values, because a reviewer will.

‍ ‍

The asymmetry between the two groups is informative. The physics is well developed and Department funded. The device demonstrations exist but are broadband single-pixel detectors, not dual-band pixels in arrays. That gap between spectroscopy and a focal plane is exactly the transition this program funds.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record

‍ ‍

Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV006?

‍ ‍

OSW26TZ06-NV006 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Design Of Room Temperature THz And Infrared Sensing Devices Using Non-Toxic, Supply-Chain Secure Material Platform," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to design a chip-scale oxychalcogenide film based room temperature terahertz and infrared sensor.

‍ ‍

What gap in the state of the art does this address?

‍ ‍

Mercury cadmium telluride, the industry standard, requires bulky cryogenic cooling and is built on toxic, supply-chain-fragile elements. Uncooled microbolometers are limited to millisecond response times. That leaves unaddressed the regime of fast, uncooled, low size-weight-power-and-cost detection from the long-wave infrared through the terahertz, which the topic says hypersonic threat warning, proliferated drone platforms, and contested-spectrum operations now demand.

‍ ‍

Why does this material not need cryogenic cooling?

‍ ‍

Because the signal is not based on an inter-band transition. Cryogenic cooling in an MCT detector suppresses thermally generated carriers that would swamp a narrow-bandgap inter-band signal. The oxychalcogenide mechanism is hot-electron rectification and photothermoelectrics, with hot electrons thermally decoupled from the lattice of heavy elements, so that noise source is not limiting.

‍ ‍

Which materials are named?

‍ ‍

Bi2O2Se and InBiSe3, described as composed of non-toxic, earth-abundant elements and as supply-chain-secure material platforms. Phase I requires oxychalcogenide thin films with strong spin-orbit coupling.

‍ ‍

The topic's response-speed numbers seem inconsistent. Are they?

‍ ‍

They do not fit together. The topic says microbolometers are limited to millisecond response times and presents that as the limitation, says oxychalcogenide films enable millisecond-scale responses, and says the mechanism is orders of magnitude faster than room-temperature bolometers. The Phase I benchmark then specifies response speed on the millisecond scale. The physics favors the faster claim, since hot-electron relaxation is typically picoseconds to nanoseconds, and Phase II calls for kilohertz-rate imaging. Raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A before October 7, and in the proposal state your target with the physics that sets it while noting the discrepancy.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase I benchmarks?

‍ ‍

Responsivity of approximately 0.5 amperes per watt, noise-equivalent power of approximately 0.1 picowatts per root hertz, and response speed on the millisecond scale, all at room temperature. Note that all three carry the word approximately.

‍ ‍

What must Phase I demonstrate?

‍ ‍

Synthesis of oxychalcogenide thin films with strong spin-orbit coupling that can detect terahertz and long-wave infrared at room temperature. Demonstration of direct absorption in the long-wavelength infrared and antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz frequencies, against the stated benchmarks. And these results should anchor an electromagnetic and thermal design of an integrated dual-band terahertz and long-wave infrared pixel.

‍ ‍

Are the two detection demonstrations the same thing?

‍ ‍

No. Direct absorption in the long-wave infrared means the film itself absorbs. Antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz means an antenna captures the field and the film rectifies it. Those are different device architectures on the same material and both are required.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II require?

‍ ‍

Fabricate and validate the dual-band pixels, add quarter-wave cavity enhancement to the long-wave infrared channel, and demonstrate simultaneous low-crosstalk two-band readout. Refine multilayer architectures and investigate higher-mobility layers and quantum wells. Scale to an approximately 8 by 8 array for up to kilohertz-rate dual-band imaging of test scenes. And deliver a size-weight-power-and-cost and manufacturability assessment benchmarked against cooled MCT and microbolometer incumbents.

‍ ‍

What is the hardest part of the dual-band design?

‍ ‍

Putting a terahertz antenna and a long-wave infrared absorber in the same pixel with low crosstalk. The antenna that couples terahertz efficiently is large relative to a long-wave infrared absorber with a quarter-wave cavity, and the thermal design has to serve both. The Phase I deliverable is precisely the electromagnetic and thermal design that resolves it.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase III applications?

‍ ‍

Short-range terahertz and infrared inspection of packages, vehicles, and surfaces, penetrating clothing, packaging, and dielectric coatings to reveal concealed weapons or contraband at safe standoff. And seeing through smoke, dust, and brownout obscurants, making a drone-borne payload effective in degraded visual environments where electro-optical and shortwave infrared imagers fail.

‍ ‍

Is this MURI-derived work?

‍ ‍

Yes. The topic states that Department of War investments through the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative have already enabled the development of high-mobility chalcogenide films and their characterization via optical and terahertz spectroscopy.

‍ ‍

Why does the topic call the terahertz band jam-free?

‍ ‍

Because the terahertz and far-infrared bands are not congested with communications or jamming energy the way the microwave spectrum is. That is a contested-spectrum argument for pushing detection to those wavelengths, and it connects the materials work to the Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance Critical Technology Area.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

Not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated, which is stricter than simply disregarding the extra pages. The transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both count inside that limit.

‍ ‍

What extra content does this program require in the technical volume?

‍ ‍

Two things beyond the standard DoW STTR Phase I content. A narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity. And a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II. Both must fit inside the 15 pages.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is an STTR, which requires a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares of at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the institution per the DoW STTR Program solicitation. If selected, you must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and the research institution allocating intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization, using the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

How does the Phase II submission window work?

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and all Phase I awardees are eligible. A 30-day submission window is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, with details provided by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office. This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics, and proposals received outside the established window will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

What does that mean for how I plan Phase I?

‍ ‍

You will be writing the Phase II proposal on partial Phase I results, six to nine months into a twelve-month effort. Front-load the work so your most persuasive results land early. The program also says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, so establish that relationship early in performance.

‍ ‍

How is Phase II funded?

‍ ‍

A 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

How are proposals evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the DoW solicitation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach first, then qualifications of key personnel, then commercialization potential. The evaluation includes an assessment not only of the Phase I feasibility studies but of the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II. Only Government personnel evaluate proposals, except personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance.

‍ ‍

Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?

‍ ‍

No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in it will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?

‍ ‍

Yes. Deviations from the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program BAA are not permitted. With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, model the arithmetic before finalizing the subaward.

‍ ‍

What CMMC level applies?

‍ ‍

The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.

‍ ‍

Is this work classified?

‍ ‍

No. Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level, and no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic or on any of the seven topics in this release.

‍ ‍

Can I employ foreign nationals?

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. The unclassified expectation makes this program more compatible with an open university research environment than several other components in this cycle.

‍ ‍

Can I request a debriefing if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official within 30 days of receipt of the request. Oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.

‍ ‍

When will I hear back, and who is notified?

‍ ‍

Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Ask about the response-speed inconsistency, and handle it transparently. The topic says bolometers are limited to milliseconds, says this mechanism is orders of magnitude faster, and then benchmarks Phase I at milliseconds. Raise it in Topic Q&A before October 7. In the proposal, state your target response time with the physics that sets it, address both readings, and note the discrepancy. Silently picking whichever number suits you is riskier than showing you read carefully.

‍ ‍

Treat the two detection demonstrations as two devices. Direct absorption in the long-wave infrared and antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz are different architectures. A proposal that describes one film and one measurement has answered half the Phase I requirement.

‍ ‍

Design the dual-band pixel co-design problem explicitly. A terahertz antenna is large; a long-wave infrared absorber with a quarter-wave cavity is thin and small. Putting both in one pixel with low crosstalk is the real engineering challenge, and the Phase I deliverable is precisely the electromagnetic and thermal design that solves it. Show the geometry.

‍ ‍

Take the supply chain claim seriously as a scored argument. The topic put non-toxic and supply-chain-secure in the title. Name the constituent elements, their crustal abundance and sourcing, and contrast explicitly with mercury, cadmium, and tellurium. That is a real evaluation dimension and it costs you a paragraph.

‍ ‍

Benchmark against both incumbents on their own terms. Cooled MCT wins on sensitivity and pays in cryogenics and toxicity. Microbolometers win on cost and pay in speed. Put your numbers next to theirs on responsivity, noise-equivalent power, speed, operating temperature, and cost, and let the unserved regime emerge from the table rather than asserting it.

‍ ‍

Use the jam-free spectrum argument. The topic calls the terahertz and far-infrared bands jam-free, which connects a materials result to contested-spectrum operations and to the Critical Technology Area. Most proposals will lead with detector figures of merit and miss the operational framing that the government itself supplied.

‍ ‍

Anchor to the two published device papers. The Chen Bi2O2Se and InBiSe3 detector papers are the closest prior art to your device, and the reviewer will know them. State what your responsivity, noise-equivalent power, and speed are relative to theirs, and what you add.

‍ ‍

Claim the MURI lineage explicitly. The topic credits Department MURI investment with the high-mobility films and their spectroscopic characterization. Naming that program, that group, and those people is the transition narrative this program exists to fund.

‍ ‍

Address spin-orbit coupling as a requirement, not a property. Phase I calls for films with strong spin-orbit coupling specifically. Say why your material has it, how you verify it, and how it connects to the terahertz response you are claiming.

‍ ‍

Write the transition narrative as a real plan, not a paragraph. This program exists to move academic discoveries into small businesses. Whose discovery, moving how, through what mechanism, with what people, and what does the small business own afterward. That narrative is a program requirement and it is where the S&T Foundations mission lives.

‍ ‍

Put key personnel forward. Qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization potential. On a basic research transition topic, naming the people who actually did the underlying science is worth more proposal space than a market sizing exercise.

‍ ‍

Take the preliminary Phase II Plan seriously. The evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II, not just the Phase I studies. Fit it to the program's own structure of a base plus option, each 10 to 12 months and each up to $1,000,000, and make the product concrete.

‍ ‍

Front-load the Phase I schedule. The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months in and it is the only one. Whatever a Phase II reviewer needs to see must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.

‍ ‍

Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated, which is a harsher rule than most components apply, and it applies to a volume that must also contain the transition narrative and the Phase II Plan.

‍ ‍

Start the allocation of rights conversation now. A written agreement allocating intellectual property and follow-on rights is required upon selection. On a topic where the core science originates in a university laboratory, that negotiation determines whether you have a commercial product at the end. Do not leave it until award.

‍ ‍

Use the debriefing if you lose. A written debrief within 30 days of notification is available on request, and this program recurs. That is cheap, specific feedback most applicants never ask for.

OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV005: Ultrafast Nonvolatile Memory Based on Sliding Ferroelectricity in Moire Polar Homostructures

Quick Answer

OSW26TZ06-NV005 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The program exists to move discoveries out of university laboratories and into small businesses, and this topic is a direct descendant of Department of War Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative investments. The ask is a nonvolatile memory built on sliding ferroelectricity in twisted van der Waals stacks. The award must not exceed $250,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 15 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The physics is specific and recent. Twisted stacks of van der Waals crystals can form moire superlattices with polar domains whose dipoles are antiferroelectrically aligned and controllable by applied electric fields. Sliding ferroelectricity arises from nanometer-scale interlayer sliding, coupling in-plane atomic displacement to out-of-plane polarization switching. The mechanism has been demonstrated in bilayer hexagonal boron nitride and in semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenides, where polarization reversal can occur with minimal energy dissipation.

The topic is candid about what it takes to compete. Advancement and prototype development requires combined multidisciplinary expertise in the design, fabrication, measurement, and modeling of lattice dynamics in twisted moire van der Waals structures, as well as charge transport and optoelectronics in van der Waals materials. That is four distinct competencies, and no single-discipline team has them.

Phase I is unusual in one respect worth noting early: it asks you to establish the performance targets rather than hit them. During Phase I, measurable indicators will be quantified to establish appropriate performance targets for Phases II and III and to enable benchmarking against existing nonvolatile memory technologies.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV005

‍ ‍

Title: Development of Ultrafast Nonvolatile Memory Based on Sliding Ferroelectricity in Moire Polar Homostructures

‍ ‍

Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program

‍ ‍

Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Phase I

‍ ‍

Award: must not exceed $250,000

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Areas: Advanced Materials, Microelectronics, Quantum Science

‍ ‍

OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release

‍ ‍

Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level

‍ ‍

Material systems named: bilayer hexagonal boron nitride and semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenides

‍ ‍

Readout platforms named: graphene field-effect transistors and transition-metal-dichalcogenide-based field-effect transistors

‍ ‍

Performance indicators to quantify in Phase I: switching speed, switching energy, endurance, retention, readout fidelity, device-to-device reproducibility, and scalability beyond single-device demonstrations

‍ ‍

Prior investment: Department of War Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative funding has already demonstrated twisted two-dimensional heterostructures advanced into atomically thin twistronic memory cell prototypes

‍ ‍

Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected

‍ ‍

Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: sliding ferroelectricity, moire superlattice, van der Waals materials, nonvolatile memory, twistronics, two-dimensional materials, ferroelectric domains, graphene field-effect transistor, transition metal dichalcogenides, low-power memory, high-endurance memory, polar homostructures

‍ ‍

What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write

‍ ‍

The S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs, and it is stated plainly.

‍ ‍

The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.

‍ ‍

The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.

‍ ‍

The consequence for your technical volume

‍ ‍

In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.

‍ ‍

The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Both must be included within the 15-page limit.

‍ ‍

So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget before you draft.

‍ ‍

What the Topic Is Actually Asking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Develop ultrafast, high-endurance, nonvolatile memory technology based on sliding ferroelectricity in polar moire van der Waals homostructures.

‍ ‍

Note the word homostructures. A homostructure is the same material twisted against itself, as opposed to a heterostructure stacking different materials. That distinction is in the title and the objective, and it matters: twisted bilayer hexagonal boron nitride is a homostructure, and the moire polarity arises from the twist rather than from a chemical interface.

‍ ‍

The mechanism

‍ ‍

Twisted stacks of van der Waals crystals can form moire superlattices with polar domains whose dipoles are antiferroelectrically aligned and controllable by applied electric fields.

‍ ‍

Sliding ferroelectricity arises from nanometer-scale interlayer sliding in van der Waals materials, coupling in-plane atomic displacement to out-of-plane polarization switching.

‍ ‍

This mechanism has been demonstrated in bilayer hexagonal boron nitride and semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenides, where polarization reversal can occur with minimal energy dissipation.

‍ ‍

That last clause is the whole value proposition. Conventional ferroelectric switching moves ions through a lattice against substantial barriers. Sliding ferroelectricity moves one atomic plane laterally against a van der Waals gap, which is a far weaker restoring force. Minimal energy dissipation per switch, and no chemical bond breaking, is what should give both the speed and the endurance the title promises.

‍ ‍

Why the Department is funding this now

‍ ‍

Recent Department of War investments through the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative have demonstrated advances in twisted two-dimensional heterostructures into atomically thin twistronic memory cell prototypes with potential advantages in speed, endurance, energy efficiency, and scalability.

‍ ‍

That sentence is your transition narrative handed to you. This is MURI-derived science, the program exists to move MURI-derived science into small businesses, and the topic says the prototypes already exist. Identify which MURI, which university group, and which people, and the required narrative on transitioning early academic research writes itself.

‍ ‍

The four required competencies

‍ ‍

The advancement and prototype development requires a combined multidisciplinary expertise in the design, fabrication, measurement, and modeling of lattice dynamics in twisted moire van der Waals structures, as well as charge transport and optoelectronics in van der Waals materials.

‍ ‍

Read that as a staffing requirement. Design and fabrication of twisted stacks, which is a specialized and largely manual craft. Measurement, including the electrical and optical characterization of nanoscale polar domains. Modeling of lattice dynamics, which is where the sliding physics lives. And charge transport and optoelectronics in van der Waals materials, which is what makes a readout work.

‍ ‍

Since qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, mapping named people onto these four competencies is one of the highest-value things you can do with your fifteen pages.

‍ ‍

The technical approach the topic wants

‍ ‍

The technical approach should exploit the atomically thin nature, low defect density, and strong in-plane bonding of van der Waals materials to develop sliding ferroelectric nonvolatile memory devices designed to outperform current memory technologies in speed, endurance, and scalability.

‍ ‍

Engineered nanoscale polar domains in moire superlattices will serve as nonvolatile memory cells based on local ferroelectricity.

‍ ‍

To demonstrate the electrical and optical readouts in the designed nonvolatile memory devices, the proposal should leverage the scalability and controllability features of well-established systems, such as graphene field-effect transistors and transition-metal-dichalcogenide-based field-effect transistors.

‍ ‍

Three material properties are named as the levers: atomically thin nature, low defect density, and strong in-plane bonding. Each maps to a memory metric. Atomically thin gives you scaling density. Low defect density gives you endurance and reproducibility. Strong in-plane bonding is what lets a layer slide laterally without the lattice degrading, which is the fatigue-resistance argument.

‍ ‍

And note the readout instruction. You are not asked to invent a readout. You are told to use graphene or TMD field-effect transistors because they are well established and scalable. Following that instruction is cheaper and more credible than proposing something novel on the readout side, and it lets your novelty stay concentrated in the memory cell.

‍ ‍

Phase I Requirements

‍ ‍

Demonstrate the feasibility of optimal moire superlattice design for fast and durable sliding ferroelectric domain reversal, including domain wall pinning strategies and nanostructured polar moire superlattice fabrication.

‍ ‍

Evaluate and analyze electrical and optical readout schemes using graphene field-effect transistors or transition-metal-dichalcogenide-based devices integrated with moire polar domain structures.

‍ ‍

Perform quantitative analysis of the switching behavior, retention, readout fidelity, speed, energy efficiency, and endurance indicators under optimal device operating conditions.

‍ ‍

The success of the project will be evaluated using measurable performance indicators, including switching speed, switching energy, endurance, retention, readout fidelity, device-to-device reproducibility, and scalability beyond single-device demonstrations. During Phase I, these values will be quantified to establish appropriate performance targets for Phases II and III and to enable benchmarking against existing nonvolatile memory technologies.

‍ ‍

Reading this scope carefully

‍ ‍

Three tasks and one measurement framework. The tasks are superlattice design including domain wall pinning, readout scheme evaluation on established FET platforms, and quantitative characterization.

‍ ‍

The measurement framework is the part worth dwelling on, because it is unusual. Seven indicators are named, and Phase I quantifies them in order to establish the targets for Phases II and III. You are not being asked to beat a specification. You are being asked to produce the specification, honestly, and to benchmark it against existing nonvolatile memory.

‍ ‍

That is an invitation to be rigorous rather than optimistic, and it changes how you should write. A proposal that promises specific Phase II numbers it cannot yet justify is answering a different question. A proposal that lays out exactly how each of the seven indicators will be measured, with what instruments, on what device geometry, and how the results will be compared against flash, magnetoresistive RAM, resistive RAM, and conventional ferroelectric FETs, is answering this one.

‍ ‍

Domain wall pinning, which is the technical crux

‍ ‍

Domain wall pinning strategies appear in the Phase I task list and again in Phase II, where the topic says particular attention must be paid to the atomic-scale configuration of the engineered sliding ferroelectric state and the role of domain-wall pinning for controllability.

‍ ‍

That repetition is a signal. In a moire superlattice, the polar domains are defined by the twist, and the domain walls between them are where switching happens. If the walls move freely, the state is not stable and retention fails. If they are pinned too strongly, switching costs energy and speed, and the endurance advantage evaporates. The engineering problem is controlled pinning: enough to hold a state, little enough to switch cheaply.

‍ ‍

A proposal with a specific, physically grounded pinning strategy, whether through nanostructured local gates, deliberate defect placement, strain engineering, or twist-angle gradients, is addressing the thing the topic names twice.

‍ ‍

Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes

‍ ‍

Phase II

‍ ‍

Develop integrated sliding-ferroelectric memory-device prototypes and array-level architectures for more practical use, focusing on systematic evaluation of memory operation benchmarks including endurance, switching speed, and energy efficiency under realistic operating conditions.

‍ ‍

Particular attention must be paid to address the atomic-scale configuration of the engineered sliding ferroelectric state and the role of domain-wall pinning for controllability.

‍ ‍

Address scaling and manufacturability beyond single-device demonstrations, aiming at initial demonstration of wafer-scale patterning of local gates, partitioning of van der Waals structures into individual memory cells, and device packaging of memory arrays.

‍ ‍

Finally, establish quantitative comparison against competing nonvolatile memory technologies by evaluating switching energy, achievable integration density, and intrinsic fatigue resistance for long-term device operation.

‍ ‍

The move from single devices to arrays is the hard part, and the topic names the three specific manufacturing problems: wafer-scale patterning of local gates, partitioning van der Waals structures into individual cells, and packaging. Twisted van der Waals stacks are famously made one at a time by hand, so a credible answer to wafer-scale anything is a substantial differentiator. Address it in the preliminary Phase II Plan even though it is not a Phase I task.

‍ ‍

Phase III

‍ ‍

Develop a high-speed memory device with low-power device operation, emphasizing energy-efficient memory for edge computing, high-density embedded memory, and robust architectures for defense-relevant electronics.

‍ ‍

Identify use cases where atomically thin, rapid, durable and low power switching will provide a demonstrable advantage over existing technology, and describe approaches to industrial adoption and system level integration. Relatively low-power and moderate-speed operation offered by the developed technology can provide added value to general purpose edge-computing applications.

‍ ‍

As performance metrics are established during Phases I and II, broader applications will be evaluated, including high-density embedded memory, neuromorphic and in-memory computing, reconfigurable logic, radiation-tolerant electronics, cryogenic control electronics, and memory components integrated with two-dimensional semiconductor platforms.

‍ ‍

Note the phrase "relatively low-power and moderate-speed operation." That is a notably honest hedge against the title's promise of ultrafast, and it tells you the government will accept a device that wins on energy rather than raw speed. Six broader applications are listed, and two of them, radiation-tolerant electronics and cryogenic control electronics, are defense-specific niches where an atomically thin ferroelectric could be genuinely differentiated rather than competing head-on with commercial memory.

‍ ‍

The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights

‍ ‍

This is an STTR, so a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.

‍ ‍

If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.

‍ ‍

What the split looks like on this topic

‍ ‍

The natural division follows the four named competencies. The research institution owns the twisted stack design and fabrication, the lattice dynamics modeling, and the nanoscale characterization of polar domains, since that is where twistronics expertise and the requisite instrumentation live. The small business owns the device integration onto graphene or TMD field-effect transistors, the electrical and optical readout engineering, the quantitative benchmarking against commercial memory, and the path toward wafer-scale processing.

‍ ‍

Because this topic descends directly from Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative work, the institution's contribution is substantive rather than nominal, which makes a 30 percent share easy to justify. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the specific instruments, and the tasks.

‍ ‍

Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now

‍ ‍

This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.

‍ ‍

The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.

‍ ‍

This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

Why this changes your Phase I plan

‍ ‍

The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.

‍ ‍

Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.

‍ ‍

Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.

‍ ‍

The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate

‍ ‍

The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work

‍ ‍

Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.

‍ ‍

With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.

‍ ‍

All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, intellectual property counsel is the standout use, because twisted van der Waals device architectures emerging from MURI-funded university work carry real IP complexity, and a required allocation of rights agreement makes getting the structure right early valuable. Semiconductor manufacturing and foundry transition consulting is a close second, given the wafer-scale patterning challenge in Phase II.

‍ ‍

The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated

‍ ‍

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.

‍ ‍

Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance

‍ ‍

This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.

‍ ‍

Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.

‍ ‍

Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.

‍ ‍

Notification and debriefings

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.

‍ ‍

Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.

‍ ‍

The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.

‍ ‍

Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.

‍ ‍

Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.

‍ ‍

The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.

‍ ‍

Questions

‍ ‍

Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Three, and they are the primary literature of this field rather than reviews. Read all three.

‍ ‍

Yasuda, Wang, Watanabe, Taniguchi, and Jarillo-Herrero, Science 372, 1458 to 1462, 2021. This is the stacking-order ferroelectricity result in twisted boron nitride and the foundation of the field.

‍ ‍

Ko, Yuk, Engelke, Carr, Kim, Park, Heo, Kim, Kim, Kim, Taniguchi, Watanabe, Park, Kaxiras, Yang, Kim, and Yoo, Nature Materials 22, 992 to 998, 2023. The twenty-author list is itself informative: this is the multidisciplinary collaboration the topic describes when it says advancement requires combined expertise across design, fabrication, measurement, and modeling.

‍ ‍

Yasuda, Zalys-Geller, Wang, Bennett, Cheema, Watanabe, Taniguchi, Kaxiras, Jarillo-Herrero, and Ashoori, Science 385, 53 to 56, 2024. The most recent of the three and the closest to a memory device demonstration.

‍ ‍

The pattern is worth noticing. Three high-impact papers from 2021, 2023, and 2024, with substantial author overlap, from the groups the Department has been funding. If your research institution partner is one of those groups, say so plainly. If it is not, you need a clear account of why your team can compete with them, because a reviewer will be comparing you to the authors of these papers.

‍ ‍

Bring your own literature on the memory engineering side. The topic gives you no citations for endurance testing methodology, array architecture, or benchmarking against commercial nonvolatile memory, and the DoW STTR Phase I content requirements expect you to demonstrate awareness of the state of the art.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record

‍ ‍

Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV005?

‍ ‍

OSW26TZ06-NV005 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Development of Ultrafast Nonvolatile Memory Based on Sliding Ferroelectricity in Moire Polar Homostructures," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop ultrafast, high-endurance, nonvolatile memory technology based on sliding ferroelectricity in polar moire van der Waals homostructures.

‍ ‍

What is sliding ferroelectricity?

‍ ‍

Sliding ferroelectricity arises from nanometer-scale interlayer sliding in van der Waals materials, coupling in-plane atomic displacement to out-of-plane polarization switching. Twisted stacks of van der Waals crystals form moire superlattices with polar domains whose dipoles are antiferroelectrically aligned and controllable by applied electric fields. The topic notes that polarization reversal can occur with minimal energy dissipation, which is the core value proposition.

‍ ‍

Which materials has this been demonstrated in?

‍ ‍

The topic states the mechanism has been demonstrated in bilayer hexagonal boron nitride and semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenides.

‍ ‍

What expertise does the topic say I need?

‍ ‍

Combined multidisciplinary expertise in the design, fabrication, measurement, and modeling of lattice dynamics in twisted moire van der Waals structures, as well as charge transport and optoelectronics in van der Waals materials. That is four competencies, and since key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, mapping named people onto all four matters.

‍ ‍

What does Phase I have to accomplish?

‍ ‍

Demonstrate feasibility of optimal moire superlattice design for fast and durable sliding ferroelectric domain reversal, including domain wall pinning strategies and nanostructured polar moire superlattice fabrication. Evaluate and analyze electrical and optical readout schemes using graphene or TMD field-effect transistors integrated with moire polar domain structures. And perform quantitative analysis of switching behavior, retention, readout fidelity, speed, energy efficiency, and endurance indicators under optimal device operating conditions.

‍ ‍

What performance targets must I hit in Phase I?

‍ ‍

None are specified, and that is deliberate. Seven measurable indicators are named, switching speed, switching energy, endurance, retention, readout fidelity, device-to-device reproducibility, and scalability beyond single-device demonstrations, and Phase I quantifies these values to establish appropriate performance targets for Phases II and III and to enable benchmarking against existing nonvolatile memory technologies. You are producing the specification, not meeting one.

‍ ‍

What readout should I use?

‍ ‍

The topic instructs proposers to leverage the scalability and controllability features of well-established systems such as graphene field-effect transistors and transition-metal-dichalcogenide-based field-effect transistors. Following that guidance keeps your novelty in the memory cell rather than adding risk on the readout side.

‍ ‍

Why does domain wall pinning matter so much?

‍ ‍

It appears in both the Phase I and Phase II task lists, and Phase II says particular attention must be paid to the atomic-scale configuration of the engineered sliding ferroelectric state and the role of domain-wall pinning for controllability. Physically, freely moving walls mean poor retention, while strongly pinned walls mean expensive slow switching. Controlled pinning is the engineering crux.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II require?

‍ ‍

Integrated sliding-ferroelectric memory-device prototypes and array-level architectures, with systematic evaluation of endurance, switching speed, and energy efficiency under realistic operating conditions. It must address the atomic-scale configuration and domain-wall pinning, address scaling and manufacturability including initial demonstration of wafer-scale patterning of local gates, partitioning of van der Waals structures into individual memory cells, and device packaging of memory arrays, and establish quantitative comparison against competing nonvolatile memory technologies on switching energy, integration density, and intrinsic fatigue resistance.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase III applications?

‍ ‍

Energy-efficient memory for edge computing, high-density embedded memory, and robust architectures for defense-relevant electronics. As metrics are established, broader applications include neuromorphic and in-memory computing, reconfigurable logic, radiation-tolerant electronics, cryogenic control electronics, and memory integrated with two-dimensional semiconductor platforms. The topic notes the technology may offer relatively low-power and moderate-speed operation, which is a candid hedge worth reading.

‍ ‍

Is this MURI-derived work?

‍ ‍

Yes. The topic states that recent Department of War investments through the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative have demonstrated advances in twisted two-dimensional heterostructures into atomically thin twistronic memory cell prototypes with potential advantages in speed, endurance, energy efficiency, and scalability. That provenance is the transition narrative this program exists to fund.

‍ ‍

What is a homostructure, and why does the title use that word?

‍ ‍

A homostructure stacks the same material against itself, with the moire polarity arising from the twist rather than from a chemical interface between different materials. Twisted bilayer hexagonal boron nitride is the canonical example.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

Not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated, which is stricter than simply disregarding the extra pages. The transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both count inside that limit.

‍ ‍

What extra content does this program require in the technical volume?

‍ ‍

Two things beyond the standard DoW STTR Phase I content. A narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity. And a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II. Both must fit inside the 15 pages.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is an STTR, which requires a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares of at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the institution per the DoW STTR Program solicitation. If selected, you must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and the research institution allocating intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization, using the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

How does the Phase II submission window work?

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and all Phase I awardees are eligible. A 30-day submission window is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, with details provided by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office. This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics, and proposals received outside the established window will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

What does that mean for how I plan Phase I?

‍ ‍

You will be writing the Phase II proposal on partial Phase I results, six to nine months into a twelve-month effort. Front-load the work so your most persuasive results land early. The program also says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, so establish that relationship early in performance.

‍ ‍

How is Phase II funded?

‍ ‍

A 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

How are proposals evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the DoW solicitation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach first, then qualifications of key personnel, then commercialization potential. The evaluation includes an assessment not only of the Phase I feasibility studies but of the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II. Only Government personnel evaluate proposals, except personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance.

‍ ‍

Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?

‍ ‍

No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in it will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?

‍ ‍

Yes. Deviations from the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program BAA are not permitted. With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, model the arithmetic before finalizing the subaward.

‍ ‍

What CMMC level applies?

‍ ‍

The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.

‍ ‍

Is this work classified?

‍ ‍

No. Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level, and no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic or on any of the seven topics in this release.

‍ ‍

Can I employ foreign nationals?

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. The unclassified expectation makes this program more compatible with an open university research environment than several other components in this cycle.

‍ ‍

Can I request a debriefing if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official within 30 days of receipt of the request. Oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.

‍ ‍

When will I hear back, and who is notified?

‍ ‍

Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Map named people onto the four required competencies. The topic states that advancement requires combined expertise in design, fabrication, measurement, and modeling of lattice dynamics in twisted moire structures, plus charge transport and optoelectronics in van der Waals materials. That is a staffing test, key personnel is the second-ranked criterion, and a proposal that leaves one of the four uncovered has a visible hole.

‍ ‍

Give a specific domain wall pinning strategy. Pinning appears in both the Phase I and Phase II task lists, and it is the real engineering tension: enough pinning for retention, little enough for cheap fast switching. Nanostructured local gates, deliberate defect placement, strain engineering, or twist-angle gradients are all defensible answers. Hand-waving is not.

‍ ‍

Do not over-promise performance numbers. Phase I is explicitly about quantifying the seven indicators to establish the targets for Phases II and III. A proposal that asserts Phase II specifications it cannot yet justify is answering a different question than the one asked. Rigor about how you will measure beats optimism about what you will find.

‍ ‍

Use the readout platforms the topic names. Graphene and TMD field-effect transistors are specified because they are well established and scalable. Following that guidance keeps your novelty concentrated in the memory cell where it belongs, and inventing a new readout adds risk the topic did not ask you to take.

‍ ‍

Benchmark against real incumbents by name. The topic asks for quantitative comparison against competing nonvolatile memory technologies on switching energy, integration density, and intrinsic fatigue resistance. Name flash, magnetoresistive RAM, resistive RAM, and ferroelectric FETs, and put your projected numbers next to theirs.

‍ ‍

Say something credible about wafer scale. Twisted van der Waals stacks are made one at a time by hand, and Phase II asks for wafer-scale patterning of local gates, cell partitioning, and array packaging. Even a partial answer in the preliminary Phase II Plan differentiates you, because this is the barrier between a beautiful physics result and a memory product.

‍ ‍

Consider the niche applications, not just the mainstream. The Phase III list includes radiation-tolerant electronics and cryogenic control electronics alongside edge computing and embedded memory. Those niches are where an atomically thin ferroelectric can win without beating commercial memory on cost per bit, and the topic itself concedes the technology may deliver relatively low-power, moderate-speed operation rather than record speed.

‍ ‍

Claim the MURI lineage explicitly. The topic says Department of War MURI investments already produced atomically thin twistronic memory cell prototypes. Naming that program, that group, and those people is exactly the transition narrative this program was built to fund.

‍ ‍

Write the transition narrative as a real plan, not a paragraph. This program exists to move academic discoveries into small businesses. Whose discovery, moving how, through what mechanism, with what people, and what does the small business own afterward. That narrative is a program requirement and it is where the S&T Foundations mission lives.

‍ ‍

Put key personnel forward. Qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization potential. On a basic research transition topic, naming the people who actually did the underlying science is worth more proposal space than a market sizing exercise.

‍ ‍

Take the preliminary Phase II Plan seriously. The evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II, not just the Phase I studies. Fit it to the program's own structure of a base plus option, each 10 to 12 months and each up to $1,000,000, and make the product concrete.

‍ ‍

Front-load the Phase I schedule. The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months in and it is the only one. Whatever a Phase II reviewer needs to see must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.

‍ ‍

Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated, which is a harsher rule than most components apply, and it applies to a volume that must also contain the transition narrative and the Phase II Plan.

‍ ‍

Start the allocation of rights conversation now. A written agreement allocating intellectual property and follow-on rights is required upon selection. On a topic where the core science originates in a university laboratory, that negotiation determines whether you have a commercial product at the end. Do not leave it until award.

‍ ‍

Use the debriefing if you lose. A written debrief within 30 days of notification is available on request, and this program recurs. That is cheap, specific feedback most applicants never ask for.

OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV004: Telecom Band Geometric Amplifier

Quick Answer

OSW26TZ06-NV004 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The program exists to move discoveries out of university laboratories and into small businesses. This topic asks for a device that amplifies telecom-band laser light using geometric phase, also called Berry phase, rather than by pumping a gain medium. The award must not exceed $250,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 15 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The novelty here is genuine and the topic says so. Geometric amplification is a gain mechanism that has only been recently proposed, and to date it has only been demonstrated in the acoustic domain. Nobody has built one for light. The physics says you can: it can be realized using coupled resonators consisting only of linear, lossy components, so long as they can be modulated at a frequency comparable to the resonators' decay rate.

In the telecom domain the proposed realization is concrete. A pair of fiber loops including electrically tunable phase shifters modulated at roughly 1 MHz. The adiabatic evolution associated with that relatively slow modulation, together with the components' intrinsic loss, results in the accumulation of a geometric Berry phase whose complex part can be engineered to provide gain.

Phase I is a design study, not a build. Produce a complete design for a prototype based entirely on commercial off-the-shelf components, grounded in quantitative simulations that incorporate those components' specifications into the mathematical model of geometric amplification. That is an unusually clean and well-scoped 12-month effort.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV004

‍ ‍

Title: Telecom Band Geometric Amplifier

‍ ‍

Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program

‍ ‍

Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Phase I

‍ ‍

Award: must not exceed $250,000

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Areas: FutureG, Quantum Science

‍ ‍

OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release

‍ ‍

Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level

‍ ‍

Wavelength: telecom band, approximately 1,550 nanometers

‍ ‍

Modulation frequency: approximately 1 MHz

‍ ‍

Phase II performance floor: greater than 10 dB gain with bandwidth greater than 100 kHz

‍ ‍

Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected

‍ ‍

Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: telecom laser, optical amplification, geometric amplifier, Berry phase

‍ ‍

What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write

‍ ‍

This is worth understanding before drafting, because the S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs and it is stated plainly.

‍ ‍

The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.

‍ ‍

The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.

‍ ‍

The consequence for your technical volume

‍ ‍

In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.

‍ ‍

The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Both must be included within the 15-page limit.

‍ ‍

So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget accordingly.

‍ ‍

This topic is unusually well suited to that framing, because the foundational work is a 2025 arXiv preprint on complex Berry phase and steady-state geometric amplification in non-Hermitian systems. If your research institution partner includes an author of that work or a group working directly on it, the transition narrative writes itself. If not, say clearly whose early research you are transitioning and how.

‍ ‍

What the Topic Is Actually Asking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

The primary goal of this initiative is to design, build, and test a device that uses geometric phase, also known as Berry phase, to amplify laser light in the telecom band at a wavelength of approximately 1,550 nanometers. The device will use radio-frequency modulation of linear, lossy elements to produce optical amplification that outperforms existing technologies in parameter regimes of interest to the Department of War.

‍ ‍

Note the phrase "in parameter regimes of interest." The topic does not claim geometric amplification will beat erbium-doped fiber amplifiers or Raman amplifiers everywhere. It asks you to identify the regimes where it wins. That framing is an invitation, and answering it specifically is one of the strongest things you can do in this proposal.

‍ ‍

The state of the art, as the topic describes it

‍ ‍

Present-day devices for amplifying telecom laser light mostly produce gain by incoherently pumping a medium, optically or electrically, or by coherently pumping a nonlinear medium with a laser. Both approaches are technologically mature, and offer a range of performance tradeoffs.

‍ ‍

In contrast, geometric amplification is a gain mechanism that has only been recently proposed, and to date it has only been demonstrated in the acoustic domain. However, the principle of geometric amplification can be applied to any domain. It can be realized using coupled resonators consisting only of linear, lossy components, so long as they can be modulated at a frequency comparable to the resonators' decay rate.

‍ ‍

Two things in that paragraph matter. The mechanism has never been demonstrated optically, which is what makes this high-risk high-reward basic research rather than engineering. And the enabling condition is specific: modulation at a frequency comparable to the resonator decay rate. That condition is what makes fiber loops with roughly 1 MHz modulation the natural implementation, and it is the constraint your design has to satisfy.

‍ ‍

The proposed physical realization

‍ ‍

In the telecom domain, this can be accomplished using a pair of fiber loops that include electrically tunable phase shifters that can be modulated at approximately 1 MHz. The adiabatic evolution associated with this relatively slow modulation, together with the components' intrinsic loss, results in the accumulation of a geometric Berry phase whose complex part can be engineered to provide gain.

‍ ‍

The word "adiabatic" is doing real work. Adiabatic evolution means the modulation is slow compared to the system's internal dynamics, which is what allows the Berry phase description to hold. Getting that hierarchy of timescales right, modulation rate versus resonator decay rate versus optical round-trip time, is the design problem, and it is where a quantitative simulation earns its keep.

‍ ‍

Why the Department cares

‍ ‍

Geometric gain differs from existing forms of amplification in several respects, including that it achieves photon-number gain through radio-frequency modulation. This may offer practical advantages in terms of reduced device complexity, size, and power consumption.

‍ ‍

Read that as the value proposition. You are not pumping with a second laser and you are not doping a medium. You are modulating a phase shifter with an RF signal. If that works, the amplifier becomes simpler, smaller, and lower power, which are exactly the properties that matter for deployable photonic systems.

‍ ‍

The Component Technology Priority Areas of FutureG and Quantum Science, and the Critical Technology Area of Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance, tell you the intended application space: optical communications infrastructure and quantum-adjacent photonics. Added noise, which appears in the Phase II metric list, is the property that determines whether a quantum application is possible, so treat it as important even in Phase I.

‍ ‍

Phase I Requirements

‍ ‍

Produce a complete design for a prototype telecom-band geometric amplifier based entirely on commercial off-the-shelf components. The design should be based on quantitative simulations that incorporate the components' specifications into the mathematical model of geometric amplification.

‍ ‍

Reading this scope precisely

‍ ‍

Three constraints, and each one is a gift as much as a limitation.

‍ ‍

A complete design. Not a concept study, not a feasibility argument. A design a reviewer could hand to an engineer.

‍ ‍

Based entirely on commercial off-the-shelf components. This is the most consequential constraint and the most helpful one. It means you are not developing custom photonics in Phase I, and it means your design is verifiable: a reviewer can look up the datasheets. It also means the design space is bounded by what you can actually buy, which is where the real engineering judgment lies. Fiber loop length, coupler ratios, phase shifter modulation bandwidth and insertion loss, detector noise floor.

‍ ‍

Quantitative simulations that incorporate the components' specifications into the mathematical model of geometric amplification. Not an abstract model with idealized parameters. Real datasheet numbers fed into the theory. That is the specific deliverable, and it is what separates a strong proposal from a literature review with a block diagram.

‍ ‍

What a strong Phase I plan looks like

‍ ‍

Build the mathematical model from the cited literature, specifically the non-Hermitian complex Berry phase framework, and state it explicitly rather than by reference.

‍ ‍

Identify the component set with named parts and datasheet specifications: fiber, couplers, electrically tunable phase shifters with their modulation bandwidth and insertion loss, circulators or isolators, and detection.

‍ ‍

Map the parameter space and show where gain exists. The condition is modulation at a frequency comparable to the resonator decay rate, so sweep that ratio and show the gain surface.

‍ ‍

Predict the Phase II metrics from the simulation: gain, bandwidth, power consumption, added noise, and harmonic distortion. Phase II requires greater than 10 dB gain with bandwidth greater than 100 kHz, so your Phase I simulation should show whether the COTS design reaches that and, if not, what would need to change.

‍ ‍

Quantify the added noise. Every amplifier adds noise, and a novel gain mechanism's noise properties are not obvious. This is the question a physicist reviewer will ask first, and the one most likely to be underdeveloped in competing proposals.

‍ ‍

Identify the parameter regimes where geometric amplification beats the incumbents, since the objective explicitly frames the goal that way.

‍ ‍

One caution on scope discipline

‍ ‍

The topic says design, and $250,000 over 12 months does not fund a build. A proposal that promises a working demonstration in Phase I is not more competitive, it is less credible against a topic that asked for a design. Where you have existing hardware or prior experimental results to cite as supporting evidence, cite them, but do not restructure Phase I around building.

‍ ‍

Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes

‍ ‍

Phase II

‍ ‍

Optimize the geometric amplifier prototype of Phase I with respect to the following performance metrics: gain, bandwidth, power consumption, added noise, and harmonic distortion. At minimum, the device should exhibit greater than 10 dB gain with bandwidth greater than 100 kHz.

‍ ‍

Five metrics, two with hard floors. Note that Phase II says "optimize the prototype of Phase I," which implies the build happens in Phase II, consistent with Phase I being a design effort.

‍ ‍

Ten decibels of gain and 100 kilohertz of bandwidth are modest against a commercial erbium-doped fiber amplifier, which is the point. The topic is not asking you to beat EDFAs on gain-bandwidth product. It is asking you to demonstrate that the mechanism works optically at a useful level, and then to find the regimes where its other properties, complexity, size, and power, make it preferable.

‍ ‍

The bandwidth figure is worth thinking about now. Modulation at roughly 1 MHz and an amplification bandwidth greater than 100 kHz are related quantities in this architecture, so your Phase I simulation should make the relationship explicit and show what sets the bandwidth ceiling.

‍ ‍

Note also the program's Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base not to exceed $1,000,000 and a 10 to 12 month option not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire effort not exceeding $2,000,000. Your preliminary Phase II Plan, which is a required part of the Phase I technical volume, should fit that structure.

‍ ‍

Phase III

‍ ‍

Collaborate with industrial or DoW lab partners to incorporate the lessons learned from Phase II into a commercial on-chip geometric amplifier that is superior to existing optical amplifier technologies in parameter regimes of importance to the Department of War.

‍ ‍

Note "on-chip." The fiber loop implementation is the demonstration vehicle. The commercial end state is integrated photonics. If your team has a path to a photonic integrated circuit implementation, whether a foundry relationship or experience with silicon photonics or thin-film lithium niobate, saying so in the preliminary Phase II Plan strengthens the transition story considerably.

‍ ‍

The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now

‍ ‍

This is a program mechanic that catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.

‍ ‍

The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.

‍ ‍

This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Why this changes your Phase I plan

‍ ‍

The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. That means you will be writing your Phase II proposal while your Phase I effort is still running, and you will be arguing Phase II merit on partial Phase I results.

‍ ‍

Structure the Phase I schedule so that your most persuasive results land in the first six months. For this topic, that means getting the model built and the parameter space mapped early, so that by month six you can say the design closes and here is the predicted gain, rather than still being in component selection.

‍ ‍

Note also the TPOC relationship. The program says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, and the missed window is unrecoverable. Establish that contact early in performance.

‍ ‍

The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights

‍ ‍

This is an STTR, which means a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.

‍ ‍

If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.

‍ ‍

What the split looks like on this topic

‍ ‍

The natural division is clean here. The research institution owns the theory: the non-Hermitian complex Berry phase framework, the mathematical model of geometric amplification, and the parameter space analysis. The small business owns the engineering: component selection against datasheets, the practical fiber loop and phase shifter design, the noise and distortion analysis, and the path to an on-chip product.

‍ ‍

Because the underlying physics is very recent, the institution's contribution is likely to be substantive rather than nominal, which makes a 30 percent share credible. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, and the specific tasks, and remember that the allocation of rights agreement has to be negotiated after selection, so the sooner you have the conversation about IP the smoother that goes.

‍ ‍

Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects or biological agents, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before award. That is not relevant to this topic, but it is worth knowing the program says it.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.

‍ ‍

Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.

‍ ‍

Two hundred fifty thousand dollars over twelve months is a comfortable budget for a design and simulation effort with a university theory partner, which is exactly what this topic asks for.

‍ ‍

The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate

‍ ‍

The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Check the page count before you submit.

‍ ‍

Remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside those fifteen pages.

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work

‍ ‍

Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.

‍ ‍

With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.

‍ ‍

All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, intellectual property counsel is the standout use, because a brand-new gain mechanism with a university partner and a required allocation of rights agreement is exactly the situation where getting the IP structure right early pays for itself.

‍ ‍

The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated

‍ ‍

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.

‍ ‍

Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance

‍ ‍

This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions and it is worth quoting precisely.

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.

‍ ‍

Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.

‍ ‍

Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so the model and the simulation are where your pages should go. Key personnel is second and ahead of commercialization, which for a topic resting on a 2025 theoretical result means naming the people who understand that theory matters a great deal. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.

‍ ‍

Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.

‍ ‍

Notification and debriefings

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.

‍ ‍

Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.

‍ ‍

The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief within 30 days tells you what to fix, and this program runs annually.

‍ ‍

Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.

‍ ‍

Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.

‍ ‍

The unclassified expectation matters for this topic, because a university photonics group working on Berry phase physics is typically an open-research environment with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike some other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears here. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.

‍ ‍

Questions

‍ ‍

Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Five, and they form a clean intellectual lineage from 1984 to 2025. Read all of them; there are only five and they are short.

‍ ‍

Lane and colleagues, "Complex Berry phase and steady-state geometric amplification in non-Hermitian systems," arXiv:2503.23197, 2025. This is the enabling result and the reason the topic exists. It is also the acoustic-domain demonstration the topic refers to. Your proposal should engage it directly.

‍ ‍

Berry, "Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 392, 45, 1984. The original Berry phase paper.

‍ ‍

Simon, "Holonomy, the Quantum Adiabatic Theorem, and Berry's Phase," Physical Review Letters 51, 2167, 1984. The geometric formulation of the same result.

‍ ‍

Garrison and Wright, "Complex geometrical phases for dissipative systems," Physics Letters A 128, 177, 1988. This is where the complex extension enters, and the complex part of the geometric phase is precisely what provides gain in this scheme. Load-bearing.

‍ ‍

Bliokh, "The appearance of a geometric-type instability in dynamic systems with adiabatically varying parameters," Journal of Physics A 32, 2551, 1991. Geometric instability, which is the same physics viewed as growth rather than gain.

‍ ‍

The set tells you something useful about how to write. Two 1984 foundational papers, two papers from 1988 and 1991 extending the idea to dissipative and unstable systems, and one 2025 paper closing the loop with a demonstration. A proposal that traces that arc and then says clearly what remains to be done in the optical domain speaks the reviewer's language. A proposal that cites only the 2025 preprint looks like it read one paper.

‍ ‍

Note that the 1991 Bliokh citation as printed lists a 1991 year with a Journal of Physics A volume 32; if you cite it yourself, verify the bibliographic details rather than copying them forward.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record

‍ ‍

Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification

‍ ‍

Period of performance: 12 months

‍ ‍

Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity

‍ ‍

A working backward plan

‍ ‍

Before September 23. Commit your research institution partner, ideally one with direct connection to the non-Hermitian geometric amplification work, and start the subaward paperwork, since university contracting offices are slow in October. Model your Percentage of Work against the STTR minimums before finalizing the subaward. Read all five references. Build a preliminary version of the mathematical model so your proposal can show you have it, not just plan to build it. Identify candidate commercial off-the-shelf components with real datasheets, especially electrically tunable phase shifters with modulation bandwidth near 1 MHz and known insertion loss. Sketch the parameter regimes where geometric amplification would beat incumbent amplifiers. Begin the intellectual property conversation with the institution, since an allocation of rights agreement is required upon selection. Confirm SAM registration and your CMMC Level 1 posture.

‍ ‍

September 23 through October 5. Draft the 15-page technical volume. Allocate deliberately: the mathematical model and simulation approach, the COTS component design, the predicted performance against the Phase II floors of greater than 10 dB gain and greater than 100 kHz bandwidth, added noise analysis, the parameter regimes where the mechanism wins, key personnel with the theory credentials foregrounded, the academic-to-small-business transition narrative, and the preliminary Phase II Plan with the overall vision, approach, and potential product. Remember technical merit is the top criterion and key personnel is second.

‍ ‍

October 6 through October 7. Submit any technical questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes. Administrative questions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume against the $250,000 and 12-month ceiling. Price the simulation and modeling labor, the university subaward, computing, and any component procurement for validation. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form if you want the $6,500 and place it in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, which is required though not evaluated. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering it must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded there. Run compliance, and count the technical volume pages carefully, because exceeding 15 pages makes the proposal non-compliant and unevaluated.

‍ ‍

October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV004?

‍ ‍

OSW26TZ06-NV004 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Telecom Band Geometric Amplifier," released under the Office of the Secretary of War Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The goal is to design, build, and test a device that uses geometric phase, also known as Berry phase, to amplify laser light in the telecom band at approximately 1,550 nanometers, using radio-frequency modulation of linear, lossy elements.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

Not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated, which is stricter than simply disregarding the extra pages. The transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both count inside that limit.

‍ ‍

What extra content does this program require in the technical volume?

‍ ‍

Two things beyond the standard DoW STTR Phase I content. A narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity. And a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II. Both must fit inside the 15 pages.

‍ ‍

What exactly does Phase I have to deliver?

‍ ‍

A complete design for a prototype telecom-band geometric amplifier based entirely on commercial off-the-shelf components, with the design based on quantitative simulations that incorporate the components' specifications into the mathematical model of geometric amplification. It is a design and simulation effort, not a build.

‍ ‍

Has this ever been demonstrated?

‍ ‍

Not optically. The topic states that geometric amplification is a gain mechanism that has only been recently proposed and to date has only been demonstrated in the acoustic domain, citing the 2025 arXiv paper by Lane and colleagues. The principle can be applied to any domain, which is what makes this a high-risk, high-reward basic research topic.

‍ ‍

How is the optical version supposed to work?

‍ ‍

Using a pair of fiber loops that include electrically tunable phase shifters modulated at approximately 1 MHz. The adiabatic evolution associated with that relatively slow modulation, together with the components' intrinsic loss, results in accumulation of a geometric Berry phase whose complex part can be engineered to provide gain. The enabling condition is that the resonators be modulated at a frequency comparable to their decay rate.

‍ ‍

Why would anyone prefer this to an erbium-doped fiber amplifier?

‍ ‍

The topic's answer is that geometric gain achieves photon-number gain through radio-frequency modulation rather than by pumping a medium, which may offer practical advantages in reduced device complexity, size, and power consumption. The objective asks for amplification that outperforms existing technologies in parameter regimes of interest to the Department, which is an invitation to identify those regimes specifically rather than to claim across-the-board superiority.

‍ ‍

What are the Phase II performance targets?

‍ ‍

Optimize with respect to gain, bandwidth, power consumption, added noise, and harmonic distortion. At minimum the device should exhibit greater than 10 dB gain with bandwidth greater than 100 kHz.

‍ ‍

What does Phase III look like?

‍ ‍

Collaborate with industrial or DoW lab partners to incorporate lessons learned from Phase II into a commercial on-chip geometric amplifier superior to existing optical amplifier technologies in parameter regimes of importance to the Department. Note "on-chip," which means the fiber loop is the demonstration vehicle and integrated photonics is the product.

‍ ‍

Do I need a research institution partner?

‍ ‍

Yes. This is an STTR, which requires a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares of at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the institution per the DoW STTR Program solicitation. If selected, you must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and the research institution allocating intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization, using the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.

‍ ‍

How does the Phase II submission window work?

‍ ‍

Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and all Phase I awardees are eligible. A 30-day submission window is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, with details provided by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office. This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics, and proposals received outside the established window will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

What does that mean for how I plan Phase I?

‍ ‍

You will be writing the Phase II proposal on partial Phase I results, six to nine months into a twelve-month effort. Front-load the work so your most persuasive results land early. The program also says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, so establish that relationship early in performance.

‍ ‍

How is Phase II funded?

‍ ‍

A 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.

‍ ‍

How are proposals evaluated?

‍ ‍

Against the DoW solicitation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach first, then qualifications of key personnel, then commercialization potential. The evaluation includes an assessment not only of the Phase I feasibility studies but of the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II. Only Government personnel evaluate proposals, except personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance.

‍ ‍

Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?

‍ ‍

No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in it will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?

‍ ‍

Yes. Deviations from the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program BAA are not permitted. With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, model the arithmetic before finalizing the subaward.

‍ ‍

What CMMC level applies?

‍ ‍

The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.

‍ ‍

Is this work classified?

‍ ‍

No. Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level, and no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic or on any of the seven topics in this release.

‍ ‍

Can I employ foreign nationals?

‍ ‍

If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. The unclassified expectation makes this program more compatible with an open university research environment than several other components in this cycle.

‍ ‍

Can I request a debriefing if not selected?

‍ ‍

Yes. Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official within 30 days of receipt of the request. Oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.

‍ ‍

When will I hear back, and who is notified?

‍ ‍

Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Bring the theory partner, and put them forward. Key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization, and this topic rests on a mechanism first proposed in a 2025 paper. If your research institution partner includes an author of that work or a group actively working on non-Hermitian geometric phase, that is your single strongest asset. Name them prominently and describe their specific contribution.

‍ ‍

Show the model, do not promise it. The Phase I deliverable is a design based on quantitative simulations incorporating component specifications into the mathematical model. A proposal that already presents a preliminary version of that model, even a simplified one, demonstrates you can do the work. A proposal that describes the model it will build does not.

‍ ‍

Name real parts with real datasheets. "Based entirely on commercial off-the-shelf components" is a verifiable constraint, and it is the constraint that makes the design credible. Named phase shifters with stated modulation bandwidth and insertion loss, named couplers with stated ratios, named fiber. A reviewer can check them, and that is a feature.

‍ ‍

Get the timescale hierarchy right and show it. Modulation frequency comparable to resonator decay rate is the enabling condition for the whole scheme, and the optical round-trip time is a third timescale in a fiber loop. Show the hierarchy explicitly and show where in that parameter space gain exists.

‍ ‍

Lead your analysis with added noise. Every reviewer with a photonics background will ask what a geometric amplifier does to the noise figure, and the answer is not obvious for a mechanism that gets gain from loss plus modulation. It is one of the five Phase II metrics, it determines whether quantum applications are possible, and most competing proposals will treat it as an afterthought.

‍ ‍

Answer the "parameter regimes" question specifically. The objective asks for amplification that outperforms existing technologies in parameter regimes of interest to the Department. That is a direct invitation. Name the regime: low power budget, small form factor, a wavelength or bandwidth where doped-fiber gain is awkward, an environment where a pump laser is a liability. A specific answer here distinguishes you.

‍ ‍

Write the transition narrative as a real plan, not a paragraph. This program exists to move academic discoveries into small businesses. Whose discovery, moving how, through what mechanism, with what people, and what does the small business own afterward. That narrative is a program requirement and it is where the S&T Foundations mission lives.

‍ ‍

Take the preliminary Phase II Plan seriously. The evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II, not just the Phase I studies. Fit it to the program's own Phase II structure of a base plus option, each 10 to 12 months and each up to $1,000,000, and make the product concrete.

‍ ‍

Front-load the Phase I schedule. The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months in and it is the only one. Whatever you need to show a Phase II reviewer must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.

‍ ‍

Point at the on-chip endgame. Phase III is a commercial on-chip geometric amplifier. If you have any credible path to integrated photonics, a foundry relationship, silicon photonics or thin-film lithium niobate experience, mention it. It converts a physics demonstration into a product story.

‍ ‍

Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated. That is a harsher rule than most components apply, and it applies to a volume that must also contain the transition narrative and the Phase II Plan.

‍ ‍

Start the allocation of rights conversation now. A written agreement allocating intellectual property and follow-on rights is required upon selection. On a topic where the core IP originates in a university theoretical result, that negotiation determines whether you have a commercial product at the end. Do not leave it until award.

‍ ‍

Use the debriefing if you lose. A written debrief within 30 days of notification is available on request, and this program recurs. That is cheap, specific feedback most applicants never ask for.

NGA SBIR OSW26BZ06-DV034: Vision Language Model for SAR Target Search and Classification from SICD

Quick Answer

OSW26BZ06-DV034 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency under the 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. Phase I proposals are not accepted. NGA wants a vision language model that reads synthetic aperture radar imagery in Sensor Independent Complex Data format, finds the targets in it, and classifies them. The award must not exceed $1,500,000 for up to a 24-month period of performance, and the technical volume runs to 40 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

The feasibility gate here is unusual and worth reading twice, because it has two halves and one of them is about people rather than technology. You must demonstrate successful classification with greater than 95 percent accuracy of single SAR image chips in SICD format. And you must demonstrate that the performer is very well qualified, with PhD or research level given as the example, and has demonstrated experience classifying complex SAR imagery. NGA spells out what qualification means: a scientist's extensive knowledge of SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning understanding and implementation.

That is a credentialing requirement embedded in a technical gate. A team of excellent machine learning engineers without deep SAR phenomenology expertise does not satisfy it, and neither does a SAR expert without deep learning implementation experience. NGA is asking for both in the same organization.

Then there is the security environment, which governs every NGA SBIR. This work is classified. All contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret personnel security clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for Sensitive Compartmented Information access. Contractors are subject to counterintelligence-scope polygraph. Your Key Personnel section must list each person's clearance level. And NGA scores your ability to perform controlled work as part of the technical evaluation.

Topic At a Glance

‍ ‍

Topic number: OSW26BZ06-DV034

‍ ‍

Title: Vision Language Model (VLM) for Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) target search and classification from Sensor Independent Complex Data (SICD)

‍ ‍

Agency: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), a Department of War combat support agency and a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community

‍ ‍

Solicitation: NGA 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions

‍ ‍

Program type: Direct to Phase II only. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only

‍ ‍

Award: must not exceed $1,500,000

‍ ‍

Period of performance: up to 24 months

‍ ‍

Options: the offeror shall not propose option periods

‍ ‍

Technical volume: 40 pages maximum, consisting of Part 1 Phase I Justification at 20 pages maximum and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal at 20 pages maximum. Pages in excess will not be considered. Number all pages consecutively

‍ ‍

Component Technology Priority Areas: Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Trusted AI and Autonomy, Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems

‍ ‍

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)

‍ ‍

Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic. Note that the work itself is classified, which imposes far stricter personnel and facility requirements than an ITAR notice would

‍ ‍

Feasibility accuracy bar: greater than 95 percent classification accuracy on single SAR image chips in SICD format

‍ ‍

Feasibility qualification bar: the performer must be very well qualified, PhD or research level, with demonstrated experience classifying complex SAR imagery, requiring extensive knowledge of SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning understanding and implementation

‍ ‍

Phase II scope: input is SAR imagery with multiple targets, output is location and classification of the targets. Government-provided SAR SICD data or your own or commercial data may be used

‍ ‍

Clearance environment: all contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret personnel security clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for SCI access. Contractors are subject to counterintelligence-scope polygraph as requested

‍ ‍

Added evaluation criterion: NGA will evaluate a vendor's ability to perform controlled work, meaning CUI and classified, as part of the technical evaluation score

‍ ‍

Section 508: the Commercialization Strategy shall address Section 508 compliance per NGA Instruction 8400.4 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, with an outline of how compliance will be achieved

‍ ‍

Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by NGA during proposal evaluations

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work: NGA will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance: up to $50,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5

‍ ‍

Contract type: NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract within 180 days of the proposal due date, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer

‍ ‍

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

‍ ‍

Keywords: synthetic aperture radar, Sensor Independent Complex Data, metadata, single look complex

‍ ‍

The Feasibility Bar, Which Has Two Halves

‍ ‍

This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only. To qualify for a Phase II award, proposers must submit Feasibility Documentation demonstrating two things. The purpose of this documentation, in NGA's words, is to prove that the underlying technology is mature and ready to transition immediately into Phase II requirements.

‍ ‍

Half one: the accuracy result

‍ ‍

Successful classification, greater than 95 percent accuracy, of single SAR image chips in SICD format.

‍ ‍

Three parts of that sentence matter. Greater than 95 percent accuracy is a specific, measurable number. Single SAR image chips means one target per chip, which is a classification problem rather than a detection or search problem. And in SICD format means complex data, not detected magnitude imagery.

‍ ‍

That last point is the one most likely to trip up an otherwise strong applicant. SICD is the NGA standard for sensor independent complex data, meaning the imagery retains phase as well as amplitude, in single look complex form. Most publicly available SAR classification work, and most benchmark results, use detected magnitude chips. If your 95 percent result is on magnitude imagery, it does not literally satisfy the stated gate, and the honest move is to reproduce the result on SICD data or to state plainly what you have and what the gap is.

‍ ‍

Report the accuracy properly: the class set, the number of classes, the number of chips, the train and test split, whether the split is by scene or by chip, and the confusion matrix. A 95 percent number on a small closed class set with a chip-level random split is a much weaker claim than the same number on a scene-disjoint split, and a reviewer who works in this field knows the difference.

‍ ‍

Half two: the qualification of the performer

‍ ‍

The performer must be very well qualified, with PhD and research level given as examples, and must have demonstrated experience classifying complex SAR imagery.

‍ ‍

NGA then defines what qualification requires: a scientist's extensive knowledge of SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning, meaning machine learning, understanding and implementation.

‍ ‍

This is a personnel requirement inside the feasibility gate, and it is unusual. Three distinct competencies are named and they rarely coexist in one person or one small team.

‍ ‍

SAR signal and image processing means the phenomenology: how the image is formed, what phase carries, speckle, sidelobes, layover and shadow, polarimetry, the difference between slant plane and ground plane, and why a SAR image of a target looks nothing like an optical image of it.

‍ ‍

SAR operations from space means the collection side: orbital geometry, look angles, incidence angles, revisit, squint, the collection modes and their resolution and swath tradeoffs, and the metadata that describes all of it. The SICD keyword list includes metadata for a reason.

‍ ‍

Deep learning understanding and implementation means you build and train models, not just apply them.

‍ ‍

Address all three explicitly in your Key Personnel and Related Work sections, with named individuals, degrees, publications, and specific prior work on complex SAR. If one of the three is weaker in your team, say how you cover it, whether through a named consultant, a subcontract, or a hire, and remember that the Percentage of Work rules and the security requirements both apply to anyone you bring in.

‍ ‍

The restriction that applies to both halves

‍ ‍

NGA's Direct to Phase II guidelines state that feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the principal investigator. If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property, the proposer must either own the IP or must have obtained license rights to such technology prior to proposal submission.

‍ ‍

Audit the provenance of your 95 percent result. SAR automatic target recognition work in the United States has been substantially funded through SBIR and STTR programs, so this is a live risk for exactly the companies best positioned to bid. Internally funded work, privately funded work, non-SBIR government contract work, and your own published academic work under other funding are cleaner ground.

‍ ‍

If the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the associated topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

Twenty pages of feasibility is a lot, so use it

‍ ‍

NGA allows twenty pages for feasibility documentation, four times what most components in this cycle allow. That is room for the full experimental description, the confusion matrix, the data provenance discussion, example chips with your model's outputs, the SICD handling detail, and complete personnel qualification evidence including publication lists. A five-page feasibility section submitted into a twenty-page allowance reads as thin evidence.

‍ ‍

What NGA Is Actually Looking For

‍ ‍

The objective

‍ ‍

Develop VLM based SAR imagery search and classification from sensor independent complex data.

‍ ‍

Note "search" in the title and objective. That is a broader task than classification, and it is where Phase II goes.

‍ ‍

The concept, in NGA's words

‍ ‍

Vision language models combine multimodal data and imagery, with video, SAR, and infrared imagery named, and generative AI models to understand and process video, image, and text. A VLM integrates large language models with a vision encoder that allows the LLM to explain contents of an imagery.

‍ ‍

The goal of this research is to analyze, meaning detect and classify, synthetic aperture radar imagery from sensor independent complex data.

‍ ‍

Why a VLM rather than a classifier, which your proposal should answer

‍ ‍

The topic does not explain why the model has to be a vision language model rather than a conventional detector and classifier, and that is arguably the central intellectual question of the proposal. Notice the phrase NGA chose: a vision encoder that allows the LLM to explain contents of an imagery.

‍ ‍

Explanation is the plausible answer, and it aligns with the Trusted AI and Autonomy Component Technology Priority Area. A GEOINT analyst does not only want a bounding box and a label. They want to know what in the image supports that label, in language, so they can accept or reject it and write it into a product. A VLM can produce that. A classifier producing a softmax score cannot.

‍ ‍

Language also enables open-vocabulary and query-driven search, which is what "target search" implies. Instead of a fixed class list baked in at training time, an analyst can ask for something described in words. That is a genuine capability change for GEOINT tasking and it is worth arguing for explicitly.

‍ ‍

If you make that case well, you have answered the question the topic left implicit, and you have distinguished yourself from proposals that treat "VLM" as a fashionable label on a conventional detector.

‍ ‍

The hard part, which is SAR-specific

‍ ‍

Vision language models are trained on natural imagery and text. SAR imagery is not natural imagery. It is complex-valued, speckled, geometrically distorted by layover and shadow, radiometrically counterintuitive, and sensitive to look angle in ways that change a target's appearance completely. A vision encoder pretrained on photographs has learned features that do not transfer cleanly.

‍ ‍

Your proposal should confront this directly. How do you adapt or replace the vision encoder for complex SAR input. Do you feed complex data to the encoder, or magnitude and phase as separate channels, or a learned representation. How do you handle the SICD metadata, which carries the collection geometry that determines what the image means. Where does your text supervision come from, given there is no large corpus of SAR imagery paired with expert descriptions.

‍ ‍

That last question is the practical bottleneck and most proposals will gloss over it. Say where the language side of your training data comes from: synthetic captions generated from metadata and annotations, expert-written descriptions, a curriculum that bootstraps from labels, or something else.

‍ ‍

The GEOINT context

‍ ‍

NGA describes GEOINT as the exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial information to describe, assess, and visually depict physical features and geographically referenced activities on the Earth, consisting of imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information. NGA manages the National System for Geospatial-Intelligence.

‍ ‍

NGA Research supports the National System for Geospatial-Intelligence and the National Security Strategy in three broad areas: Foundational GEOINT, Advanced Phenomenologies, and Analytic Technologies. This topic sits in Analytic Technologies.

‍ ‍

Framing matters. The customer is an imagery analyst producing intelligence, working under time pressure, accountable for what goes into a product. Speak to that workflow rather than to a benchmark leaderboard.

‍ ‍

Phase II Scope

‍ ‍

Develop a VLM based SAR SICD imagery classification system, where input contains SAR imagery with multiple targets and output should be location and classification of the targets. Use SAR SICD data provided by government or your own, or commercial, data.

‍ ‍

The shift from feasibility to Phase II

‍ ‍

This is the most important structural feature of the topic and it is easy to miss. Feasibility is single chips, one target each, classified with greater than 95 percent accuracy. Phase II is full imagery with multiple targets, and the output is both location and classification.

‍ ‍

That is a jump from classification to detection plus classification, which in SAR is a substantially harder problem. A chip classifier operates on a pre-localized target. A search system has to find candidate targets across a large scene, in clutter, with false alarms as the dominant failure mode, at whatever resolution and geometry the collection provides. The class imbalance is severe: a scene is mostly not-target.

‍ ‍

Your Phase II plan should be explicit about how you bridge that gap. Sliding window, region proposal, a detection head on the shared encoder, an attention mechanism over the full scene, or a two-stage architecture. And your performance metrics should shift accordingly, from classification accuracy to detection and classification metrics that account for false alarms, whether precision and recall, mean average precision, or a false-alarm-rate-versus-probability-of-detection curve.

‍ ‍

State those metrics yourself, because the topic states only the feasibility accuracy number and does not specify Phase II performance targets. Proposing your own targets, justified against the scene sizes and target classes you address, is expected and it is a place to show judgment.

‍ ‍

The data question

‍ ‍

You may use SAR SICD data provided by the government or your own or commercial data. That flexibility is genuinely useful and it is worth planning around deliberately.

‍ ‍

Government-provided data is likely to be the most mission-representative and the most likely to be controlled, which brings the classified environment and the security requirements into your data handling plan. Commercial SAR data is more accessible and there is now a meaningful commercial constellation supply, but you should confirm it can be delivered in or converted to SICD. Your own data, if you have it, has the cleanest provenance for the feasibility restriction discussed earlier.

‍ ‍

Say which you will use, in what proportion, and how you handle the domain gap between them. If you train on commercial data and test on government data, that shift is a technical risk and naming it is a strength.

‍ ‍

Note also the practical toolchain. The topic cites the sarpy package, NGA's own open-source Python library for reading and processing SICD and related NGA formats, and the Schwartzkopf paper on generic processing of SAR complex data using the SICD standard. Using sarpy, or explaining why you use something else, signals familiarity with the actual format rather than the abstraction.

‍ ‍

What Phase III is

‍ ‍

Transition the VLM based SAR SICD classification tool for government utilities. That is a short statement, and it means the Phase II deliverable should be a tool an NGA organization can adopt, not a research prototype. Interface, documentation, deployment model, and the Section 508 accessibility requirement all follow from that.

‍ ‍

The Security Requirements, Which Govern Everything

‍ ‍

This is the longest part of the NGA instructions and it substantially determines who can win. NGA has made it a scored evaluation factor, so treat it as technical content rather than a compliance appendix.

‍ ‍

The added evaluation criterion

‍ ‍

In addition to the DoW Program evaluation criteria, NGA will evaluate a vendor's ability to perform controlled work, meaning CUI and classified, as part of their technical evaluation score.

‍ ‍

NGA may use Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance support to assist with the programmatics of executing the evaluation process, but will not use SETA support to evaluate proposals.

‍ ‍

Personnel security

‍ ‍

All Contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret Personnel Security Clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for SCI access. The government will verify security clearances and SCI eligibility in accordance with SEAD 7 on reciprocity of background investigations and national security adjudications. If needed, NGA will sponsor SCI accesses at its sole discretion.

‍ ‍

Contractor personnel performing Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information work are required to have active TS/SCI clearances for access to TS/SCI facilities, when performing duties within TS/SCI environments, and for access to TS/SCI computer systems.

‍ ‍

Contractors are subject to a counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination as requested by NGA. As a condition of employment and assignment, contractors who have not successfully completed polygraph testing within the last five years must immediately schedule a polygraph examination and must complete the process, in no more than three test sessions, within 90 days.

‍ ‍

Cleared Contractor personnel will be enrolled into the Director of National Intelligence Continuous Evaluation System throughout the lifecycle of the contract while at NGA, per SEAD 6, and must self-report security issues, foreign contacts, and other applicable information per SEAD 3 and NGA Instruction 5205.3. Cleared contractors must also submit electronic fingerprints and enroll in NGA's Report of Arrest and Prosecution Background program.

‍ ‍

Personnel designated as Tier 3 Privileged Users, or holding enhanced access through a Special Access Program or Controlled Access Program, will participate in NGA's annual Security Financial Disclosure Program.

‍ ‍

Some personnel may need access to Special Access Program, Controlled Access Program, or Alternate Compensatory Control Measures information as required for NGA's sensitive program missions, and access will not be granted without written permission from the Contracting Officer's Representative.

‍ ‍

Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency remains the Cognizant Security Agency for individuals with collateral Secret or Top Secret clearances, with SEAD 3 reporting through the contractor's Facility Security Officer to DCSA via the Defense Information Security System.

‍ ‍

What this means for a machine learning team

‍ ‍

This is the provision most likely to reshape a strong AI company's plan for this topic. Deep learning talent is highly mobile and internationally sourced, and a Top Secret clearance with SCI eligibility plus a counterintelligence-scope polygraph is a substantial filter. Anyone not polygraphed in the last five years must complete the process in no more than three sessions within 90 days.

‍ ‍

Your Key Personnel section must list the clearance level held by each of the personnel, because, as the instructions put it, we will be operating in a classified environment. On a topic whose feasibility gate already demands PhD-level SAR and deep learning expertise, the intersection of that expertise with TS/SCI eligibility is the real scarcity.

‍ ‍

Foreign nationals

‍ ‍

Foreign nationals are not permitted to perform unclassified work under the terms of this contract without prior written approval from the Contracting Officer or the COR. Should NGA identify the use of unauthorized personnel, the CO may direct the contractor, at its own expense, to remove and replace any unauthorized contractors, subcontractors, or other personnel, at NGA's discretion and without prejudice to other rights including termination for default.

‍ ‍

Note the scope: the prohibition covers unclassified work, which is stricter than the case-by-case disclosure approach used on ITAR-restricted topics elsewhere in this cycle. For a deep learning team this is often the binding constraint, and it must be resolved before you propose rather than after award.

‍ ‍

The unclassified path

‍ ‍

If applicable, and after discussion with the COR and with written COR approval, uncleared Contractor personnel are authorized to work on this contract at the unclassified level, with access up to DoD Controlled Unclassified Information at the contractor site without the requirement of a security clearance.

‍ ‍

Any Contractor personnel working with CUI must receive a favorable HSPD-12 adjudication for access of 60 days or less, or a favorable HSPD-12 Tier 1 adjudication for access longer than 60 days, prior to accessing CUI. NGA will sponsor the HSPD-12 and HSPD-12 Tier 1 background investigations as needed.

‍ ‍

Uncleared personnel visiting NGA facilities may receive a visitor badge and be escorted as appropriate, returning the badge at the end of each visit day.

‍ ‍

This is what makes a mixed team feasible: model development on commercial or your own data at the unclassified level with uncleared but HSPD-12 adjudicated staff, and cleared staff for anything touching government-provided controlled data or classified environments. Structure your data plan and your staffing plan together, because they determine each other.

‍ ‍

Physical security and facilities

‍ ‍

All classified work performed at a non-NGA facility must be approved by the COR. Any classified work at contractor sites must be performed in an NGA accredited Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, an Other Government Agency SCIF, or an approved secure collateral space with a Memorandum of Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, Joint Use Agreement, or Co-Use Agreement with NGA for this contract. Accreditation shall be at least commensurate with the safeguarding level required by the DD Form 254.

‍ ‍

Accreditation follows the IC Technical Specifications for Construction and Management of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities Version 1.5.1, the IC Tech Specs for ICD and ICS 705. NGA conducts periodic inspections based on threat, facility modifications, program sensitivity, past security performance, or at least every five years. Technical Surveillance Countermeasures activities in NGA accredited SCIFs are conducted only by NGA TSCM teams.

‍ ‍

Contractor personnel are forbidden from bringing prohibited or unauthorized items into any NGA installation or secure facility, including weapons, cell phones, cameras, two-way pagers, laptops, recording devices of any kind, flash drives, or any other removable media. Exceptions may be granted by NGA Security upon request with documentation shown prior to entry. Violations may subject the contractor and personnel to civil or criminal liability.

‍ ‍

Your Facilities and Equipment section must identify how Controlled Unclassified Information will be protected in accordance with NIST SP 800-171 and provide your Supplier Performance Risk System score, and must identify your Facility Clearance Level, the safeguarding level for each facility, the CAGE code for each facility, and the associated physical addresses.

‍ ‍

The SPRS score is a specific number a reviewer can check immediately, and it takes time to improve. Verify yours before you submit.

‍ ‍

There is also a practical wrinkle worth noting for a machine learning program: the prohibition on laptops and removable media in secure facilities means your development workflow inside a SCIF looks nothing like your workflow outside one. Address how model development, training, and evaluation happen on the controlled side if your plan requires it.

‍ ‍

Information security and cybersecurity

‍ ‍

NGA has sole authority to determine whether and to what extent protected information is provided. Access to classified information is pursuant to the DD254. The contractor shall not access, download, print, or further disseminate classified information outside the execution of defined contract requirements without written COR permission.

‍ ‍

The contractor will comply with all applicable NGA, DoD, and IC information security policies, including the Consolidated NGA Security Classification Guide, for marking, handling, processing, storing, and safeguarding classified and unclassified material, giving markings the lowest possible classification to maximize dissemination while maintaining confidentiality and integrity.

‍ ‍

Access to CUI is pursuant to DFARS clause 252.204-7012, which the prime shall include, including paragraph (m), in subcontracts for operationally critical support or involving covered defense information, without alteration except to identify the parties. FAR clause 52.204-21 must similarly flow down.

‍ ‍

Contractor personnel shall not release any unclassified information, in any medium, pertaining to any part of this contract or any related program unless the COR has given prior written approval or in performance of a project scoped and negotiated by NGA. For a company whose commercial strategy depends on publishing results or demonstrating capability publicly, that is a material constraint.

‍ ‍

At minimum the contractor must implement 10 U.S.C. Sections 391 and 393 along with NIST SP 800-171. If using an external cloud service provider to store, process, or transmit covered defense information, the contractor shall ensure the provider meets security requirements equivalent to the FedRAMP Moderate baseline.

‍ ‍

On discovering a cyber incident affecting a covered contractor information system or covered defense information, the contractor shall notify the DoD Cyber Crime Center and the COR in writing within 72 hours of discovery and conduct a compromise review. Isolated malicious software goes to DC3 per COR instructions and shall not be sent to the COR.

‍ ‍

The FedRAMP Moderate cloud equivalence requirement deserves emphasis on this topic more than most. Training a vision language model is compute-intensive and the default answer is a commercial cloud with GPU capacity. If that environment will hold covered defense information, confirm the equivalence before you build a budget around it.

‍ ‍

Insider threat

‍ ‍

The contractor will establish and maintain an insider threat program to gather, integrate, and report information indicative of a potential or actual insider threat, consistent with Executive Order 13587 and the Presidential Memorandum on National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs. The contractor shall report to the COR events affecting clearance eligibility, events indicating an insider threat, events affecting safeguarding, and events indicating classified information has been or is suspected to be lost or compromised.

‍ ‍

Contract clauses to be aware of

‍ ‍

FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management, requiring registration at offer and continuously through final payment. FAR 52.204-27 Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application, meaning TikTok and successor applications.

‍ ‍

NGA-specific clauses include 5X52.209-9003 Protection of Information and Nondisclosure Agreements, 5X52.227-9000 Unauthorized Use of NGA Name, Seal and Initials, 5X52.237-9001 Contractor Identification, 5X52.37-9000 Contractor Employee Data for Access to NGA Facilities or Sensitive Systems, which requires initial and timely updates to NGA's Human Capital Management System for all personnel with facility or sensitive system access and requires attendance at in-processing and out-processing briefings, and 5X52.246-9000 Contractor Compliance with all applicable NGA and U.S. Government installation regulations, directives, instructions, rules, policies and procedures.

‍ ‍

An Inspector General cooperation requirement applies. The contractor must report to the NGA Inspector General, DoD IG, or Intelligence Community IG any and all possible violations of federal law or illegal intelligence activities related to the contract by individuals charging directly or indirectly to it, and the IG has access to those individuals and direct access to all related records. Failure to cooperate is grounds for administrative action. Contractors must make employees aware of the NGA IG Hotline. The requirement is supported by FAR 52.203-13 and NGA Instruction 7410.1.

‍ ‍

Badging is also governed. NGA IC badges are issued only to contractors providing direct charge support on an active TS/SCI NGA contract, even when seated at corporate locations outside NGA facilities. Badges must be used at least once during a one-month period at an NGA government facility or may be suspended or terminated for inactivity, and they expire at the end of the supported contract. On departure, all NGA badges, Common Access Cards, hangtags, and other government furnished property must be returned no later than four business days from the date of departure.

‍ ‍

Section 508 Compliance, Which Is a Proposal Requirement

‍ ‍

This sits inside the Commercialization Strategy instruction and is easy to miss, and it applies more directly to this topic than to most.

‍ ‍

The contractor shall ensure that all systems, hardware, software, software engineering, and information technology associated with this effort is made in a manner that is accessible for people with disabilities as directed in NGA Instruction 8400.4 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended in 1998.

‍ ‍

All Information and Communications Technology associated with this contract may use the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 to comply with Section 508, or use alternative designs or technologies which result in substantially equivalent or greater access to and use of the product for people with disabilities.

‍ ‍

Furthermore, the contractor shall pursue human centered design and usability guidelines to ensure that all services associated with this topic area are accessible by as many users as possible and to drive modernization, innovation, and enhance mission support.

‍ ‍

As part of the proposal, the offeror should include an outline of specifically how Section 508 compliance will be achieved in the design of the ICT product. The Phase II proposal should provide an explicit, detailed description of the approach, indicate what is planned, how and where the work will be carried out, a schedule of major events, how the solution will be Section 508 compliant, and the final product to be delivered. If a determination is made that a Section 508 exception request is justified, the rationale for the exception request must be made and submitted as part of the proposal.

‍ ‍

Why this matters more here

‍ ‍

This topic delivers an analyst-facing tool. The Phase II output is location and classification of targets, and Phase III transitions the tool for government utilities. That means a user interface, which is squarely Information and Communications Technology.

‍ ‍

There is also a natural alignment worth exploiting. A vision language model produces text. Text descriptions of imagery content are inherently more accessible than imagery alone, and screen reader compatibility for a natural-language explanation of a SAR scene is a genuine accessibility advantage rather than a compliance burden. Making that argument turns a checkbox into a strength, and it connects the 508 requirement to the reason a VLM is the right architecture in the first place.

‍ ‍

Concretely: name WCAG 2.1, describe keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, contrast, and non-color-dependent status indication for your interface, and put accessibility review in the schedule. Use the exception path with stated rationale if some component genuinely cannot comply. Silence is the failure mode, and it is exactly what a proposal reused from another agency will produce.

‍ ‍

Funding, Cost Structure, and NGA Mechanics

‍ ‍

The award

‍ ‍

The Phase II amount must not exceed $1,500,000 for up to a 24-month period of performance. Costs must be separated and clearly identified on the Proposal Cover Sheet in Volume 1 and in Volume 3.

‍ ‍

Unless otherwise stated in the individual topic announcement, NGA Phase II awards are capped at $1,500,000 each over a maximum 24-month period of performance, and Phase I awards are capped at $150,000 each over a maximum six-month period of performance.

‍ ‍

NGA caps sequential Phase II contracts, meaning those proposed near the completion of the initial Phase II or Direct to Phase II contract, at the then-current Small Business Administration "without seeking SBA approval" ceiling over a maximum 24-month period of performance.

‍ ‍

No option periods

‍ ‍

The offeror shall not propose option periods. That is flat, and it distinguishes NGA from components in this cycle that structure awards as a base plus options. Build a single 24-month effort.

‍ ‍

Contract type and timing

‍ ‍

NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract for its awards within 180 days of the proposal due date, with type at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. One hundred eighty days from October 21, 2026 is roughly mid-April 2027.

‍ ‍

Firm fixed price on a machine learning program means your estimate must absorb training compute uncertainty and data acquisition uncertainty. Both are real on this topic. Carry margin.

‍ ‍

Percentage of Work, with no exceptions

‍ ‍

Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program. NGA will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements.

‍ ‍

The temptation on this topic is to subcontract the SAR phenomenology expertise or the model training. Model your POW before assembling the team, and remember every subcontractor inherits the security requirements and the DFARS 252.204-7012 and FAR 52.204-21 flow-downs.

‍ ‍

Technical and Business Assistance

‍ ‍

Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee.

‍ ‍

All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

For this topic, security and facility clearance consulting is the standout use if you are building that posture, followed by accessibility and Section 508 consulting, which is a stated proposal and performance requirement.

‍ ‍

The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated

‍ ‍

Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by NGA during proposal evaluations. That differs from several other components in this cycle. Complete it because it is required, and put your transition thinking into the Commercialization Strategy inside the technical volume, which is also where the Section 508 requirement lives.

‍ ‍

The technical volume structure

‍ ‍

The technical volume consists of two parts, described in one place as Part A Feasibility Documentation and Part B Technical Proposal and in the volume list as Part 1 Phase I Justification and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal. Each part is not to exceed twenty pages, for a maximum of 40 pages. The Government will not consider pages in excess of these limitations. Number all pages consecutively and follow the DoW SBIR Program formatting requirements.

‍ ‍

Content follows the Technical Proposal Template provided in the DoW Program, with NGA's additions: Section 508 compliance in the Commercialization Strategy, clearance levels in Key Personnel, and CUI protection with SPRS score plus facility clearance level, safeguarding level, CAGE code, and addresses in Facilities and Equipment.

‍ ‍

Evaluation, selection, and protests

‍ ‍

All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW Program Solicitation, plus the controlled-work criterion described above.

‍ ‍

Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, via email. The NGA text says "for a Phase I award," which appears to be residual language given that this topic issues no Phase I award. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.

‍ ‍

Refer to the DoW Program Solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to Patricia Hill at Patricia.D.Hill@nga.mil.

‍ ‍

Questions

‍ ‍

Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the NGA SBIR/STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to sbir@nga.mil.

‍ ‍

The NGA instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW SBIR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026. Worth asking: what government SAR SICD data will be made available, in what quantity, with what annotations, and at what classification level, because that answer materially shapes both your technical plan and your security plan.

‍ ‍

The References

‍ ‍

Three, and they are practical rather than academic, which tells you something about what NGA expects.

‍ ‍

The NVIDIA vision language models glossary page. This is a vendor explainer, not a research citation, and its inclusion suggests the topic author wanted a plain definition of the architecture class rather than to point at a specific technique. Do not read it as an endorsement of any particular model family.

‍ ‍

The sarpy package on PyPI, version 1.1.7. This is NGA's own open-source Python library for reading, writing, and processing SICD and other NGA sensor formats. It is the most actionable reference in the set. Using sarpy in your pipeline, or explaining why you use something else, demonstrates you have actually handled SICD files rather than treating the format as an abstraction.

‍ ‍

Schwartzkopf, Cox, Koehler, and Fiedler, "Generic Processing Of SAR Complex Data Using the SICD Standard in Matlab," IGARSS 2019. This is the SICD standard paper and it explains why the standard exists: to let processing algorithms operate on complex SAR data independently of which sensor collected it. That sensor independence is the whole point of the format and the reason NGA specified it in the topic title. Read it and use its vocabulary.

‍ ‍

The reference set is notably light on the AI side and notably specific on the SAR data format side. That asymmetry is a hint about where NGA thinks the risk lies: they assume you can build a model, and they want to know you can handle their data. Bring your own literature on the model side, on vision language models, on SAR automatic target recognition, and on adapting pretrained vision encoders to non-natural imagery, because the DoW Technical Proposal Template requires you to demonstrate awareness of the state of the art.

‍ ‍

Timeline and What to Do When

‍ ‍

The dates

‍ ‍

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

‍ ‍

DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW SBIR Program BAA

‍ ‍

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026

‍ ‍

Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, via email

‍ ‍

Contract award: NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract within 180 days of the proposal due date, approximately mid-April 2027

‍ ‍

Period of performance: up to 24 months

‍ ‍

A working backward plan

‍ ‍

Before September 23. Confirm you can satisfy both halves of the feasibility gate. On the accuracy side, verify your greater than 95 percent result is on SICD-format complex data and not on detected magnitude chips, and assemble the full experimental description including class set, chip counts, split methodology, and confusion matrix. On the qualification side, map your team against the three named competencies of SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning implementation, and identify how you cover any gap. Audit the funding provenance of your results, since work based upon or logically extending from prior federally funded SBIR or STTR work is excluded. Resolve intellectual property ownership or license rights. Confirm your security posture: Facility Clearance Level, safeguarding levels, CAGE codes, addresses, SPRS score, and NIST SP 800-171 status. Identify who holds current Top Secret clearances and who has been polygraphed within five years. Resolve foreign national participation, remembering the prohibition extends to unclassified work. Confirm your training compute environment meets FedRAMP Moderate equivalence if it will hold covered defense information. Decide your data strategy across government, commercial, and internal sources. Get familiar with sarpy and read the SICD standard paper. Model your Percentage of Work. Send your data availability question to Topic Q&A early.

‍ ‍

September 23 through October 5. Draft the 20-page feasibility documentation. Use the space for the full accuracy experiment, the SICD handling detail, example chips with model outputs, the data provenance discussion, and complete personnel qualification evidence with degrees, publications, and specific prior complex SAR work. Draft the 20-page Phase II technical proposal against the DoW Technical Proposal Template. Make the case for why a VLM rather than a classifier, addressing explanation and open-vocabulary search. Address the SAR-specific encoder adaptation problem and where your language supervision comes from. Explain how you bridge from single-chip classification to multi-target search, and propose your own detection and classification metrics with justification. Cover the data plan and the domain gap. Include the Section 508 outline in the Commercialization Strategy, clearance levels in Key Personnel, and full facility and CUI detail in Facilities and Equipment. Do not propose option periods.

‍ ‍

October 6 through October 7. Submit remaining questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes. The most valuable is what government SAR SICD data will be available, in what quantity, with what annotations, at what classification. Administrative questions go to sbir@nga.mil.

‍ ‍

October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume, with costs separated and clearly identified on the Proposal Cover Sheet and in Volume 3, against the $1,500,000 and 24-month ceiling with no options. Price training compute realistically, data acquisition or licensing, annotation effort including any language supervision generation, secure compute or facility access if needed, security administration, accessibility work, and the productization effort for a tool that transitions. Firm fixed price is typical, so carry margin on compute and data. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form and place it in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, which is required though not evaluated by NGA. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form and supporting documentation. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering it must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded there. Run compliance: 20 plus 20 pages, consecutively numbered, no option periods, clearance levels listed, SPRS score and facility details provided, Section 508 outline present.

‍ ‍

October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is NGA SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-DV034?

‍ ‍

OSW26BZ06-DV034 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic titled "Vision Language Model (VLM) for Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) target search and classification from Sensor Independent Complex Data (SICD)," released under the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop VLM based SAR imagery search and classification from sensor independent complex data.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available?

‍ ‍

The Phase II amount must not exceed $1,500,000 for up to a 24-month period of performance. Phase II awardees may also request up to $50,000 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal?

‍ ‍

No. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only.

‍ ‍

Can I propose option periods?

‍ ‍

No. The NGA instructions state that the offeror shall not propose option periods.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

Forty pages total, consisting of a feasibility documentation part at 20 pages maximum and a technical proposal part at 20 pages maximum. Pages in excess will not be considered. Number all pages consecutively.

‍ ‍

What must my feasibility documentation demonstrate?

‍ ‍

Two things. Successful classification with greater than 95 percent accuracy of single SAR image chips in SICD format. And that the performer is very well qualified, with PhD or research level given as examples, and has demonstrated experience classifying complex SAR imagery. NGA states that qualification requires a scientist's extensive knowledge of SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning understanding and implementation.

‍ ‍

Does my 95 percent result have to be on SICD data?

‍ ‍

That is what the topic says: classification of single SAR image chips in SICD format. Most publicly available SAR classification work uses detected magnitude imagery rather than complex data. If your result is on magnitude chips, reproduce it on SICD data if you can, and if you cannot, state plainly what you have and what the gap is rather than letting a reviewer discover it.

‍ ‍

How should I report the accuracy?

‍ ‍

With the full experimental description: the class set and number of classes, the number of chips, the train and test split, whether the split is by scene or by chip, and the confusion matrix. A 95 percent figure on a small closed class set with a chip-level random split is a much weaker claim than the same figure on a scene-disjoint split, and a reviewer in this field will know.

‍ ‍

What does the qualification requirement actually mean?

‍ ‍

Three named competencies. SAR signal and image processing, meaning the phenomenology of how the image forms and what phase carries. SAR operations from space, meaning collection geometry, look and incidence angles, collection modes, and the metadata that describes them. And deep learning understanding and implementation, meaning you build and train models. Address all three with named individuals, degrees, publications, and specific prior complex SAR work.

‍ ‍

Can my feasibility evidence come from a prior SBIR award?

‍ ‍

No. NGA's Direct to Phase II guidelines state that feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and that the work must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. SAR automatic target recognition work in the United States has been substantially SBIR and STTR funded, so audit your provenance.

‍ ‍

What happens if my feasibility documentation is inadequate?

‍ ‍

If the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the associated topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.

‍ ‍

What does Phase II have to deliver?

‍ ‍

A VLM based SAR SICD imagery classification system where input contains SAR imagery with multiple targets and output is location and classification of the targets. You may use SAR SICD data provided by the government or your own or commercial data.

‍ ‍

How does Phase II differ from the feasibility requirement?

‍ ‍

Substantially, and this is the key structural feature of the topic. Feasibility is single chips with one target each, classified. Phase II is full imagery with multiple targets, and the output includes location as well as classification. That is a jump from classification to detection plus classification, where false alarms across large scenes become the dominant failure mode. Your Phase II plan should explain how you bridge that gap and should propose detection metrics rather than only classification accuracy.

‍ ‍

Does NGA specify Phase II performance targets?

‍ ‍

No. The only stated number is the greater than 95 percent feasibility accuracy on single chips. Propose your own Phase II metrics, justified against the scene sizes and target classes you address, using measures that account for false alarms such as precision and recall, mean average precision, or a probability-of-detection versus false-alarm-rate curve.

‍ ‍

What data will I use?

‍ ‍

SAR SICD data provided by the government, or your own or commercial data. Say which, in what proportion, and how you handle the domain gap between them. Government data is likely the most mission-representative and the most likely to be controlled, which brings the security requirements into your data handling plan. It is worth asking through Topic Q&A what government data will be available, in what quantity, with what annotations, and at what classification level.

‍ ‍

What is SICD, and why does it matter?

‍ ‍

Sensor Independent Complex Data is NGA's standard format for complex SAR data, retaining phase as well as amplitude in single look complex form. The point of the standard, as the cited Schwartzkopf paper explains, is to let processing algorithms operate on complex SAR data independently of which sensor collected it. NGA's own open-source sarpy Python library reads and processes it, and using sarpy signals that you have handled real SICD files.

‍ ‍

Why does the model have to be a vision language model?

‍ ‍

The topic does not say directly, which makes it the central question your proposal should answer. The plausible reasons are explanation, since NGA describes a vision encoder that allows the language model to explain contents of an imagery, which serves an analyst who must accept or reject a call; and open-vocabulary query-driven search, which is what target search implies and which a fixed-class classifier cannot do. Making that argument well distinguishes you from proposals treating VLM as a label on a conventional detector.

‍ ‍

What makes SAR hard for a vision language model?

‍ ‍

Vision language models are pretrained on natural imagery and text. SAR is complex-valued, speckled, geometrically distorted by layover and shadow, radiometrically counterintuitive, and highly sensitive to look angle. A vision encoder trained on photographs has learned features that do not transfer cleanly. Your proposal should address how you adapt or replace the encoder for complex input, how you use SICD metadata, and where your text supervision comes from, since there is no large corpus of SAR imagery paired with expert descriptions.

‍ ‍

Do I need a security clearance?

‍ ‍

Yes. The instructions state that all Contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret Personnel Security Clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for SCI access. Personnel performing TS/SCI work require active TS/SCI clearances for access to TS/SCI facilities, environments, and computer systems. NGA will sponsor SCI accesses at its sole discretion if needed.

‍ ‍

Is a polygraph required?

‍ ‍

Contractors are subject to a counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination as requested by NGA. Contractors who have not successfully completed polygraph testing within the last five years must immediately schedule an examination and complete the process, in no more than three test sessions, within 90 days, as a condition of employment and assignment.

‍ ‍

Can uncleared machine learning staff work on this?

‍ ‍

In a limited way. After discussion with the COR and with written COR approval, uncleared contractor personnel are authorized to work at the unclassified level with access up to DoD Controlled Unclassified Information at the contractor site without a security clearance. Personnel working with CUI must receive favorable HSPD-12 adjudication for 60 days or less of access, or HSPD-12 Tier 1 adjudication for more than 60 days. NGA will sponsor those investigations as needed. Structure your data plan and staffing plan together, since they determine each other.

‍ ‍

Can foreign nationals work on this contract?

‍ ‍

Not without prior written approval from the Contracting Officer or the COR, and that prohibition applies to unclassified work. If NGA identifies unauthorized personnel, the CO may direct removal and replacement at the contractor's expense, without prejudice to other remedies including termination for default. For a deep learning team this is often the binding constraint.

‍ ‍

What must my Key Personnel section include?

‍ ‍

In addition to the standard content, list the clearance level held by each of the personnel, because, as NGA puts it, we will be operating in a classified environment. On this topic that section is doing double duty, since the feasibility gate also requires demonstrating the performer's SAR and deep learning qualifications.

‍ ‍

What must my Facilities and Equipment section include?

‍ ‍

How Controlled Unclassified Information will be protected in accordance with NIST SP 800-171, your Supplier Performance Risk System score, and your Facility Clearance Level, the safeguarding level for each facility, the CAGE code for each facility, and the associated physical addresses.

‍ ‍

Is my security posture actually scored?

‍ ‍

Yes. In addition to the DoW Program evaluation criteria, NGA will evaluate a vendor's ability to perform controlled work, meaning CUI and classified, as part of their technical evaluation score. NGA may use SETA support for the programmatics of executing the evaluation but will not use SETA support to evaluate proposals.

‍ ‍

What are the cybersecurity requirements?

‍ ‍

At minimum, implement 10 U.S.C. Sections 391 and 393 along with NIST SP 800-171. If using an external cloud service provider to store, process, or transmit covered defense information, ensure it meets security requirements equivalent to the FedRAMP Moderate baseline. On discovering a cyber incident, notify the DoD Cyber Crime Center and the COR in writing within 72 hours and conduct a compromise review. Isolated malicious software goes to DC3 per COR instructions, not to the COR. For a model training program on commercial GPU cloud, the FedRAMP equivalence point is the one to check early.

‍ ‍

What is the Section 508 requirement?

‍ ‍

The Commercialization Strategy must address Section 508 compliance per NGA Instruction 8400.4 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended in 1998. Information and Communications Technology may use WCAG 2.1 to comply, or alternative designs achieving substantially equivalent or greater access. The proposal should include an outline of specifically how compliance will be achieved, and if an exception is justified the rationale must be submitted as part of the proposal. It applies here because the deliverable is an analyst-facing tool, and a natural-language description of imagery is inherently more accessible than imagery alone, which is an argument worth making.

‍ ‍

What CMMC level applies?

‍ ‍

The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2 with self-assessment. Separately, the classified nature of the work imposes personnel and facility requirements well beyond CMMC.

‍ ‍

Is this topic ITAR restricted?

‍ ‍

No topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on OSW26BZ06-DV034. The classified environment and the foreign national prohibition impose stricter constraints than an ITAR notice would.

‍ ‍

Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?

‍ ‍

No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by NGA during proposal evaluations. Put your effort into the Commercialization Strategy inside the technical volume instead.

‍ ‍

Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?

‍ ‍

Yes. NGA will not accept any deviation to the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program. Note that subcontractors also inherit the security requirements and the DFARS 252.204-7012 and FAR 52.204-21 flow-downs.

‍ ‍

What contract type should I expect, and when?

‍ ‍

NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract within 180 days of the proposal due date, roughly mid-April 2027 for this cycle, with type at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Firm fixed price on a machine learning program means carrying margin for training compute and data acquisition uncertainty.

‍ ‍

Can I publish or publicize this work?

‍ ‍

Only with permission. Contractor personnel shall not release any unclassified information, in any medium, pertaining to any part of the contract or any related program unless the COR has given prior written approval or in performance of a project scoped and negotiated by NGA. The NGA clause on unauthorized use of the NGA name, seal, and initials also applies. For an AI company that publishes as part of its recruiting and commercial strategy, this is a real constraint worth planning around.

‍ ‍

When will I hear back?

‍ ‍

Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, via email. Note that the NGA text says notification "for a Phase I award," which appears to be residual language given that this topic issues no Phase I award.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the NGA SBIR/STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to sbir@nga.mil. Protests after award go to Patricia Hill at Patricia.D.Hill@nga.mil.

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Check both halves of the feasibility gate before you invest. The accuracy half is a number. The qualification half is a credential requirement, and it names three competencies that rarely coexist: SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning implementation. If you are a strong AI company without deep SAR phenomenology expertise, or a SAR house without model-building depth, you have a gap that NGA has explicitly told you it will look for.

‍ ‍

Verify your 95 percent result is on complex data. SICD is complex, and most published SAR classification results are on detected magnitude chips. If yours are magnitude, reproduce on SICD or say clearly what you have. A reviewer who works this problem will spot the substitution immediately, and being straightforward about a gap costs less than being caught glossing over one.

‍ ‍

Report the accuracy like a scientist. Class set, chip counts, split methodology, scene-disjoint or not, confusion matrix. On a topic that explicitly requires research-level qualification, how you report results is itself evidence of qualification.

‍ ‍

Answer the "why a VLM" question that the topic leaves implicit. Explanation for the analyst, and open-vocabulary query-driven search, are the two defensible answers, and both connect to the Trusted AI and Autonomy priority area. A proposal that uses a language model without arguing why language is the right interface for GEOINT looks like it followed a trend rather than a requirement.

‍ ‍

Confront the encoder problem head on. Pretrained vision encoders learned photographs. SAR is complex-valued, speckled, geometrically distorted, and look-angle dependent. Say what you do about it: complex input handling, magnitude and phase channels, learned representations, metadata conditioning. This is the deepest technical question in the topic and where a serious team separates from a capable one.

‍ ‍

Say where your language supervision comes from. There is no large corpus of SAR imagery paired with expert text. Synthetic captions from metadata and annotations, expert-written descriptions, label bootstrapping, or something else. Most proposals will skip this and it is the practical bottleneck of the whole approach.

‍ ‍

Plan the bridge from chips to scenes explicitly. Feasibility is one target per chip. Phase II is many targets per scene with localization. False alarm rate across a large scene, not classification accuracy, is the metric that will determine whether the tool is usable. Propose those metrics yourself, since NGA states none for Phase II.

‍ ‍

Use sarpy, or explain why not. It is NGA's own library, it is one of only three references, and it is the most actionable signal in the topic that they care whether you can handle their format. Reading the SICD standard paper and using its vocabulary reinforces the same point.

‍ ‍

Resolve the clearance and foreign national questions before you write. Top Secret with SCI eligibility for all personnel, counterintelligence-scope polygraph, and foreign nationals barred from even unclassified work without prior written approval. For a modern machine learning team this is usually the binding constraint, not the technology.

‍ ‍

Check your SPRS score today. NGA asks for the number, a reviewer can look at it immediately, it feeds a scored criterion, and it takes weeks to improve.

‍ ‍

Structure the team around the two security tiers. Uncleared but HSPD-12 adjudicated staff can do unclassified model development on commercial or internal data with written COR approval. Cleared staff handle government-provided controlled data and anything in a classified environment. Design your data plan and staffing plan together, and note that laptops and removable media are barred from secure facilities, so development inside a SCIF looks nothing like development outside one.

‍ ‍

Confirm FedRAMP Moderate equivalence for your training environment. Training a vision language model means significant GPU capacity, and the default answer is commercial cloud. If covered defense information will touch it, the equivalence requirement applies, and discovering that after award is expensive.

‍ ‍

Write the Section 508 outline, and make it an argument rather than a checkbox. This topic delivers an analyst-facing tool, so accessibility applies. And a model that describes imagery in language is genuinely more accessible than one that outputs bounding boxes. Naming WCAG 2.1, describing conformance for your interface, and connecting accessibility to the reason a VLM is the right architecture turns a requirement into a strength.

‍ ‍

Use all twenty feasibility pages. Four times the allowance most components give. Full experimental detail, data provenance, example outputs, SICD handling specifics, and complete personnel credentials all fit, and the qualification half of the gate practically demands the space.

‍ ‍

Do not propose options, and price for firm fixed price. NGA prohibits option periods outright, and typically awards FFP within 180 days. Carry margin on compute and data, which are the two least predictable costs here.

‍ ‍

Plan your commercialization story around the publication constraints. No release of unclassified contract information without written COR approval, and the NGA name and seal are protected. An AI company that publishes to recruit and to build credibility needs a strategy that works within that, and saying so honestly reads better than a plan that ignores it.

‍ ‍

Ask about the government data. What SICD data will be available, how much, with what annotations, at what classification level. That single answer shapes your architecture, your annotation budget, your staffing tiers, and your facility needs. Topic Q&A closes October 7.