DAF SBIR DAF26BX06-DV511: Low SWaP-C Tactical Awareness Payload for Proliferated, Agile Satellites (TAPPAS) for Space Domain Awareness

Quick Answer

DAF26BX06-DV511 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DAF 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. The Space Force wants a compact, low size, weight, power, and cost sensor payload that gives a host satellite persistent 4 pi steradian awareness of its own local space environment in geosynchronous orbit. Think of it as a self-awareness bubble: the satellite sees what is around it, tracks nearby objects autonomously, and assesses whether they are debris, unremarkable neutral objects, friendly, or a potential threat. The deliverable at the end of Phase II is a production representative article of flight qualifiable hardware. Awards are up to $3,000,000 for up to 24 months, with a 20 page technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

This is the largest award ceiling in the release and also the most hardware-committed. The government states plainly that its primary focus is on the speed of delivery for proven technology now. That framing should shape everything about your proposal: this is a manufacturing and qualification topic more than a research topic, and a proposal that reads as exploratory will lose to one that reads as production ready.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26BX06-DV511

Title: Low SWaP-C Tactical Awareness Payload for Proliferated, Agile Satellites (TAPPAS) for Space Domain Awareness

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO), Release 6, Direct to Phase II

Program type: Direct to Phase II (D2P2), no Phase I awards will be made for this topic

Award maximum value: $3,000,000, the highest in this release

Award maximum duration: 24 months

Technical volume page limit: 20 pages or slides

Component Technology Priority Area: Space Technology

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)

Export control status: Restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774

Target orbit environment: Geosynchronous, the GEO belt

Expected maturity at Phase II completion: approximately TRL 6, a system or prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time stated in the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO

Selection timeline: within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

Keywords: surveillance, space based surveillance, proliferation, constellation, resident space object, space domain awareness, geostationary orbit, GEO belt, visual magnitude, electro optical, infrared, radio frequency, free flyer, GEO SDA, low size weight and power, own-ship awareness, local area sensor

Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions point applicants to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO for the submission deadline date and time. DoW SBIR CSO deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting rather than assuming end of day.

The Performance Requirements, Stated Plainly

These are the numbers your proposal will be measured against. State your position on each one explicitly.

Field of regard: persistent 4 pi steradian awareness of the local space environment for the host vehicle. Occlusion zones are probable and should be minimized based on satellite design and sensor placement.

Power: the ideal payload would not exceed 50 watts of power consumption.

Mass: the ideal payload would not exceed 15 kilograms.

Self-awareness bubble range: 200 kilometers as the threshold, 500 kilometers as the objective radius.

Detection sensitivity: ability to detect a 0.5 meter object as the threshold, down to 0.2 meter as the objective.

Detection confidence: probability of detection of 0.8 and probability of false alarm of 0.01.

Phenomenologies of interest: multiple, including but not limited to electro-optical, infrared, and radio frequency.

Bus compatibility: to be suitable for integration across a wide range of buses, solutions must be aggressively optimized for low size, weight, and power, with affordability in mind.

The topic softens the SWaP figures with the phrase "while any available tested technology will be considered," and calls the 50 watt and 15 kilogram figures ideal rather than absolute. Do not read that as permission to ignore them. Read it as an invitation to propose something proven that comes close, and to justify any excess against the platform integration argument the topic makes, which is that these characteristics are critical for enabling integration onto platforms with stringent resource limitations.

What the Space Force Is Actually Looking For

The operational logic

The modern space domain requires a layered sensing architecture to ensure resilience. This topic targets one element of that architecture: a compact, efficient payload that gives its host vehicle persistent local awareness.

The Space Force draws an explicit analogy to other warfighting domains. Following the traditions of air, maritime, and ground combat architectures, proliferated tactical sensors and their on-board assessment technology must become part of any combat system baseline. In plain terms, combat aircraft and ships carry their own sensors for self-protection as a matter of course, and satellites do not yet. This topic is about closing that gap.

The dual purpose is stated clearly. The effort targets the combination of in-space sensing and sense-making, with the goal of enabling both self-protection, through the organic ability to detect, track, and characterize immediate threats to support threat response, and contribution to shared awareness of the tactical space picture across the domain. So the payload serves the host vehicle and the broader Space Domain Awareness enterprise at the same time.

The payload capability is described as a critical enabler for mission resilience and ultimately space superiority, through greater autonomy, decision-agility, and survivability in contested space warfighting environments.

Beyond detection: the sense-making requirement

This is where the topic asks for more than a sensor. The sensor data must feed into advanced on-board analytics to autonomously track nearby objects, to support assessment of intent, distinguishing between debris, unanticipated neutral or friendly objects, and potential threats, to enable both autonomous tactical response and intuitive operator visualization.

Four elements in that sentence deserve individual attention in your proposal. On-board analytics, meaning processing at the edge rather than downlinking raw data. Autonomous tracking. Object classification into debris, neutral or friendly, and potential threat categories, which is a characterization problem, not just a detection problem. And output that supports both machine action and human understanding.

A proposal that delivers excellent detection with no on-board sense-making has answered half the topic.

The four named key challenges

The topic lists four challenges to be addressed. Use them as an organizing structure, because they map to what the evaluators are looking for.

Autonomous threat detection in a low SWaP-C package: proactively gathering, processing, and analyzing data to characterize threats using a highly efficient, lightweight payload.

Scalable, mature, and manufacturable solutions: solutions must emphasize high Technology Readiness Level, Manufacturing Readiness Level, and scalability for hardware and software. Note the explicit inclusion of Manufacturing Readiness Level. MRL is rarely called out in SBIR topics and its presence here reinforces the production orientation. Address your MRL directly.

Efficient hardware integration: use common interfaces for power, data, and thermal to ease integration onto platforms. Minimize footprint and be flexible with mounting options.

Efficient data integration: optimize the payload to provide decision-quality information efficiently, with an architecture that allows for integration with enterprise data systems.

Phase II activities and success criteria

The successful completion of Phase II should be production of a production representative article, or PRA, that can be space qualified and meets the SWaP and performance requirements.

Four Phase II activities are named. Prototype fabrication and assembly: fabricate or procure necessary components to fabricate and test a PRA. Firmware and software development: develop and integrate firmware and software necessary to support processing of sensor data and provide output that can be ingested by the bus for autonomous operation, with necessary data formatted for further exploitation on the ground. Environmental and performance testing: conduct a comprehensive test campaign to validate payload performance and survivability, expected to include thermal-vacuum cycling representative of the GEO thermal environment, random vibration testing to assess launch survivability, and electromagnetic interference testing to ensure no harm to other space vehicle subsystems. Laboratory-based performance demonstration: conduct performance testing in a laboratory environment to validate key performance parameters.

Successful completion is determined by demonstration of three things: demonstrated performance of the unit, successful completion of space environmental testing covering TVAC, random vibration, and EMI, and demonstrated data output format.

Phase II deliverables

Five primary deliverables are listed. A Production Representative Article. Performance and environmental test data and reports, described as an End Item Data Package. A reliability analysis. A preliminary Interface Control Document. And ground software for commanding the sensor payload and processing telemetry and mission data.

Read that list against your 24 month schedule and $3,000,000 ceiling. Hardware fabrication, a full environmental test campaign at GEO-representative conditions, an ICD, a reliability analysis, and ground software is a substantial program. The proposals that win will show a credible schedule with test facility access identified, not an optimistic one.

Phase III

Phase III activities, funded through non-SBIR/STTR government contracts or other appropriate funding mechanisms, are intended to support continued maturation, qualification, and operational integration. The focus would be advancing the payload toward flight-qualified configurations suitable for incorporation into operational Space Domain Awareness mission architectures.

Potential Phase III activities include qualification of the payload design for space flight, refinement for manufacturability and scalability, integration support with host spacecraft platforms, and preparation for operational testing and evaluation. Where appropriate, Phase III may also support Low-Rate Initial Production planning and execution, subject to government priorities and funding availability.

On the maturity ladder: upon successful completion of Phase II the payload is expected to achieve approximately TRL 6, a system or prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment. Phase III efforts may mature the technology to TRL 8 through flight qualification and system-level testing, and ultimately to TRL 9 upon successful on-orbit deployment and operational use.

The topic notes that the full scope of potential Phase III efforts is defined in 15 U.S.C. 638 and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive Section 4(c), and that per Section 4(b)(2) of the Policy Directive the Government may, at its discretion, include Phase III procedures in its Phase II Funding Agreement. That last point is worth flagging to your counsel: a Phase III provision inside the Phase II agreement is a meaningful commercial advantage if it materializes.

The Feasibility Requirement

Direct to Phase II means you must document that you already did the Phase I equivalent work outside the SBIR program. The DAF disqualifies proposals where the Phase I equivalency documentation does not establish feasibility and technical merit, and applies that screen before evaluating technical merit.

What this topic requires

The topic states it is intended for technology proven ready to move directly into Phase II, and that Phase I awards will not be made. The applicant is required to provide detail and documentation in the D2P2 proposal demonstrating accomplishment of a Phase I type effort, including a feasibility study. That includes determining, insofar as possible, the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas appearing to have commercial potential.

Then two specific requirements that are easy to under-deliver on. The applicant must have validated the product-mission fit between the proposed solution and a potential Air Force or Space Force stakeholder. And the applicant should have defined a clear, immediately actionable plan with the proposed solution and the DAF customer and end-user.

Notice what those two sentences require. Not just that your sensor works, but that you have engaged with a specific Air Force or Space Force stakeholder and validated that your solution fits their mission, and that you and that customer have a plan you could act on now. That is a business development requirement embedded in a technical feasibility requirement, and it cannot be manufactured in the four weeks the topic is open. If you have not had those conversations, that is the gap to close first.

The general D2P2 rules

The feasibility work must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.

Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. This authority exists for companies that matured technology outside the SBIR pipeline.

If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property rights, provide IP rights assertions, plus a short summary for each item asserted with less than unlimited rights describing the restriction's nature and the intellectual property intended for use in the proposed research.

Feasibility documentation can be included as part of Volume 5 and is listed as required of all proposal submissions.

For a hardware topic like this one, useful feasibility evidence includes prior flight heritage of the sensor or its components, environmental test reports from non-SBIR work, breadboard or engineering unit performance data against the detection thresholds, and documented stakeholder engagement establishing the product-mission fit.

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling

Up to $3,000,000 across up to 24 months. The topic index warns that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.

The DAF also notes that per-award and per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only, more or less funding may become available, multiple procurements are planned and anticipated, each proposal is a separate procurement evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to other awards under the same topic.

Contract type and fee

Generally firm-fixed-price contracts are appropriate for Phase II awards, and per the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Phase II contracts must include profit or fee.

A firm-fixed-price hardware program with a full environmental qualification campaign carries real cost risk. Build your estimate with that in mind, since the Government may award without exchanges if it takes no exceptions to your proposal, meaning your initial submission should carry your best terms rather than an opening position.

Technical and Business Assistance

Up to $50,000 per Phase II award, in addition to the per-topic total, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal. Applicants may elect to use $25,000 on a first SBIR Phase II award and $25,000 on a sequential SBIR Phase II award.

TABA can only fund the activities in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E): access to a network of scientists and engineers, assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, cybersecurity assistance, market research, market validation, development of regulations and manufacturing plans, and access to technical and business literature through online databases. For this topic, development of manufacturing plans deserves a serious look, given the explicit Manufacturing Readiness Level emphasis and the Phase III scalability and Low-Rate Initial Production framing.

The detailed request must appear in Volume 5, including provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks the provider will perform including purpose and objective, and total provider cost with hours and labor rates. Average or blended rates are acceptable. The task milestone list must track to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant. Requests that only specify a value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.

Cost volume expectations

A detailed cost proposal by individual cost element and by contractor fiscal year, in sufficient detail to determine the basis for estimates and the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each. Cost proposal attachments do not count toward page limits, and cost proposal information will be treated as proprietary.

For a hardware program, several cost volume elements carry unusual weight here.

Direct cost materials: an itemized list of types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. For planned computer or software purchases, detailed information such as manufacturer, price quotes, proposed use, and support for the need will be required. Long-lead space-qualified parts belong here with quotes.

Other direct costs: specialized services such as machining or milling, special test and analysis, and costs for temporary use or lease of specialized facilities or equipment, with usage hours expected, rates, sources, and a brief discussion of purpose and justification. Thermal-vacuum chamber time, vibration table time, and EMI chamber access all live in this category. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase rationale.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material: inclusion will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work. Purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort, and should not be of a type an applicant would otherwise possess in the normal course of business. These may include innovative instrumentation or automatic test equipment.

Subcontracts: must be supported with copies of subcontract agreements adequately describing the work and cost bases, including a statement of work, assigned personnel, hours and rates, materials, and proposed travel. A letter from a subcontractor agreeing to perform a task at a fixed price is expressly not considered sufficient. The prime must accomplish price analysis including reasonableness of proposed subcontractor costs, and provide cost analysis where price analysis techniques are inadequate or the FAR requires cost or pricing data.

Consultants: a separate agreement letter for each, stating the service, hours required, and hourly rate, plus a short concise resume.

Travel: each effort should include at a minimum a kickoff or interim meeting, justified with destinations, trips, travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and ground transportation against the Joint Travel Regulation.

Indirect costs: indicate proposed rate bases, identify specific rates and allocation bases, and provide rates and applications per fiscal year across the anticipated performance period. Do not propose composite rates.

Non-SBIR governmental or private investment is allowed but not required and will not be a proposal evaluation factor.

Work performance requirements

The instructions state two thresholds that do not obviously align. The Consultants and Subcontractors section requires, per the SBA SBIR Policy Directive, a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D be performed by the proposing firm unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The Performance of Work Requirements section states that for Phase II a minimum of one-third of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit. Separately, the proposed total of all consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-half of the total contract price unless approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.

This is a live problem for space hardware specifically. If you are buying detector assemblies, procuring space-qualified components, and leasing TVAC and vibration facilities, those costs accumulate against the one-half cap quickly. Model your cost distribution early. Planning to perform at least half the R/R&D in house and keeping all outside costs below half the contract price satisfies every reading.

If you cannot meet it, requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and again as part of the initial proposal submission. The DAF will not consider these requests before proposal submission. Given the ambiguity between the stated thresholds, raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk early in the open period.

Where work must be performed

All R/R&D must be performed in the United States by the small business and its team members. Based on rare and unique circumstances the DAF may approve a particular portion of the work to be performed or obtained outside the United States, and the awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Requests must accompany the initial proposal submission.

Export Control, Which Is Explicit on This Topic

The technology in this topic is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, and the EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items.

Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work tasks intended for accomplishment by those individuals. The topic advises that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.

A foreign national means any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States, not a lawful permanent resident, and not a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b. All applicants proposing to use foreign nationals must follow the FY26 SBIR CSO and disclose regardless of whether the topic is subject to ITAR.

Where the topic area is subject to export control, permitted foreign national participants are limited to work in the public domain, and assigned tasks must not be capable of assimilation into an understanding of the project's overall objectives, which the instructions note prevents foreign persons from acting in key positions such as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer.

For projects with military or dual-use applications developing beyond fundamental research, the contractor must comply with all U.S. export control laws, is responsible for obtaining appropriate licenses or approvals including for deemed exports of hardware, technical data, and software, must obtain export licenses before using foreign persons including where work is performed on-site at any Government installation whether inside or outside the United States, is responsible for regulatory record keeping associated with licenses and exemptions, and must ensure these provisions apply to its subcontractors.

If asserting export-controlled status, a certified DD Form 2345 Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission, belongs in Volume 5, and DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award.

Space sensing companies frequently employ non-U.S. persons in engineering roles. Resolve who can work on what before you build your key personnel section.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting, with a note about the tighter page limit

Type no smaller than 11-point on standard 8.5 by 11 paper, one-inch margins, pages consecutively numbered. This differs from Army SBIR instructions, which allow 10-point.

The technical volume limit for this topic is 20 pages or slides, notably tighter than the 35 pages allowed for the two air-domain topics in the same release. Pages in excess will not be considered by the Government in evaluations. That constraint matters here because the topic asks for a great deal: performance against seven or eight numeric requirements, four named challenges, four Phase II activities, five deliverables, environmental test planning, and a commercialization plan. Ruthless economy is required. Push resumes, subcontract documents, and cost detail into the volumes where they do not count against the limit.

Proposals should be direct, concise, and informative. Applicants are discouraged from including promotional and non-programmatic items, and if included, such material counts toward the page limit. Marketing material will not be evaluated.

Preferred submission format is PDF, graphics must be distinguishable in black and white, and all submissions must be virus-checked. Note that "pages or slides" means a slide-format technical volume is acceptable, which many hardware teams find more efficient for conveying design and test information within a tight limit.

Volume 6 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse training must be completed before submission, and DSIP will not allow submission until it is complete and certified. The DAF recommends completing submission early because site traffic is heavy prior to close and causes system lag, will not be responsible for proposals not completely submitted before the deadline due to system inaccessibility unless advised by DoW, and will not accept submission outside DSIP.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Per DSIP instructions. The technical abstract should include a brief description of program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits, commercial applications, and a list of keywords and terms. The abstract of each successful proposal goes to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released, so keep sensitive design detail out of it.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

Required items in the order provided: table of contents immediately after the cover sheet; glossary of acronyms and abbreviations; milestone identification with a program schedule showing all key milestones; identification and significance of the problem or opportunity; Phase II technical objectives with technical approach and methods and an assessment of potential commercial application for each objective; work plan; deliverables; related work; commercialization potential; relationship with future R/R&D efforts; key personnel; facilities and equipment; consultants and subcontractors; and prior, current, or pending support of similar proposals or awards.

The work plan is a separate and distinct part of the package, divided from the technical proposal by a page break and begun on a new page. It must contain a summary description of the technical methodology and task description in broad enough detail to provide contractual flexibility, and must not contain proprietary information, because if the proposal is selected the work plan will be incorporated into the resulting contract by reference. Recommended format is 1.0 Objective, a brief overview of the specialty area explaining purpose and expected outcome; 2.0 Scope, a concise description of the work including technology area, goals, and major milestones, with task development and deliverables as key elements, consistent with section 4.0; 3.0 Background, identifying applicable specifications, standards, and other documents, constraints to understanding requirements, relationships to previous, current, or future operations, and techniques previously determined ineffective; and 4.0 Task and Technical Requirements, with detailed individual task descriptions in orderly progression, sufficient detail to establish overall program requirements and goals, work segregated into major tasks in separately numbered paragraphs, each delineated by subtask. Every task must appear in definite, realistic, clearly stated terms. Use "shall" for binding provisions, "should" or "may" for a declaration or purpose, and "will" where no contractor requirement is involved.

For this topic, the work plan is where your environmental test campaign, PRA fabrication sequence, and deliverable production get expressed contractually. Because it becomes part of the contract by reference, be deliberate about which statements you make binding with "shall."

Deliverables must clearly describe the specific sample or prototype hardware and software to be delivered, plus data deliverables, schedules, and quantities. Be aware of the possible requirement for unique item identification under DFARS 252.211-7003, Item Identification and Valuation, for hardware, which is directly relevant to a Production Representative Article. If hardware or software will be developed but not delivered, provide an explanation. At minimum all Phase II contracts require Scientific and Technical Reports. Rights in technical data including software developed under a SBIR contract generally remain with the contractor, and the Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights in all data developed or generated under the contract for 20 years commencing at contract award, after which the Government has Government purpose rights to the SBIR data. The Final Report's first page is a single-page project summary identifying purpose, briefly describing the effort accomplished, and listing potential result applications, which may be published by DoW and therefore must contain no proprietary or classified information. Status reports are due quarterly at a minimum. The Air Force may require additional reporting including software documentation and users' manuals, engineering drawings, operation and maintenance documentation, safety hazard analysis when the project results in partial or total development and delivery of hardware, and updates to commercialization results.

Related work must describe significant directly related activities including previous programs conducted by the principal investigator, proposing firm, consultants, or others, their application to the proposed project, how they interface with it, and planned coordination with outside sources. List any applicant-identified subject matter experts regardless of affiliation with comments regarding the applicant's knowledge of the state of the art in the specific approach proposed. Describe previous work not directly related but similar, with a short description, the client including an individual to be contacted and phone number, and the date of completion.

Commercialization potential requires a commercialization plan with the Phase II proposal addressing the first planned product to incorporate the technology, probable customers and estimated market size, how much money is needed to bring the technology to market and how it will be raised, whether the firm has necessary marketing expertise and how it will compensate if not, and probable competitors with the anticipated price or quality advantage. Commercial potential is evidenced by the existence of private sector or non-SBIR governmental funding sources demonstrating commitment to Phase II efforts and results, the existence of Phase III follow-on commitments for the research subject, and other indicators of commercial technology potential including the firm's commercialization strategy. If awarded, the awardee must periodically update commercialization results via SBA, at completion of the effort and when submitting a new SBIR/STTR proposal to DoW, with annual updates requested from firms not submitting new proposals. The Commercialization Plan and the Company Commercialization Report are distinct documents.

Relationship with future R/R&D efforts must state the anticipated results of the proposed approach, specifically addressing plans for Phase III if any, and discuss the significance of the D2P2 effort in providing a basis for the Phase III effort if planned. Given how specific this topic is about the TRL 6 to TRL 8 to TRL 9 path and Low-Rate Initial Production, this section should track that language.

Key personnel must identify all key personnel with information directly related to education, experience, and citizenship, and include a technical resume for the principal investigator with publications. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants are also useful. Identify all non-U.S. citizens expected to be involved as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants, and for those individuals provide countries of origin, type of visa or work permit held, and the tasks they are anticipated to perform. The principal investigator's primary employment must be with the small business at the time of award and during the entire period of performance, where primary employment means more than one-half of the PI's time is spent in the small business's employ, which precludes full-time employment with another entity. Only one principal investigator or project manager may be designated per proposal.

Facilities and equipment must describe instrumentation and physical facilities necessary and available to carry out the effort, justify equipment to be purchased with detail in the cost proposal, and state whether proposed performance locations meet federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations for airborne emissions, waterborne effluents, external radiation levels, outdoor noise, solid and bulk waste disposal practices, and handling and storage of toxic and hazardous materials. For this topic, identify your access to TVAC, vibration, and EMI test facilities here, whether owned or contracted.

Consultants and subcontractors: private companies, consultants, or universities may be involved, all should be described in detail and included in the cost proposal, and signed copies of all consultant or subcontractor letters of intent must be attached, briefly stating the contribution or expertise being provided, with statements of work, detailed cost proposals, and information regarding unique qualifications. Subcontract copies and supporting documents do not count against the page limit, which is a meaningful relief valve on a 20 page topic. Identify any subcontractor or consultant foreign citizens.

Prior, current, or pending support: while it is permissible with proper notification to submit identical proposals or proposals containing a significant amount of essentially equivalent work under numerous federal program solicitations, it is unlawful to enter into contracts or grants requiring essentially equivalent effort, and any potential for that must be disclosed to the solicitation agencies before award. If substantially the same as another proposal submitted previously, currently, or in the process of being funded by another federal agency, DoW component, or the DAF, indicate so on the cover sheet and provide agency names and addresses, submission or award dates, proposal titles, PI names and titles, solicitation titles, numbers and dates, contract numbers if awarded, and applicable topics. If the section does not apply, state so in the proposal and certify on the cover sheet, "No prior, current, or pending support for proposed work."

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Required in DSIP. The DAF states that information contained in the CCR will not be considered during proposal evaluations, which differs from Army SBIR practice. Complete it for compliance.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

May be required if applicable: DD Form 2345, which applies to this export-controlled topic; Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the DoW SBIR FY26 CSO; and Technical Data Rights Assertions if asserting data rights restrictions.

Required of all submissions: feasibility documentation as described above, including IP rights assertions with a short summary for each item asserted with less than unlimited rights.

If appropriate, include a reference or works cited list as the last page. Do not include marketing material.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training

Complete once per year, before submission.

Volume 7, Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries

Complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP submission. It will not be accepted as a PDF supporting document in Volume 5, and previous versions of the form must not be uploaded to Volume 5.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria for this topic

DV511 is evaluated under the criteria set covering DV026, DV511, DV512, and DV513, in descending order of importance.

Criteria A, most important: the soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution, and the qualifications of the proposed principal and key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants. This includes whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the technical proposal.

Criteria B, second: the degree of mission impact and the urgency of the identified need, the specificity of the defense requirement addressed, and the adequacy of the proposed effort in fulfilling the research topic or subtopic solution.

Criteria C, third: the potential for commercial application in the Government or private sector and the benefits expected to accrue from that commercialization.

Two implications for a hardware proposal. First, cost realism lives inside the top-weighted criterion, and on a firm-fixed-price hardware program with a qualification test campaign, an unrealistic cost estimate is a technical credibility problem, not just a pricing problem. If your work plan promises TVAC, random vibration, and EMI testing, your cost volume must show facility access, hours, and rates that make that plausible. Second, "incremental progress toward topic solution" rewards showing where you start and where you land. Anchor your current maturity honestly and show the delta.

General evaluation process

D2P2 proposals are evaluated on a competitive basis by subject matter expert scientists, engineers, or other technical personnel, with confidential proposal and evaluation information protected to the greatest extent possible. Proposals will be disqualified and not evaluated if the Phase I equivalency documentation does not establish the proposed technical approach's feasibility and technical merit.

Selections are based on a determination of the overall technical value of each proposal and an evaluation of the cost volume for selection of the proposals most advantageous to the Government. Where technical evaluations are essentially equal in merit, cost or price will be considered. All evaluation criteria other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest, multiple procurements are planned and anticipated, each proposal is a separate procurement evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none.

Foreign risk evaluation

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns submitting under this release on whether they present a security risk, using the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947, federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The risk-based assessment covers cybersecurity practices, patent analysis, employee analysis, foreign ownership including financial ties and obligations covering surety, equity, and debt obligations of the concern and its employees to a foreign country, person, or entity, foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel with an entity in a foreign country of concern, investment relationships with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern, technology licensing agreements or joint ventures including joint venture like agreements with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern, and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern. The DAF also assesses proposals using open-source analysis and analytical tools for nondisclosures of information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examines any relationship of the concern to any entity or individual on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).

If the DAF assesses security risks, it may either create a mitigation plan or decide not to select the proposal based on a totality of the review.

Awards must be denied under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16) or 638(o)(20) where the concern has an owner or covered individual party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; an owner or covered individual with a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or a security risk connecting the concern, including any affiliates, to an entity or individual on the UFLPA Entity List maintained by DHS, the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List maintained by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Section 889 Prohibition List, the Section 1260H list of Chinese Military Companies, the Military End User List maintained by Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, the Entity List maintained by BIS, the FCC List of Equipment and Services, or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Awards are also denied where the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified, or a security risk the DAF determines warrants denial.

Applicants must disclose under penalty of perjury the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7, and must provide a written statement of any substantial changes to the foreign disclosure form to the awarding agency within 30 days while on a DAF project.

For space hardware, the parts supply chain is the exposure. Detectors, focal plane assemblies, radiation-tolerant compute, and passive components frequently trace to suppliers with entries on one or more of those lists. Audit the bill of materials against them before you propose.

Ownership, support contractors, status, and protests

Small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics. That matters on this topic in particular, since venture-funded space companies are the natural applicant pool.

Proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors, which may include APEX, Peerless Technologies, Engineering Services Network, HPC-COM, Mile Two, REI Systems, MacB (an Alion company), Montech, Oasis, Astrion/Oasis, and Infinite Management Solutions. Only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporation working under contract to provide technical support to Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and Space Force may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Concerns about any of these contractors go to the DAF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer.

The principal investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the cover sheet will be notified by email regarding selection or non-selection, with a separate notification for each proposal submitted. Automated feedback is provided for proposals designated Not Selected, and additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF. Proposals are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic, each operating on its own schedule, so notification timeframes vary.

The DAF anticipates all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the DAF for status before that time. Protests after award should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to the Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer and to the individual procuring contracting officer listed on the firm's selection notification. Final reports go to the awarding DAF organization per contract instructions, not directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

Timeline and What to Do When

The dates

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time specified in the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern. Confirm on DSIP.

Selections finalized: within approximately 90 calendar days of close, on or about January 19, 2027

Period of performance: up to 24 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. The hardest items here are not writing tasks. Confirm your stakeholder validation: you need a documented product-mission fit with an Air Force or Space Force stakeholder and an immediately actionable plan with that customer. Secure written commitments or at least confirmed availability for TVAC, random vibration, and EMI test facility access within your schedule window, because the cost volume needs rates and hours. Get quotes for long-lead space-qualified parts. Audit your bill of materials against the foreign entity denial lists. Resolve export control staffing questions, since the topic warns foreign nationals may be restricted. Start DD Form 2345 if you do not hold one. Complete Volume 6 training, verify SAM and DSIP alignment, and send clarifying questions to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk, which explicitly encourages early inquiries.

September 23 through October 3. Draft Volume 2 against the 20 page limit, which will require several passes to compress. Build a compact requirements response covering 4 pi steradian coverage and occlusion minimization, 50 watts, 15 kilograms, 200 to 500 kilometer bubble, 0.5 to 0.2 meter detection, probability of detection 0.8 and false alarm 0.01, phenomenologies, TRL and MRL, and common power, data, and thermal interfaces. Consider a slide-format volume, which the page or slide limit permits and which suits hardware and test content.

October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume by element and fiscal year, with materials quotes, test facility usage hours and rates, special test equipment justification, and indirect rates per fiscal year with no composite rates. Collect signed letters of intent, statements of work, and detailed cost proposals from every subcontractor and consultant, since a letter agreeing to a fixed price is not sufficient. Check the one-half subcontract and purchase agreement cap and your R/R&D percentage. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA.

October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page limit, 11-point minimum type, one-inch margins, consecutive page numbers, graphics legible in black and white, virus-checked PDF, no marketing material, no proprietary content in the technical abstract or the work plan.

October 17 through October 19. Submit and certify in DSIP.

October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DAF SBIR topic DAF26BX06-DV511?

‍ ‍

DAF26BX06-DV511 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Low SWaP-C Tactical Awareness Payload for Proliferated, Agile Satellites (TAPPAS) for Space Domain Awareness," released under the DAF 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. It seeks a compact sensor payload providing a host satellite persistent 4 pi steradian awareness of its local space environment in the GEO belt, with on-board analytics that autonomously track and characterize nearby objects.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26BX06-DV511?

‍ ‍

Up to $3,000,000 for a period of performance up to 24 months, the largest ceiling in this release. Proposals exceeding either limit will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $50,000 in Technical and Business Assistance may be requested in addition.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions point to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO for the exact submission time, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting.

‍ ‍

When does this topic open?

‍ ‍

September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.

‍ ‍

What are the size, weight, and power targets?

‍ ‍

The ideal payload would not exceed 50 watts of power consumption and 15 kilograms of mass. The topic frames these as ideal rather than absolute, noting any available tested technology will be considered, but states these characteristics are critical for enabling integration onto platforms with stringent resource limitations. If you exceed them, justify it against the integration argument.

‍ ‍

What detection performance is required?

‍ ‍

A self-awareness bubble with a range of 200 kilometers threshold to 500 kilometers objective radius, the ability to detect a 0.5 meter object at threshold and 0.2 meter at objective, with a probability of detection of 0.8 and a probability of false alarm of 0.01. Coverage is persistent 4 pi steradian, with occlusion zones minimized through satellite design and sensor placement.

‍ ‍

What sensing phenomenologies are of interest?

‍ ‍

Multiple, including but not limited to electro-optical, infrared, and radio frequency.

‍ ‍

Is this only a sensor, or does it need onboard processing?

‍ ‍

It needs onboard processing. The sensor data must feed advanced on-board analytics that autonomously track nearby objects and support assessment of intent, distinguishing between debris, unanticipated neutral or friendly objects, and potential threats, enabling both autonomous tactical response and intuitive operator visualization. A detection-only proposal answers half the topic.

‍ ‍

What is the Phase II deliverable?

‍ ‍

Successful Phase II completion should produce a Production Representative Article that can be space qualified and meets the SWaP and performance requirements. The five primary deliverables are the PRA, performance and environmental test data and reports as an End Item Data Package, a reliability analysis, a preliminary Interface Control Document, and ground software for commanding the payload and processing telemetry and mission data.

‍ ‍

What environmental testing is expected?

‍ ‍

A comprehensive test campaign validating payload performance and survivability, expected to include thermal-vacuum cycling representative of the GEO thermal environment, random vibration testing to assess launch survivability, and electromagnetic interference testing to ensure no harm to other space vehicle subsystems. Successful completion is determined in part by successful completion of that space environmental testing.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal for this topic?

‍ ‍

No. This topic is intended for technology proven ready to move directly into Phase II, and Phase I awards will not be made.

‍ ‍

What feasibility documentation does this topic require?

‍ ‍

Detail and documentation demonstrating accomplishment of a Phase I type effort including a feasibility study, determining insofar as possible the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas appearing to have commercial potential. Critically, you must have validated the product-mission fit between your proposed solution and a potential Air Force or Space Force stakeholder, and should have defined a clear, immediately actionable plan with the proposed solution and the DAF customer and end-user.

‍ ‍

Can I use a prior SBIR award as my feasibility basis?

‍ ‍

No. Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and the feasibility effort must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

20 pages or slides for this topic, tighter than the 35 pages allowed for the two air-domain topics in the same release. Pages in excess will not be considered during evaluations. Type must be no smaller than 11-point on 8.5 by 11 paper with one-inch margins and consecutively numbered pages. Note that subcontract copies, supporting documents, and cost proposal attachments do not count toward the limit.

‍ ‍

Can I submit slides instead of a written document?

‍ ‍

The limit is expressed as pages or slides, so a slide-format technical volume is acceptable. Many hardware teams find slides more efficient for conveying design and test content within a tight limit.

‍ ‍

Is this topic export controlled?

‍ ‍

Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774. You must disclose any proposed foreign nationals with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and assigned statement of work tasks, and the topic advises those individuals may be restricted from performing due to the technical data involved. A certified DD Form 2345, or evidence of application, belongs in Volume 5, and approval will be required if selected.

‍ ‍

How is my proposal evaluated?

‍ ‍

Under three criteria in descending order of importance. Criteria A, most important, covers soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the approach, incremental progress toward a solution, the qualifications of key personnel, and whether proposed cost elements are realistic and consistent with the technical proposal. Criteria B covers degree of mission impact, urgency of the identified need, specificity of the defense requirement, and adequacy of the effort. Criteria C covers commercial application potential. All criteria other than cost or price, combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

‍ ‍

Does Manufacturing Readiness Level matter?

‍ ‍

Yes, and unusually so. One of the four named key challenges is scalable, mature, and manufacturable solutions, which explicitly requires emphasis on high Technology Readiness Level, Manufacturing Readiness Level, and scalability for hardware and software. MRL is rarely called out in SBIR topics, and its presence signals a production orientation. Address your MRL directly.

‍ ‍

How much of the work must my company perform?

‍ ‍

The instructions state two thresholds. The Consultants and Subcontractors section requires at least 50 percent of the R/R&D be performed by the proposing firm unless the Contracting Officer approves otherwise in writing. The Performance of Work Requirements section states at least one-third of the Phase II research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by direct and indirect costs excluding profit. Separately, all consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements together may not exceed one-half of the total contract price without written Contracting Officer approval. That last cap is a real constraint on space hardware programs that buy components and lease test facilities. Performing at least half the R/R&D in house satisfies every reading; deviation requests must be made twice, prior to submission during the open period and again with the initial proposal.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but the DAF states information contained in the CCR will not be considered during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

What is TABA and how do I request it?

‍ ‍

Up to $50,000 per Phase II award in addition to the per-topic ceiling, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal, splittable as $25,000 on a first SBIR Phase II and $25,000 on a sequential one. The detailed request must be in Volume 5 with provider name, point of contact, unique qualifications, tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, and the task milestone list must track to your milestone payment schedule. Requests specifying only a value in Volume 3 will not be considered. Development of manufacturing plans is an eligible activity worth considering on this topic.

‍ ‍

Who owns the data and software I develop?

‍ ‍

Rights in technical data including software developed under a SBIR contract generally remain with the contractor. The Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights in all data developed or generated under the contract for 20 years from contract award, after which the Government has Government purpose rights to the SBIR data.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase III?

‍ ‍

Phase III, funded through non-SBIR/STTR government contracts or other appropriate mechanisms, supports continued maturation, qualification, and operational integration, advancing the payload toward flight-qualified configurations for operational Space Domain Awareness mission architectures. Potential activities include space flight qualification of the design, refinement for manufacturability and scalability, integration support with host spacecraft platforms, preparation for operational testing and evaluation, and where appropriate Low-Rate Initial Production planning and execution subject to government priorities and funding. The Government may, at its discretion, include Phase III procedures in the Phase II Funding Agreement per SBA Policy Directive Section 4(b)(2).

‍ ‍

What technology readiness level is expected?

‍ ‍

Upon successful completion of Phase II the payload is expected to achieve approximately TRL 6, a system or prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment. Phase III may mature it to TRL 8 through flight qualification and system-level testing, and ultimately TRL 9 upon successful on-orbit deployment and operational use.

‍ ‍

Are venture-backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes. Small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

The DAF anticipates all proposals evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027. The principal investigator and Corporate Official on the cover sheet are notified by email.

‍ ‍

Who do I contact with questions?

‍ ‍

The DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us for general program and proposal preparation questions, and the DAF encourages requesting clarifying information as early as possible because delays constrain its ability to respond. For DSIP submission system issues, dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. Address or point of contact changes after submission go to the One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 SBIR CSO Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Startups Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Read "speed of delivery for proven technology now" as the governing sentence. The government wrote that its primary focus is speed of delivery for proven technology. That is a direct instruction about what wins. Existing hardware with test heritage, an established supply chain, and a manufacturing path beats a better architecture that needs to be invented.

‍ ‍

Answer the numbers in a compact traceability section. With eight or so quantitative requirements and only 20 pages, a tight requirements response near the front of the volume earns its space. Meet, exceed, or path to meet with the risk named, for each one.

‍ ‍

Do not neglect the sense-making half. Many sensor companies will propose excellent detection and treat the on-board analytics as a software afterthought. The topic asks for autonomous tracking, characterization into debris, neutral or friendly, and potential threat, and output serving both autonomous response and operator visualization. That is a distinguishing opportunity.

‍ ‍

Put Manufacturing Readiness Level in writing. It is named as a key challenge alongside TRL. Give your MRL, justify it, and describe the production scaling path. Very few competitors will do this well.

‍ ‍

Prove your test facility access with specifics. TVAC at GEO-representative conditions, random vibration, and EMI within 24 months is a scheduling problem before it is a technical one. Named facilities, confirmed availability, and rates in the cost volume make the schedule believable and directly support the cost realism element inside Criteria A.

‍ ‍

Close the stakeholder validation gap now, not in the proposal. The feasibility requirement demands validated product-mission fit with an Air Force or Space Force stakeholder and an immediately actionable plan with that customer. If you have not had those conversations, that is the binding constraint on your eligibility, and the open period is short.

‍ ‍

Model the subcontract cap before you finalize the architecture. Buying focal planes, procuring space-qualified parts, and leasing test chambers can push your outside costs past one-half of the contract price. Discovering that after you have committed to a design is expensive.

‍ ‍

Audit the supply chain against the eight denial lists. Space electronics bills of materials touch them more often than teams expect, and a denial under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16) or 638(o)(20) is mandatory, not discretionary.

‍ ‍

Build the commercialization case on the commercial GEO market. Criteria C is third in importance but should not be thin. Commercial GEO operators, satellite manufacturers who would embed the payload as a baseline subsystem, and insurers with an interest in collision and proximity risk are all natural buyers for local space awareness, and the topic's own framing of proliferated tactical sensors as part of any combat system baseline generalizes cleanly to commercial fleets.

USSOCOM sUMS-G Rapid Capability Assessment: The Complete Guide for Ground Robotics Companies

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer: What Is the sUMS-G Rapid Capability Assessment?

The sUMS-G Rapid Capability Assessment is an open Call on the Vulcan platform seeking commercially available small-to-medium Uncrewed Ground Systems (UGS) and Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV) that can contribute to the U.S. Special Operations Command small Uncrewed Multi-Domain Systems (sUMS) Ground Capability Portfolio. The Call opened 16 August 2026 and closes 01 October 2026 at 22:59 CDT. Companies respond by submitting a Scout Card through Vulcan, then completing a structured self-assessment of their system against a small tactical robotic ecosystem architecture. The engagement objective is market research, which means no funding is awarded directly from this Call. Selection can lead to a demonstration invitation and downstream consideration for prototype agreements, Other Transaction Agreements, SBIR or STTR topics, CRADAs, or FAR-based procurement.

The central question the Government is asking is direct: which small-to-medium UGS can solve the identified mission-thread Key Technical Problem and provide a viable capability for the sUMS Ground Capability Portfolio?

If your company builds throwable robots, packable or man-packable UGVs, quadrupeds, tracked or wheeled tactical UGVs, or purpose-built robotic platforms with manipulators, this is the single most important open door into the SOF ground robotics portfolio in fiscal year 2026.

At a Glance

‍ ‍

Call name: sUMS-G Rapid Capability Assessment

‍ ‍

Sponsor: U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), small Uncrewed Multi-Domain Systems (sUMS) Ground Capability Portfolio, aligned to the Program Executive Office for Tactical Information Systems (PEO-TIS) Remote Capabilities program office

‍ ‍

Platform: Vulcan, at vulcan-sof.com, the SOF enterprise technology scouting platform and the front end for Engage SOF (eSOF)

‍ ‍

Engagement objective: Market research

‍ ‍

Open date: 16 August 2026, 23:00 CDT

‍ ‍

Deadline: 01 October 2026, 22:59 CDT

‍ ‍

Submission vehicle: Scout Card, plus a structured self-assessment and supporting evidence

‍ ‍

Funding attached to this Call: None published. This is a market research and assessment engagement, not a solicitation with an award ceiling.

‍ ‍

Classification level: Unclassified only

‍ ‍

Who should respond: Commercial UGS and UGV manufacturers, robotics integrators, autonomy software companies with a hosted platform, payload and manipulator developers with a fielded host vehicle

‍ ‍

What disqualifies you fastest: Submitting a concept, a roadmap, or a future configuration instead of a system you can put on the ground and demonstrate now

‍ ‍

Why This Call Matters More Than a Typical RFI

‍ ‍

USSOCOM validated its ground robotics requirements in March 2026. That validation is the gate that opens formal solicitation activity, and the portfolio lead told industry at SOF Week 2026 that solicitations would flow across the different categories of ground robotic products in the cycle that followed. The Remote Capabilities office also posted a Ground Robotics Element and Team Man Portable Systems capability assessment event on its fiscal year 2026 industry slide. This Call is the market research front end of that activity.

‍ ‍

Two structural facts make the ground portfolio unusual. First, PEO-TIS does not own most of the platforms its sensors ride on, with one stated exception: the ground robotics portfolio, where the office does provide the platform. That makes the ground portfolio a direct platform buyer rather than a payload integrator working through another program office. Second, the office described itself as being in a constant state of market research and running roughly three RFIs per year per system category, moving faster when the operational environment changes. Companies that get into the assessment record now are positioned for the next several cycles, not just this one.

‍ ‍

The buying posture briefed to industry was blunt. The office is looking to field what it selects. In the portfolio lead's framing, if development work is needed, that development work will most likely happen after fielding, usually as software modification or SOF-peculiar adaptation such as marinizing a system for maritime special operations use. The standing guidance to vendors was to bring mature items that are tested, that can be produced and scaled, and that operate in contested environments.

‍ ‍

Translated for a startup: this is a fielding pipeline, not a research program. Maturity beats ambition here.

‍ ‍

The sUMS Ground Capability Portfolio Structure

‍ ‍

The portfolio is organized into categories by size, transportability, and mission role. Understanding which category your system belongs in is the first strategic decision you make, because the Government assesses systems inside a category and against a mission thread, not against the entire robotics market.

‍ ‍

T-0.1, Training and Experimentation. Modular interface and drone docking systems. This category supports modular integration, concepts, and experimentation and does not fit the primary operational portfolio categories. If your product is an interface standard, a docking or launch module, a payload carrier, or a test article that enables integration rather than delivering an operational effect, this is your lane.

‍ ‍

E-0.1, Throwables. Throwable, ruggedized recon and ISR robots. Small spherical or impact-tolerant platforms deployed by hand into a structure, a stairwell, a tunnel, or a vehicle. Assessment attention lands on survivability at impact, self-righting, camera and audio fidelity, and how quickly an operator gets usable video.

‍ ‍

E-0.2, Packable. Compact tracked or wheeled UGVs that fit in a pack. The emphasis is on compactness and rapid deployment without dedicated transport.

‍ ‍

E-0.3, Man-Packable. Crawling and articulated platforms carried by a single operator. Serpentine and segmented designs for confined space, void, tunnel, and rubble access sit here.

‍ ‍

E-1.1, Element-Man-Packable. Quadruped and legged platforms at the element level. Stair climbing, rubble traverse, and payload carriage on legs. This is the fastest-growing commercial segment and the most crowded category in the portfolio, which raises the evidentiary bar rather than lowering it.

‍ ‍

E-1.2, Team-Man-Packable. Team-level, team-packable wheeled or tracked UGVs, typically multi-wheeled platforms carrying mission payloads for a whole team rather than one operator.

‍ ‍

E-2.0, Heavy. Heavy payload, high capacity tracked platforms. Logistics carriage, casualty movement, heavy sensor masts, and breaching or engineering support at scale.

‍ ‍

E-3.0, Dedicated Purpose. Specialized mission platforms with dedicated capability, including manipulator-equipped systems for tasks that a general purpose UGV cannot perform.

‍ ‍

The portfolio banner is scalable, modular, mission ready, and the framing question the Government keeps returning to is the right UGS or UGV for the right mission with the right effect. Your submission is stronger when it names the mission thread it serves and stays in its category, and weaker when it claims to cover four categories at once.

‍ ‍

What the Government Is Actually Looking For

‍ ‍

Available now, not conceptual

‍ ‍

The Call is explicit that vendors should describe the capability actually available for demonstration, not a conceptual or future configuration. This is the single most consequential instruction in the document. A Scout Card that describes a system arriving next year is not a responsive submission, and the assessment structure is designed to surface the difference.

‍ ‍

The complete system, not the chassis

‍ ‍

Responses should clearly identify the system configuration, hardware, software and firmware, payloads, communications, autonomy features, support equipment, and other components included in the proposed capability. Two implications follow. First, the boundaries of what you are offering must be unambiguous, because the Government is assessing a deployable capability rather than a vehicle. Second, everything you omit is read as absent. If the operator control unit, the charging solution, the spares kit, the training materials, and the transit case are part of the capability, list them.

‍ ‍

A structured self-assessment against a defined architecture

‍ ‍

After submission, vendors complete a structured self-assessment based on the small tactical robotic ecosystem architecture developed by Dr. Jon M. Hackett, whose doctoral research addressed small tactical robotics applications and who serves as a program manager in the intelligent robotic autonomous systems space. The assessment characterizes the capability across a defined set of dimensions:

‍ ‍

1. Intended mission

2. Operating environment

3. Human-machine interaction

4. Mobility

5. Power

6. Communications

7. Autonomy

8. Interfaces

9. Supportability

10. Resilience

11. Integration with other systems

‍ ‍

This is not a marketing questionnaire. It is a comparative instrument, and it is the mechanism by which the Government builds an apples-to-apples picture of a fragmented commercial market. Prepare for it before you submit, because your answers become part of the assessment record attached to your Scout Card.

‍ ‍

Practical guidance on the harder dimensions:

‍ ‍

Human-machine interaction. Expect scrutiny on operator workload, one-to-many control, glove and night operation, latency, and whether the operator can reconfigure the system at their own level rather than sending it back to the manufacturer.

‍ ‍

Power. Battery chemistry, standard military battery compatibility, hot swap, charge time, runtime at realistic duty cycles rather than idle, and the logistics footprint required to keep the system running for a multi-day mission.

‍ ‍

Communications. Line of sight and non line of sight performance, mesh and MANET behavior, bandwidth demand, degraded and denied operation, spectrum and waveform details, and behavior on link loss. Contested electromagnetic environments are a stated requirement across the portfolio, not a differentiator.

‍ ‍

Autonomy. Where the autonomy sits, what it does without a link, what degradation looks like, and how it behaves at the edge. USSOCOM has publicly named swarm technology, decentralized control and collective intelligence, and environment-agnostic traversability as capability development areas. Vendor-locked, proprietary vertical autonomy stacks are treated as a liability across the SOF autonomy enterprise.

‍ ‍

Interfaces. This is where deals are won or lost. The command is buying sensors, payloads, radios, and autonomy as interchangeable elements of an architecture, and conformance to published standards is becoming the price of admission. The USSOCOM Modular Payload Standard, managed for the command by the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, defines common interfaces and attributes for payloads and hosting platforms, and has expanded from Group 2 UAS to Groups 1 and 3, unmanned surface vessels, and dismounted applications, with a micro variant for smaller systems. The guidance from the command's chief systems engineer for Tactical Information Systems was explicit: adopt common standards, and do not arrive with a proprietary standard that locks the Government out of the interface. Document your mechanical, electrical, and data interfaces. State plainly whether they are open, licensable, or closed.

‍ ‍

Supportability and resilience. Mean time between failure and repair data, field repairability at the operator level, spares and tooling, environmental and ingress protection ratings, temperature range, EMI and EMC test results, transportability, and safety documentation.

‍ ‍

Integration with other systems. Data output formats, message standards, ATAK and common operating picture integration, edge processing, and whether your system can hand off to and receive tasking from other unmanned systems. The stated goal on the sensor side is edge processing with the least amount of data required to make a decision moving forward to the decision point, rather than everything returning to a centralized node.

‍ ‍

Evidence, tiered honestly

‍ ‍

For each material claim, vendors should be prepared to provide supporting evidence: test data, technical documentation, photographs, videos, interface information, safety documentation, or prior demonstration results. The Call requires vendors to clearly distinguish between four claim tiers:

‍ ‍

1. Demonstrated capability

2. Vendor-tested capability

3. Calculated or estimated performance

4. Planned or future capability

‍ ‍

Label every claim to the correct tier. Assessors are reading many submissions in the same category, and the fastest way to lose credibility is to present a calculated figure as a demonstrated one. A submission that is honest about tiers and thin in places reads as trustworthy. A submission that presents everything as demonstrated reads as unverified, and it will be tested at demonstration if you get that far.

‍ ‍

What the Government Will Do With Your Submission

‍ ‍

The Government may use the information and supporting evidence to inform comparative assessment, selection for demonstration, and subsequent marketplace consideration.

‍ ‍

Equally important is what the Call says it does not do. Submission or successful completion of a demonstration does not constitute operational approval, certification, fielding authorization, or a Government commitment to procure the system. Treat a favorable assessment as qualification and visibility inside the SOF enterprise, not as a contract.

‍ ‍

Assessments published in Vulcan become visible to Government users across the SOF and defense enterprise. That is the durable value of a strong submission: a well-evidenced Scout Card with a published Government assessment continues working for you across future Calls, RFIs, and program office searches long after this deadline passes.

‍ ‍

Timeline and Key Dates

‍ ‍

16 August 2026, 23:00 CDT. Call opens on Vulcan. Submissions accepted.

‍ ‍

Now through late September 2026. Build or refresh the Scout Card, assemble the evidence package, resolve export control and data rights questions, and confirm any spectrum authorizations you would need for a live demonstration.

‍ ‍

01 October 2026, 22:59 CDT. Submission deadline. This is a hard cutoff in the platform, and Vulcan has no private or draft state that holds a partial submission past the close.

‍ ‍

Following submission. Vendors complete the structured self-assessment. Expect requests for supporting evidence against material claims.

‍ ‍

After the assessment window. Government comparative assessment and downselection for demonstration. On comparable SOF assessment engagements, published assessments typically reach vendor Scout Cards on the order of twenty business days after an assessment event concludes.

‍ ‍

Downstream. Selection for a demonstration or assessment event, then negotiation of an agreement if the evaluation is favorable.

‍ ‍

Two planning notes. First, the deadline sits one day into fiscal year 2027, which means the assessment and any resulting negotiation activity happens under new-year funding. Second, if your system radiates on any frequency, approval to transmit is required before a demonstration, which may include compliance with FCC Title 47 Part 15 or a Special Temporary Authority. The FCC recommends submitting an STA request 30 to 60 days before an event. Start that clock now rather than after you receive an invitation.

‍ ‍

Funding Allowance: What Money Is and Is Not Attached

‍ ‍

Be clear-eyed here, because this is where companies misread SOF engagements most often.

‍ ‍

This Call carries no published funding ceiling and makes no award. The engagement objective is market research. You are not writing a priced proposal, and there is no dollar figure to size a budget against. What you are buying with your effort is assessment, visibility, and eligibility for the pathways below.

‍ ‍

Where the money actually appears. On SOF assessment engagements, favorably evaluated solutions move into negotiation under one or a combination of the following authorities. This is the standard path forward language used across USSOCOM assessment events run through SOFWERX:

‍ ‍

1. Business to business research and development agreement as a sub-award through the SOFWERX Partnership Intermediary Agreement, under 15 U.S. Code Section 3715

2. Other Transaction Agreement for research or prototype projects, under 10 U.S. Code Sections 4021 and 4022. An award under Section 4022 may result in a follow-on production agreement without additional competition based on successful prototype completion, against prototype criteria determined for each project

3. Procurement for experimental purposes, under 10 U.S. Code Section 4023

4. Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, under 15 U.S. Code Section 3710a

5. Prizes for advanced technology achievements under 10 U.S. Code Section 4025, or prize competitions under 15 U.S. Code Section 3719

6. FAR-based procurement contract

‍ ‍

The Section 4022 prototype-to-production path is the one worth understanding in detail. It is the mechanism by which a successful prototype effort converts into production without recompeting, and it is the reason non-traditional defense companies pursue OTAs rather than waiting for a full and open competition.

‍ ‍

The parallel non-dilutive tracks. A strong showing in this portfolio also sets up funding you pursue on your own initiative rather than waiting to be selected:

‍ ‍

1. USSOCOM SBIR and STTR, including Direct to Phase II, which allows a Phase II award without a prior Phase I when you can document that the feasibility objectives have already been met. For a company with a fielded UGV, Direct to Phase II is frequently the right entry point rather than Phase I

2. Department of War SBIR and STTR release cycles, where SBIR Phase I awards commonly land in the low hundreds of thousands and Phase II awards run into the low millions against the current statutory ceiling, with topic-specific variation

3. The USSOCOM Broad Agency Announcement, a standing mechanism for unsolicited proposals against command interests

4. SOFWERX technical experimentation and assessment events, which run on a white paper submission and review cycle culminating in live assessment with operators in the loop

5. Cross-service and cross-agency opportunities in ground autonomy, including Army and Marine Corps robotics programs and DIU solicitations, where the same evidence package you build for this Call is directly reusable

‍ ‍

Budget the real cost of participation. Submission itself is free. What costs money is being demonstration-ready: shipping and travel to an assessment event, an operator and a maintainer to run the system, spares, a demonstration article you can afford to break, spectrum authorization, and the engineering time to produce interface documentation and test data you may not currently have written down. Companies that win these engagements have that package on the shelf before the Call opens.

‍ ‍

Eligibility and Access Requirements

‍ ‍

Vulcan registration. You need a Vulcan account at vulcan-sof.com, registered with your official organizational email address rather than a personal address. Registration establishes access type as commercial, academic, non-profit, or government, and your organizational affiliation is verified. Set this up first if you do not already have an account, because verification takes time you will not have on 30 September.

‍ ‍

Unclassified only. All submissions must be at the unclassified level. Do not put classified or export-restricted technical detail into a Scout Card. If your differentiator cannot be described unclassified, describe the capability and offer the detail through an appropriate channel.

‍ ‍

U.S. persons and U.S. industry. SOF assessment engagements are routinely restricted to U.S. persons or U.S. industry. Confirm the specific restriction in the Call document before investing.

‍ ‍

Export control. ITAR and export licensing exposure is real for ground robotics with military applications, particularly where foreign nationals are employed on the effort. USSOCOM SBIR practice, for example, requires a firm employing foreign nationals on an ITAR topic to possess an export license to receive an award. Resolve your position before you are asked.

‍ ‍

Cybersecurity. Awardees may need to comply with NIST SP 800-171 for protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in non-federal systems. If you are pre-revenue on defense work, understand this as a cost of doing business downstream rather than a surprise during negotiation.

‍ ‍

Business size. There is no small business set-aside on a market research Call of this type. Startups and large primes are assessed on technical merit inside the same category, which is favorable for a mature small company with a real product and unfavorable for a company selling a roadmap.

‍ ‍

How to Submit

‍ ‍

1. Register or log in at vulcan-sof.com using your organizational email address

2. Navigate to Calls in the top menu and open the Call titled sUMS-G Rapid Capability Assessment

3. Decide whether to submit an existing Scout Card or create a new one. Vulcan lets you tailor elements of a submission to the specific context of each Call without maintaining multiple Scout Cards for the same solution

4. Do not create a duplicate Scout Card for a solution you have already carded. Duplicates will be removed. Tailor the existing card to this Call instead

5. Complete the card with a precise capability description, system boundaries, photographs, video, interface information, applicable tags, technology readiness level, and any Government references

6. Complete the structured self-assessment when prompted

7. Assemble and be ready to provide the supporting evidence package against every material claim

8. Submit before 01 October 2026 at 22:59 CDT. Cards remain editable up to the close, and there is no draft state that survives the deadline

‍ ‍

Questions on the platform itself go to the Vulcan support team at support@vulcan-sof.com.

‍ ‍

The Five Mistakes That Sink Ground Robotics Submissions

‍ ‍

Selling the roadmap. The Call asks for what is available for demonstration. A future configuration described as though it exists fails the assessment and damages credibility for the next Call.

‍ ‍

Category sprawl. Claiming that one platform serves throwable, man-packable, team-packable, and heavy roles at once reads as a company that has not chosen a mission thread. Pick the category where you are strongest and win it.

‍ ‍

Undocumented interfaces. A proprietary interface with no published specification, or an unwillingness to discuss licensing, is now a first-order disqualifier in a portfolio built on modular payload standards.

‍ ‍

Unlabeled claim tiers. Presenting calculated endurance, estimated range, or simulated autonomy performance without labeling it as such is the most common failure mode in structured self-assessments.

‍ ‍

Ignoring supportability. Companies over-invest in mobility demonstration video and under-invest in the mean time between failure data, spares posture, field repair procedures, and safety documentation that determine whether a system can actually be fielded. The office intends to field what it selects, and supportability is what fielding turns on.

‍ ‍

Who Should Respond

‍ ‍

You are a strong fit if you have a fielded or demonstration-ready UGS or UGV in one of the portfolio categories, you can document performance with test data, and you can put an operator and a system in a room in front of an evaluation panel within a few months.

‍ ‍

You are a plausible fit if you build payloads, manipulators, autonomy software, power systems, or comms modules and you can present them integrated on a host platform. Partnering matters here. The command has repeatedly urged vendors to team with one another, because a modular, standards-based architecture rewards integrated, compliant solutions over isolated components.

‍ ‍

You are a poor fit if your system exists as a CAD model, a simulation, or a single hand-built prototype that has never left a controlled environment. Use the time to pursue SBIR, STTR, or BAA funding to reach demonstration maturity, then enter the portfolio at the next assessment cycle.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for the sUMS-G Rapid Capability Assessment? Submissions close 01 October 2026 at 22:59 CDT. The Call opened 16 August 2026 at 23:00 CDT.

Is there funding attached to this Call? No. The engagement objective is market research, and no funding ceiling is published. Favorably assessed companies may be selected for demonstration and then move into negotiation under a range of authorities including Other Transaction Agreements for prototypes, sub-awards through the SOFWERX Partnership Intermediary Agreement, procurement for experimental purposes, CRADAs, prize authorities, or FAR-based contracts.

How much funding could this eventually lead to? There is no published figure for this Call. Downstream award size depends entirely on the vehicle. Prototype OTAs under 10 U.S. Code Section 4022 can carry follow-on production without recompetition. USSOCOM SBIR Phase II and Direct to Phase II awards typically run into the low millions against the current statutory ceiling. Treat this Call as qualification, and pursue priced funding vehicles in parallel.

What is a Scout Card? A Scout Card is the standard capability submission format on Vulcan. It summarizes and depicts your capability, including a description of what differentiates it, technology readiness level, media, tags, and supporting documentation. Government users across the SOF and defense enterprise can search Scout Cards, and published Government assessments attach to the card.

Can I reuse an existing Scout Card? Yes, and you should. Vulcan allows you to tailor elements of a submission to the specific context of each Call without maintaining multiple cards for the same solution. Do not create a duplicate card for a solution you have already carded, because duplicates will be removed.

What does sUMS stand for? Small Uncrewed Multi-Domain Systems. It is a USSOCOM line of effort covering Group 1 and Group 2 unmanned aerial systems and unmanned ground systems, delivering tactical organic robotic and modular payload solutions to the SOF operator. sUMS-G refers to the ground portion of that portfolio.

Which office runs this? The sUMS portfolio sits under the Remote Capabilities program office within the USSOCOM Program Executive Office for Tactical Information Systems, part of SOF Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. Remote Capabilities holds the mandate for unmanned systems across space, air, ground, and maritime domains.

Do I need to be a small business? No. There is no small business set-aside on this Call. Submissions are assessed on technical merit within a capability category.

Can a non-U.S. company respond? SOF assessment engagements are routinely limited to U.S. persons or U.S. industry, and export control rules apply to systems with military application. Confirm the specific restriction in the Call document before investing effort.

Does my system have to be a complete robot, or can I submit a payload? The Call asks for a capability available for demonstration, described as a complete configuration including hardware, software, payloads, communications, autonomy, and support equipment. A payload or software component is best submitted integrated on a host platform, ideally through a teaming arrangement. The command has actively encouraged vendors to partner rather than pitching isolated components.

What is the structured self-assessment based on? It is based on the small tactical robotic ecosystem architecture developed by Dr. Jon M. Hackett. It characterizes your capability across intended mission, operating environment, human-machine interaction, mobility, power, communications, autonomy, interfaces, supportability, resilience, and integration with other systems.

What evidence do I need? Be prepared to substantiate every material claim with test data, technical documentation, photographs, video, interface information, safety documentation, or prior demonstration results. Each claim must be labeled as demonstrated capability, vendor-tested capability, calculated or estimated performance, or planned or future capability.

Does a successful demonstration mean I have been selected or approved? No. Submission or successful completion of a demonstration does not constitute operational approval, certification, fielding authorization, or a commitment to procure. It qualifies you for comparative assessment, demonstration selection, and marketplace consideration.

How mature does my system need to be? Mature enough to demonstrate now. USSOCOM's stated posture is to field what it selects, with SOF-peculiar development, usually software modification or platform adaptation, occurring after fielding rather than before. Systems that are finicky at the tactical edge are not competitive.

Do standards compliance and open interfaces matter? Substantially. The command is building a modular architecture around the USSOCOM Modular Payload Standard, managed for the command by Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, and it has told industry directly not to arrive with proprietary standards that lock the Government out of the interface. Document your interfaces and be prepared to discuss access.

What if my system transmits on a radio frequency? Any developmental device radiating on a given frequency or band needs prior approval to transmit, which may include FCC Title 47 Part 15 compliance or a Special Temporary Authority. The FCC recommends submitting an STA request 30 to 60 days before an event, so begin that process before you receive a demonstration invitation.

Where do I submit? On the Vulcan platform at vulcan-sof.com, under the Call titled sUMS-G Rapid Capability Assessment. Register with your official organizational email address if you do not have an account.

What happens if I miss the deadline? The Remote Capabilities office described itself as being in a constant state of market research and typically running about three RFIs per year per system category, with additional activity when operational needs shift. A ground robotics assessment event and a small UAS assessment event were both on the fiscal year 2026 and 2027 industry slides. Missing this Call is not fatal, but it delays you by a cycle and cedes the assessment record to competitors in your category.

Get Your Submission Assessed Before the Government Does

The companies that convert SOF assessment engagements into agreements are the ones that walk in with the evidence package already built: labeled claim tiers, documented interfaces, test data behind every number, a clear category, and a named mission thread.

BW&CO helps deep-tech, robotics, autonomy, and dual-use founders position for non-dilutive federal funding and build the technical and strategic packages that agencies act on. Innovation Funding Simplified. More than $350M in funding secured for our clients.

If you are weighing whether your UGS or UGV is ready for the sUMS-G Call, or you want to run a parallel SBIR, STTR, Direct to Phase II, or BAA strategy alongside it, let's talk before the 01 October deadline.

DIBC Critical Minerals RPP-CM-26-02: What Startups Need to Know

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

The Defense Industrial Base Consortium (DIBC) has opened a Request for Project Proposals titled Domestic Processing Capabilities of Critical Minerals, numbered RPP-CM-26-02. It funds domestic production and processing of four in-scope critical minerals: indium, magnesium, manganese (including high purity and electrolytic), and titanium (including sponge and sponge substitutes). The opportunity is run by the Department of War's Industrial Base Policy office through an Other Transaction (OT) agreement, which means awards are not governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation and can use flexible, non-dilutive and equity-style funding tools. The process has two phases. Phase 1 is a single Quad Chart, due September 17, 2026, at 12:00 PM Eastern. To submit, your company must be a member of the DIBC, be registered on SAM.gov, and file through ATI's Acquisition Management Portal at dibc-amp.ati.org. There is no published dollar ceiling, and evaluation language contemplates projects worth more than 100 million dollars and more than 500 million dollars, so awards can range from focused pilot efforts to very large capacity-building projects.

What This Opportunity Is

RPP-CM-26-02 is a solicitation issued under the Defense Industrial Base Consortium, an Other Transaction vehicle administered by Advanced Technology International (ATI) on behalf of Washington Headquarters Services, Acquisition Directorate (WHS/AD). The sponsoring organization is Industrial Base Policy (IBP), which sits within the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Acquisition and Sustainment. IBP works through its Warfighting Investments, Resourcing, and Execution office and draws on two authorities: Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) and Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III.

The purpose is to build resilient, secure domestic supply chains for critical minerals that matter to national security and defense. It responds directly to Executive Order 14241, signed March 20, 2025, titled Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production, which directed the government to expand domestic mining, processing, refining, and smelting to the maximum extent possible and to use Defense Production Act authorities to get there.

Because this is an OT and not a traditional contract, the award instrument is a Project Agreement between ATI and the government, flowed down to your company as a project sub-agreement. Neither instrument is subject to the FAR or its supplements. That gives the government room to negotiate commercial terms, milestone-based fixed pricing, and the equity-style structures described later on this page.

The Four In-Scope Minerals

Your proposed project must address at least one of these commodities:

Indium.

Magnesium.

Manganese, including high purity and electrolytic forms.

Titanium, including sponge and sponge substitutes.

The government is clear that this list does not represent every mineral it considers critical. It also actively encourages co-production. If your process produces at least one in-scope mineral, you may recover additional in-scope minerals or other critical mineral products as co-products or by-products, and that breadth is viewed favorably.

The Six Capability Areas (AOIs)

Beyond naming a mineral, your project must fit at least one of six Areas of Interest. You can span more than one.

AOI 1, Raw mineral sourcing and beneficiation. This covers identifying, extracting, concentrating, and beneficiating ores to source an in-scope mineral. It includes bankable or definitive feasibility studies needed to secure investment, infrastructure and capital investments to operationalize mining or beneficiation, development of by-product or co-product streams from existing operations, productivity enhancements such as flowsheet optimization or autonomous systems, and efforts that move extraction projects toward operation or expand current capacity.

AOI 2, Separation and processing. Processes that transform raw or beneficiated material into intermediate chemical forms such as oxides, chlorides, and salts.

AOI 3, Metal production, metallization, refining, and upscaling. Producing metals from semi-processed material by smelting and other methods, and refining or upscaling metals to purified forms suitable for critical applications.

AOI 4, Alloying and finish processing. Creating alloys from two or more metals, coating or plating materials to impart specific properties, and transforming or combining purified materials into products ready to enter critical component supply chains.

AOI 5, Recycling, recovery, and alternative sourcing. Recovering in-scope minerals from mine tailings, industrial waste, scrap, swarf, end-of-life material, and other underutilized sources. Recovery can happen at any point in the value chain.

AOI 6, Supporting supply chains. Producing chemical reagents, key inputs, tooling, production equipment, and other materials that support the critical processes in these mineral value chains. This also includes qualifying materials for Department of War systems and applications.

The government specifically encourages holistic solutions that touch multiple stages, for example extraction plus beneficiation plus processing to oxide, or recycling plus metal making plus refining plus alloying to defense specifications.

What the Government Is Actually Looking For

This is not a research-for-its-own-sake program. The Department of War wants demonstrable progress toward standing up and securing real supply chains. A competitive proposal makes a clear case on several fronts.

It states the effort's impact and its relevance to defense industry supply chains, and it quantifies expected production volumes rather than speaking in generalities.

It addresses the current state of the market, the demand picture, and a sustainable commercialization pathway for the mineral and capability area you are targeting. The government is funding capacity that can survive commercially, not a demonstration that collapses when funding ends.

It specifies both a Technology Readiness Level and a Manufacturing Readiness Level, giving the starting point, the finishing point, and a clear description of the advancement your project will deliver on each scale.

Solutions that cross multiple AOIs, produce multiple minerals, or knit together several nodes of a supply chain are encouraged, provided they still name at least one in-scope mineral and at least one AOI.

Eligibility: You Must Be a DIBC Member First

This is the single most important thing for a startup to understand, because the solicitation assumes it throughout by referring only to "Consortium Members." You cannot submit unless your company is a member of the Defense Industrial Base Consortium.

DIBC membership is open to United States based companies, United States based affiliates of foreign companies, and organizations based in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. It is open to companies, innovators, research institutions, and academic institutions working on defense industrial base supply chain challenges. Membership is currently free for the first year, and dues thereafter are modest, with the consortium reserving the right to charge up to 250 dollars annually. Membership does not imply any government endorsement, and it does not guarantee funding or an award.

Two practical points matter for timing. First, you must be registered in the System for Award Management at SAM.gov to receive an award, and you must keep that registration active for the life of the sub-agreement. Non United States entities also need a NATO Commercial and Government Entity code. Second, apply for membership early. Waiting until a solicitation is already open can create processing delays that leave you unable to submit before the deadline. With a September 17 close, a startup that is not yet a member should begin the membership and SAM.gov steps immediately and in parallel.

Funding Structures and Cost Considerations

There is no fixed award ceiling published in this RPP. The evaluation criteria explicitly contemplate projects valued over 100 million dollars and over 500 million dollars, with progressively stricter justification requirements at each tier, which signals that awards can be substantial. Smaller, focused efforts are equally in scope.

As a default, agreements are executed as fixed-price with a milestone schedule that doubles as the payment schedule. Each milestone should map to specific priced tasks or deliverables. Other award types can be proposed and negotiated, so the fixed-price default is a starting point rather than a hard rule.

The government also signals a wide menu of financial tools beyond a straight milestone-payment agreement, particularly for technologies and materials critical to national security. These include direct equity stakes, Simple Agreements for Future Equity, convertible notes, percent-of-revenue or royalty and revenue-share agreements (including convertible revenue share, royalty with warrants, and equity-linked royalty structures), and offtake agreements at a guaranteed price point that may carry an equity-linked component. Under DPA Title III specifically, the government can use purchase commitments and guarantees to create guaranteed demand, loans where private financing is not commercially available, and loan guarantees where credit is otherwise unavailable on reasonable terms. For a capital-intensive minerals project, these demand-side and financing tools can matter as much as the direct award.

For a prototype project awarded under 10 U.S.C. 4022, there is a participation and cost-share requirement. The use of that authority is contingent on one of three conditions being met: significant participation by at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution, complete participation by a small business, or a resource contribution of at least one-third from any consortium member that does not fall into the categories just named. A startup that qualifies as a nontraditional defense contractor or small business is well positioned here, because its participation can satisfy this condition without a mandatory one-third cash match. If you rely on the resource-contribution path instead, you must tie each contribution to the milestone payment schedule and summarize the base and option period split.

One more cost note. The government will not reimburse any costs you incur preparing a submission in either phase, so proposal development is at your own expense.

Timeline and Deadlines

Release date: August 21, 2026.

Phase 1 Quad Chart due: September 17, 2026, at 12:00 PM Eastern. Late submissions may not be reviewed or considered, and the government may close the RPP at any time.

Phase 2 by invitation: only companies selected from Phase 1 are invited to submit the full proposal package. There is no public fixed date for Phase 2, because invitations are issued on a rolling basis after Phase 1 review.

The basket: a Phase 1 Quad Chart that is not immediately selected is held in what the government calls "the basket" for a minimum of 24 months and remains eligible for a Phase 2 invitation during that window. A qualifying Phase 2 package the government chooses not to fund immediately is likewise held for at least 24 months and remains eligible for award. Submissions in the basket may be shared with other government agencies for other opportunities, with access restricted to government users. This means a strong submission has a long shelf life even if it is not funded on the first pass.

Follow-on production: because this can be awarded as a competitively selected prototype OT, a successfully completed prototype may lead to a follow-on production agreement without a new competition, under 10 U.S.C. 4022(f). That follow-on is negotiated separately.

How to Apply, Step by Step

First, confirm eligibility and become a DIBC member if you are not already, and complete or verify your SAM.gov registration. Do these in parallel and start now given the deadline.

Second, prepare the Phase 1 Quad Chart using the mandatory template provided with the solicitation. This is a concise, single-artifact outline of your proposed solution. Do not alter the template syntax or formatting, other than converting to a final PDF. Files must be print-capable, unencrypted, not password protected, and under 5 megabytes.

Third, submit electronically through ATI's Acquisition Management Portal at dibc-amp.ati.org. The RPP itself is posted on the DIBC opportunities website at dibconsortium.org/solicitations, where you will also find AMP registration and Quick Card guidance. You are responsible for timely submission, and neither the government nor ATI assumes responsibility for transmission delays.

Fourth, if selected, complete the Phase 2 package. It consists of a cover page (two page limit), a Project Execution Plan (fifteen page limit, and the document where you lay out tasks, deliverables, payment milestones, data rights assertions, security requirements, and success criteria), an Affirmation of Business Status Certification for your company and for every entity participating to a significant extent, price information with a pricing spreadsheet and a price justification narrative, and an Environmental Assessment Questionnaire. All Phase 2 templates are mandatory.

A note on where you apply. The solicitation and your submission live in ATI's portal, not on SAM.gov. SAM.gov is where your company registration and representations must be active in order to receive an award, and those representations are incorporated by reference into any resulting agreement. Treat SAM.gov as a required credential and dibc-amp.ati.org as the submission destination.

How Proposals Are Evaluated

Phase 1 review looks at two things: relevance to the Area of Interest, and merit and feasibility relative to the Area of Interest. Miss either and your submission stops advancing. The government may decline to advance a proposal that does not address the AOI, is technically unsound or infeasible, proposes an unrealistic schedule, or is simply not of interest. Feedback on Phase 1 may not be provided, and companies are notified only if they advance.

Phase 2 review adds several factors: relevance to the AOI, merit and feasibility, reasonableness of the proposed schedule, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed cost (with the heightened justification tiers noted above for efforts over 100 million and over 500 million dollars), and the potential impact of your data rights assertions. Overly restrictive data rights that limit the government's ability to use or share the resulting technology are called out as a specific risk.

Security, Environmental, and Compliance Notes

The default security level is unclassified, though the work may involve Controlled Technical Information or Controlled Unclassified Information. Any submission expected to include CUI is subject to the security requirements in NIST Special Publication 800-171 revision 2. Classified material may not be included in submissions.

Consortium members are expected to disclose foreign investment or control, address resource sharing, and provide supply chain data for relevant suppliers and subcontractors, including vendor name, CAGE or Unique Entity Identifier codes where applicable, and part or product numbers and descriptions.

The Environmental Assessment Questionnaire requires you to address existing environmental notices at your proposed activity location, your plans for environmental compliance and pollution prevention appropriate to the scale of the work, and a path to obtaining and maintaining the permits needed to scale the prototype, including responsible waste management and use of maximum achievable or best available control technology.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is RPP-CM-26-02?

It is the Defense Industrial Base Consortium's Request for Project Proposals for Domestic Processing Capabilities of Critical Minerals, released August 21, 2026, with Phase 1 submissions due September 17, 2026, at 12:00 PM Eastern. It funds domestic sourcing, processing, refining, alloying, recycling, and supporting supply chains for indium, magnesium, manganese, and titanium.

Which minerals are eligible?

Four commodities are in scope: indium, magnesium, manganese (including high purity and electrolytic forms), and titanium (including sponge and sponge substitutes). You must address at least one, and you may produce others as co-products or by-products.

Do I have to be a DIBC member to apply?

Yes. Only Consortium Members can submit. Membership is free for the first year and open to United States based companies, United States based affiliates of foreign companies, and entities in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Apply for membership and complete SAM.gov registration early, because starting after the solicitation opens can leave too little time to submit.

Where do I actually submit my proposal?

Through ATI's Acquisition Management Portal at dibc-amp.ati.org. The RPP and registration guidance are posted at dibconsortium.org/solicitations. SAM.gov is where your company must be registered to receive an award, but it is not where you upload your proposal.

How much funding is available?

The RPP does not publish a fixed ceiling. Evaluation language contemplates projects worth more than 100 million dollars and more than 500 million dollars, so award sizes vary widely from focused pilots to major capacity projects. Agreements default to fixed-price with milestone payments, and other structures can be negotiated.

What funding structures can the government use?

Beyond a milestone-based fixed-price agreement, the government may use direct equity stakes, SAFEs, convertible notes, royalty and revenue-share agreements, offtake agreements at a guaranteed price, and, under DPA Title III, purchase commitments, loans, and loan guarantees. These are especially relevant for capital-intensive minerals projects.

Is there a cost-share or matching requirement?

For prototype projects under 10 U.S.C. 4022, use of that authority is contingent on one of three conditions: significant participation by a nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution, complete participation by a small business, or at least a one-third resource contribution from other members. Startups that are nontraditional or small businesses can often satisfy this through participation rather than a cash match.

What do I submit in Phase 1 versus Phase 2?

Phase 1 is a single Quad Chart on the mandatory template. Phase 2, by invitation only, is a full package: a two-page cover page, a fifteen-page Project Execution Plan, an Affirmation of Business Status Certification, price information and justification, and an Environmental Assessment Questionnaire, all on mandatory templates.

What happens if I am not selected right away?

Qualifying Phase 1 and Phase 2 submissions are placed in "the basket" for at least 24 months and remain eligible for an invitation or award during that window. They may also be shared with other government agencies for other opportunities, so a strong submission keeps working for you well past the initial review.

Can this lead to a production contract?

Yes. A successfully completed prototype under this OT can lead to a follow-on production agreement without a new competition, under 10 U.S.C. 4022(f). That follow-on is negotiated separately.

Does the government pay for my proposal costs?

No. The government will not reimburse costs associated with preparing your submission in either phase.

Need Help Positioning Your Company?

Winning non-dilutive and equity-style federal funding for critical minerals work is as much about how you frame technology readiness, production volume, and commercialization as it is about the science. BW&CO helps deep-tech, materials, and defense-adjacent founders map their capability to the right authority, structure a competitive Quad Chart, and build the Phase 2 package that survives cost and data-rights review. If you are weighing a submission to RPP-CM-26-02, reach out before the September 17 deadline.

ARPA-H STREAM Program: Funding, Deadline, and How to Apply

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

The STREAM program (Systems for Tracking and Resilience in Efficient Agricultural-input Management) is an ARPA-H research initiative that funds breakthrough technology to control weeds while reducing herbicide exposure for farmers, farm workers, consumers, and the environment. Launched by the Department of Health and Human Services through ARPA-H on August 17, 2026, STREAM seeks solutions across four technical areas: next-generation herbicides and formulations, precision and nonchemical weed control, low-cost chemical monitoring, and methods to remove or degrade herbicides in soil and water. Applications are made as Solution Summaries through the Scalable Solutions Office Innovative Solutions Opening (ISO), notice ID ARPA-H-SOL-24-105, which is posted and maintained on SAM.gov. Solution Summaries that select STREAM are due no later than September 14, 2026 at 11:59 pm ET. STREAM is funded through Other Transactions rather than SBIR or STTR grants, so awards are negotiated per project and there is no fixed application dollar cap published in the announcement.

Program Overview

STREAM is ARPA-H's push to modernize American agriculture at the intersection of crop chemistry and human health. Herbicides keep food affordable, support regenerative farming, and help farmers stay productive, but some herbicides and their formulation ingredients can affect people, animals, fish, and pollinators. Farmers, farm workers, and consumers are exposed through food, water, soil, and air, while weeds grow more resistant and off-target runoff harms nearby habitats and rural communities. Alternatives have been sought for years without resolving the core tradeoff between efficacy, health, safety, ecological impact, soil dynamics, and cost.

STREAM aims to close that gap. The program funds safer alternative crop protection formulations, better monitoring of where herbicides travel, and practical ways to break down or remove agricultural chemicals before they reach consumers. If it succeeds, STREAM will lower the cumulative chemical burden on consumers and agricultural workers, protect the soil and water the food supply depends on, and give farmers economically viable alternatives to the products they rely on today.

The program is one piece of a broader interagency commitment. HHS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have pledged to invest more than one billion dollars in farm modernization and long-term food security, and STREAM advances that effort along with the federal push toward regenerative agriculture. That one billion dollar figure is the joint interagency envelope, not a single STREAM award pool, so applicants should not read it as a per-project budget.

What ARPA-H Is Looking For

STREAM is organized around four coordinated technical areas. A submission must address one or more of these areas to be considered, and ARPA-H encourages interdisciplinary teams drawn from agricultural and weed sciences, artificial intelligence and machine learning, advanced chemistry, drone development, sensing, and related fields.

Technical Area 1: Next-generation herbicides and formulations. Use artificial intelligence and machine learning to discover novel chemical compounds, biologically derived herbicides, and advanced biological treatments that selectively target weeds, including resistant species, while minimizing impacts on the surrounding ecosystem. The goal is efficacy against hard-to-kill weeds without the collateral health and environmental cost of current products.

Technical Area 2: Precision and nonchemical weed control. Advance cost-effective physical weed-control approaches such as laser ablation and miniature autonomous weeders, machine vision-guided targeted herbicide application, real-time drift modeling, and U.S.-manufactured drone-based precision application systems. The aim is to cut chemical inputs while keeping farms productive. Domestic manufacturing of the drone platforms is called out specifically.

Technical Area 3: Improved monitoring of herbicides and associated chemicals. Develop accurate, low-cost, continuous sensing technologies for compounds that are currently difficult and expensive to measure. Better sensing enables community-level monitoring and faster response when a problem appears, rather than waiting on slow or costly lab analysis.

Technical Area 4: Remove or degrade herbicides and associated chemicals. Create methods to rapidly break down agricultural chemicals in soil and water, intercept runoff before it reaches waterways, and reduce residues absorbed by crops. This is the cleanup and containment side of the program, ensuring chemicals are removed from the environment after they do their work.

ARPA-H funds revolutionary rather than incremental ideas, and its programs typically target early-stage technologies with a clear path to maturity. Teams that combine a bold technical concept with a credible plan to reach real-world deployment tend to fit the agency's model best.

Funding and Award Structure

There is an important structural point that startups should understand before applying. STREAM is not an SBIR or STTR opportunity. It runs through a Mission Office Innovative Solutions Opening, and ARPA-H primarily uses Other Transactions and cooperative agreements rather than traditional grants. Other Transactions are flexible business arrangements that let the government adopt commercial-style terms and negotiate scope, milestones, intellectual property, reporting, and payments on a per-award basis.

Because awards are negotiated, the STREAM announcement does not publish a fixed dollar ceiling for applications. For context, ARPA-H operates on an annual budget of roughly 1.5 billion dollars and has historically supported large, milestone-driven awards that can range from single millions to tens of millions of dollars per project, depending on scope. Your budget is built in the Cost Proposal that accompanies a full proposal, and it must reconcile with the milestones and level of effort you commit to.

A few cost-related details from the current ISO documents are worth noting when you plan your budget. Proposers must provide supporting documentation for planned materials and equipment purchases once the unit cost reaches ten thousand dollars, an increase from the prior five thousand dollar threshold. Profit or fee is treated as not applicable unless you specifically include it in the Cost Proposal Workbook. The ISO also defines burdened labor rate and fully burdened labor rate for clarity, and it notes that fully burdened labor rates are not used in the Cost Proposal Workbooks.

Eligibility

ARPA-H opportunities are open to a broad range of performers, including companies, small businesses, startups, universities, and nonprofit research organizations, and the agency encourages collaborative teams. STREAM specifically invites experts across agricultural science, artificial intelligence, chemistry, drones, and sensing to team up on its objectives.

Two eligibility constraints matter for planning. ARPA-H prioritizes awards to domestic recipients, and it cannot award funding to entities organized under the laws of a covered foreign country, which include Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. Applicants should also be prepared to address organizational conflicts of interest, research security, human and animal subjects considerations where relevant, and biosecurity, since the ISO documents include disclosure requirements in each of these areas.

Timeline

The program was launched on August 17, 2026. Solution Summaries that select STREAM are due no later than September 14, 2026 at 11:59 pm ET. After you submit a Solution Summary, you should wait to hear back from ARPA-H with feedback before proceeding to a full proposal. Only summaries that receive encouragement move forward, which protects you from investing in a full proposal that is not aligned.

It helps to understand how STREAM sits inside the broader solicitation. STREAM submissions flow through the Scalable Solutions Office ISO, notice ID ARPA-H-SOL-24-105, which is a rolling solicitation that remains active on SAM.gov with a much later administrative closing date in 2029. STREAM itself carries the firm September 14, 2026 cutoff, so treat that as your working deadline regardless of the ISO's longer horizon.

How to Apply

STREAM applications are made through the Scalable Solutions Office ISO on SAM.gov, and the steps are as follows.

First, access the Scalable Solutions solicitation, notice ID ARPA-H-SOL-24-105, on SAM.gov. This solicitation and its attachments provide the full details on eligibility, submission requirements, evaluation criteria, contacts, and the link to apply.

Second, download all documents in the Attachment section, including the ISO document, the Solution Summary template (Appendix A), and the bundle of attachments. Follow the instructions in the ISO document and its associated files when preparing your Solution Summary.

Third, submit your Solution Summary using the link provided in the solicitation documents, at the ARPA-H Solutions site. When prompted, select STREAM from the Solution Summary dropdown list. A sign-in is required to submit, and your summary must be in by September 14, 2026 at 11:59 pm ET.

Fourth, await feedback. Do not begin a full proposal until you hear back from ARPA-H on your Solution Summary.

If you have questions about the opportunity, submit them through the Ask A Question form on the ARPA-H Solutions site, select STREAM from the dropdown, and note that a sign-in is required.

How BW&CO Consulting Supports STREAM Applicants

BW&CO Consulting helps deep-tech, biotech, MedTech, agtech, and dual-use founders pursue non-dilutive federal funding across ARPA-H, NIH, NSF, DoD, NASA, DOE, and other agencies. Because STREAM runs on an Other Transactions ISO rather than a conventional SBIR or STTR grant, it rewards a sharp technical narrative, a credible commercialization and manufacturing story, and a milestone plan that a program manager can act on quickly. If you are weighing a STREAM Solution Summary, we can assess fit against the four technical areas, shape the concept for the ARPA-H model, and prepare a competitive submission ahead of the September 14, 2026 deadline. Reach out to start a fit conversation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the ARPA-H STREAM program? STREAM, short for Systems for Tracking and Resilience in Efficient Agricultural-input Management, is an ARPA-H program that funds breakthrough technology to control weeds while reducing herbicide exposure for farmers, farm workers, consumers, and the environment. It was launched by HHS through ARPA-H on August 17, 2026.

Who runs STREAM and what agency funds it? STREAM is run by the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), which sits within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The program manager is James Coburn, CAPT.

When is the STREAM application deadline? Solution Summaries that select STREAM are due no later than September 14, 2026 at 11:59 pm ET.

How do I apply to STREAM? You apply by submitting a Solution Summary through the Scalable Solutions Office ISO, notice ID ARPA-H-SOL-24-105, which is posted on SAM.gov. Download the solicitation attachments, prepare your Solution Summary using the provided template, submit it at the ARPA-H Solutions site, and select STREAM from the dropdown.

What are the four STREAM technical areas? The four technical areas are next-generation herbicides and formulations, precision and nonchemical weed control, improved low-cost monitoring of herbicides and associated chemicals, and methods to remove or degrade those chemicals in soil and water. A submission must address at least one of these areas.

How much funding does STREAM provide? STREAM does not publish a fixed award ceiling in its announcement because awards are negotiated per project through Other Transactions. For context, ARPA-H typically supports milestone-driven awards ranging from single millions to tens of millions of dollars, and STREAM advances a broader interagency commitment of more than one billion dollars in farm modernization shared across HHS, USDA, and EPA.

Is STREAM an SBIR or STTR opportunity? No. STREAM is offered through a Mission Office Innovative Solutions Opening and uses Other Transactions and cooperative agreements, not SBIR or STTR grants. This means the application pathway, budgeting, and terms differ from a standard SBIR solicitation.

What funding mechanism does ARPA-H use? ARPA-H primarily uses Other Transactions and cooperative agreements. Other Transactions are flexible, commercial-style agreements that allow scope, milestones, intellectual property, reporting, and payment terms to be negotiated on a per-award basis.

Who is eligible to apply for STREAM? Eligibility is broad and includes companies, startups, small businesses, universities, and nonprofit research organizations, and teaming is encouraged. ARPA-H prioritizes domestic recipients and cannot award funding to entities organized under the laws of a covered foreign country, including Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.

Can startups and small businesses apply? Yes. Startups and small businesses can apply and are well suited to STREAM's emphasis on bold, early-stage technology, provided they can present a credible technical concept and a plan to reach real-world deployment.

What is a Solution Summary? A Solution Summary is a short initial submission that describes your proposed solution against the program objectives. ARPA-H reviews it and provides feedback before inviting a full proposal, which saves applicants from investing in a full proposal that is not aligned.

What happens after I submit a Solution Summary? After you submit, you wait for feedback from ARPA-H. You should not begin a full proposal until you have heard back, and only encouraged summaries advance to the full proposal stage.

Where do I submit my STREAM application? Solution Summaries are submitted at the ARPA-H Solutions site using the link in the solicitation documents, with STREAM selected from the dropdown. The underlying solicitation, ARPA-H-SOL-24-105, is accessed and downloaded from SAM.gov, and questions go through the Ask A Question form on the same ARPA-H Solutions site.

2026 SBA Critical Suppliers Prize Competition

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

The 2026 Critical Suppliers Prize Competition is a U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) prize challenge offering up to $20 million in non-dilutive funding, with an expected 4 to 6 winners each receiving up to $6 million. It is designed to help profitable, execution-ready U.S. small manufacturers rapidly scale existing production in three priority areas: advanced metals manufacturing, advanced materials manufacturing, and energy systems, energetics, and components. Submissions are due by August 28, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. ET, sent by email to investinnovate@sba.gov. There is no application fee and no equity is taken. Winners are announced on or about September 10, 2026.

Key Facts at a Glance

‍ ‍

Funding agency: U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Legal authority: America COMPETES Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 3719. Funding type: non-dilutive prize funding, not a grant, contract, or equity investment. Total prize pool: up to $20 million. Award size: up to $6 million per winner. Expected number of winners: 4 to 6. Deadline: August 28, 2026, 11:59 p.m. ET. Winners announced: on or about September 10, 2026. Application cost: free. Submission method: email to investinnovate@sba.gov. Estimated time to complete a submission: about 3 hours.

‍ ‍

Program Overview

‍ ‍

The SBA created this competition to strengthen U.S. industrial supply chains by putting capital directly into small manufacturers that are already operating and already generating revenue. The central idea is reshoring with innovation rather than reshoring for its own sake. A large share of U.S. manufacturing was offshored over the past several decades, and the program aims to bring that capacity back in a form that competes on efficiency and scale, not just on location.

‍ ‍

The most important distinction to understand up front is that this is scale-up money, not research and development money. The funds are meant to refine, accelerate, and scale solutions that already exist. Companies that are still in the research phase, still proving a concept, or still building a first product are not the target for this competition. The SBA is explicitly looking for established suppliers that can turn capital into measurable increases in production or measurable improvements in production efficiency within six months of receiving an award.

‍ ‍

Awards are structured as prize payments tied to projected and completed operational milestones. In practice, that means the money is released against defined, near-term deliverables rather than handed over as a lump sum with no strings. Winners must be able to point to a specific milestone, show how the prize money moves them toward it, and demonstrate that the milestone produces a tangible output on a short timeline.

‍ ‍

Who This Is For

‍ ‍

This competition is a strong fit for a company that is a U.S.-based small business, is currently profitable and creditworthy, is already manufacturing at some scale, and has a clear, fundable plan to expand output or improve production efficiency in the next one to six months. It is a poor fit for a pre-revenue startup, an early-stage R&D company, or any firm whose primary need is to fund research, hire staff, cover overhead, or extend runway. If the honest answer to "could we deploy this money into production within six months and show a measurable result" is no, this is not the right opportunity.

‍ ‍

The Three Award Focus Areas

‍ ‍

Every eligible submission must provide tangible deliverables in at least one of three Award Focus Areas. These represent the supply chain gaps and chokepoints the SBA is prioritizing.

‍ ‍

The first focus area is Advanced Metals Manufacturing. This includes rapid tooling, precision casting and forging, heat treated components, strategic and critical minerals, and rare earth element recovery and magnet production. Companies working on domestic critical mineral processing, magnet supply, or high-precision metal component production fit squarely here.

‍ ‍

The second focus area is Advanced Materials Manufacturing. This includes large format additive manufacturing and materials transformation. Firms scaling industrial-scale additive manufacturing or novel materials processing are the target.

‍ ‍

The third focus area is Energy Systems, Energetics and Components. This includes nuclear energy, battery energy storage systems, and standardization efforts. Companies producing energy storage hardware, nuclear-related components, or working on standardization across energy systems fit this area.

‍ ‍

A company only needs to align with one of these areas, but the alignment must be genuine and demonstrable. The judges evaluate mission alignment as a scored criterion, so a stretched or tangential connection to a focus area is a weak position.

‍ ‍

Funding Allowance: What the Money Can and Cannot Be Used For

‍ ‍

This is one of the most restrictive parts of the competition, and it is where many otherwise strong companies will disqualify themselves if they are not careful. The core principle is that award money must go toward operational milestones that scale production or improve production efficiency, and it must not go toward general overhead.

‍ ‍

The solicitation lists eight prohibited uses. The prize money cannot be used for repayment of indebtedness. It cannot be used for hiring new staff or any other employee compensation. It cannot be used for additional research and development. It cannot be used for distributions to shareholders or investors. It cannot be used for advertising or marketing. It cannot be used for rent, lease expenses, or utilities. It cannot be used for business travel. It cannot be used for office supplies.

‍ ‍

The solicitation does not publish a matching list of approved cost categories. What it does require is proof that the funds go toward a defined near-term production milestone and not toward overhead. Reading the prohibited list together with the milestone requirement, the eligible uses point toward direct capital deployment that expands or improves production, for example tooling, production equipment, capacity expansion, and materials and process improvements that generate measurable output within six months. Applicants should describe their intended use in exactly those terms and should explicitly demonstrate that no portion of the award covers general overhead.

‍ ‍

A practical tip: the pitch deck outline asks applicants to describe other sources of capital that will be deployed alongside the prize money. This is deliberate. The SBA wants to see that the award slots into a real capital stack and funds a specific production milestone, not that it becomes the company's operating budget.

‍ ‍

Eligibility Requirements

‍ ‍

Only eligible contestants may enter, and only one entry per business will be considered. An individual cannot belong to more than one entry.

‍ ‍

At the company level, a contestant must be a U.S.-based small business under SBA size standards. It must be organized in and maintain its primary place of business in the United States or its territories. It must be profitable and able to demonstrate creditworthiness. It must be in good standing in the jurisdiction of its state of organization. It must be current and in good standing on all federal obligations. Any business, or any business owned or controlled by a person, that previously defaulted on a federal loan or federally guaranteed financing and caused the government a loss is ineligible. For this purpose, a compromise agreement described at 31 C.F.R. 3711 is also treated as a loss.

‍ ‍

At the individual level, everyone submitting a response, including individuals from partner organizations, must be a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who is at least eighteen years old at the time of submission. All members of the contestant's senior management team must also be U.S. citizens or permanent residents over the age of eighteen.

‍ ‍

Certain parties are barred entirely. SBA employees and SBA contractors, federal entities, and federal employees acting within the scope of their employment cannot participate. Any individual or organization currently suspended or debarred by the federal government cannot participate.

‍ ‍

Finally, every eligible contestant must agree to assume the risks of participation, waive claims against the federal government, and accept the liability and insurance requirements set out in the competition rules.

‍ ‍

The Six-Month Test

‍ ‍

Eligibility and scoring both hinge on speed. A contestant must demonstrate the ability to deploy funds rapidly, defined as within six months. A contestant must also demonstrate that with the award it will achieve a measurable increase in production or implement a solution that supports production efficiency, also within six months of the award. The program describes itself as prioritizing execution-ready firms with clear pathways to near-term supply chain impact. If a company cannot credibly show measurable results inside a six-month window, it will struggle against the judging criteria even if it is technically eligible.

‍ ‍

Timeline and Key Dates

‍ ‍

The submission window opened on July 28, 2026, and closes on August 28, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. The screening, vetting, and judging period runs from July 28, 2026, through September 10, 2026. Winners are announced on or about September 10, 2026. The full cycle from open to award is compressed into roughly six weeks, which reinforces the program's emphasis on companies that are ready to move immediately.

‍ ‍

Given the short window, any interested company should treat the pitch deck and its supporting financials as something to prepare now rather than something to build in the final days before the deadline.

‍ ‍

How to Apply

‍ ‍

There is no fee to enter and no formal application portal. Submissions are emailed directly to investinnovate@sba.gov and must arrive by the August 28, 2026, 11:59 p.m. deadline. SBA estimates that completing a submission takes about three hours on average.

‍ ‍

A pitch deck is suggested but not strictly required. If you choose to submit one, the SBA provides an example outline organized around telling your company's story, explaining how you would use the prize money, and showing how you would fulfill the competition goals. The suggested structure has four parts.

‍ ‍

The Introduction covers a brief description of the business with a website link, plus a condensed summary of how the business addresses the competition goals.

‍ ‍

The Operating History and Current Capital Needs section covers a snapshot of financial performance from the most recent reporting period, a brief company history including founding date and milestones achieved, and a snapshot of current capital needs including current investors, debt providers, cashflow from operations, and any other federal funding received.

‍ ‍

The Potential Impact section covers the near-term milestone to be achieved with the award, a description of how the proceeds will be used within one to six months, a description of other capital deployed alongside the award, proof that the award will not be used for general overhead, and a business plan snapshot with a revenue forecast that assumes achieving the milestone compared to projections without the award.

‍ ‍

The References section provides names and contact information for customers, suppliers, board members, the accounting firm, outside counsel, and other character references for the senior management team. Because reference calls feed directly into the character and integrity scoring, these references should be chosen carefully and given a heads-up.

‍ ‍

On visuals and media, images, diagrams, and other graphics are allowed with brief captions at a minimum resolution of 200 dpi. Two hard rules apply: the submission must not use the SBA logo or official seal, and it must not claim SBA endorsement.

‍ ‍

How Winners Are Selected

‍ ‍

Before any judging happens, every submission goes through a vetting and screening process for eligibility and completeness. Vetting can look at the general business reputation of the owners and management, risks posed by the organization, compliance with executive orders and applicable laws, and any conflicts of interest with the agency. SBA can request clarifying information at any point and can revisit eligibility at any time. Contestants that do not pass vetting cannot advance.

‍ ‍

A judging panel of impartial SBA personnel then rates the submissions against four criteria. The first is Character, Integrity and Cohesion of Management Team, which looks for clear evidence that the senior team is qualified to execute, that the team has high character and integrity based on materials and reference calls, and that the team is likely to keep working together toward the goal. The second is Business Model Evaluation, which checks that the proposed use of funds aligns with the competition goals and that the award will not be spent on overhead. The third is Execution Certainty, which looks at the likelihood of future success and whether the company has other sources of capital that round out the capital stack needed to execute. The fourth is Mission Alignment and Impact, which confirms the business aligns with the competition goals and that the proposed use of funds sits within a one-to-six-month window with projections showing measurable impact.

‍ ‍

The panel may also consider vetting information and the geographic location and dispersal of contestants when selecting winners. During judging, SBA may ask for clarification of technical and cost aspects, though this is not a commitment to fund.

‍ ‍

Intellectual Property and Legal Notes

‍ ‍

Intellectual property from the competition stays with the contestant. All entries remain the sole intellectual property of the individuals or organizations that developed them, and accepting an award does not transfer IP rights to the federal government. By entering, a contestant warrants that it is the sole author and copyright owner of the submission or has sufficient rights to use it.

‍ ‍

A few other terms are worth noting. By entering, contestants consent to SBA using their name, likeness, and related information for promotional purposes. All submissions become SBA records, cannot be returned, and are retained under National Archives guidelines, so contestants should mark any confidential commercial information at the time of submission. SBA reserves the right to modify or cancel the competition at any time before awards, and publication of the rules is not an obligation of funds.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is the 2026 SBA Critical Suppliers Prize Competition?

‍ ‍

It is a prize competition run by the U.S. Small Business Administration under the America COMPETES Act that awards up to $20 million total in non-dilutive funding to U.S. small manufacturers, helping them rapidly scale existing production in critical supply chain areas. An expected 4 to 6 winners each receive up to $6 million.

‍ ‍

How much money can my company win?

‍ ‍

Each winner can receive up to $6 million. The SBA expects to name 4 to 6 winners, drawing from a total prize pool of up to $20 million.

‍ ‍

Is this funding non-dilutive?

‍ ‍

Yes. The award is non-dilutive prize funding. The SBA does not take equity, and the money is not a loan that must be repaid.

‍ ‍

Who is eligible to apply?

‍ ‍

A profitable, creditworthy U.S.-based small business that meets SBA size standards, is in good standing on its federal and state obligations, and has all senior management as U.S. citizens or permanent residents over eighteen. The company must be able to deploy funds and show measurable production impact within six months.

‍ ‍

What are the three award focus areas?

‍ ‍

Advanced Metals Manufacturing, Advanced Materials Manufacturing, and Energy Systems, Energetics and Components. A submission must provide tangible deliverables in at least one of these areas.

‍ ‍

Can a startup that is still doing R&D apply?

‍ ‍

No. This program funds scaling and refining of solutions that already exist, not research and development. Companies still in the research or concept phase are not the intended audience, and additional R&D is a prohibited use of the funds.

‍ ‍

What can the prize money be used for?

‍ ‍

The money must fund a defined near-term operational milestone that increases production or improves production efficiency within six months, and it must not touch general overhead. In practice that points toward capital deployment such as tooling, production equipment, capacity expansion, and materials or process improvements that produce measurable output.

‍ ‍

What can the prize money not be used for?

‍ ‍

It cannot be used for debt repayment, hiring or employee compensation, additional research and development, distributions to shareholders or investors, advertising or marketing, rent or lease expenses or utilities, business travel, or office supplies.

‍ ‍

Does my company have to be profitable?

‍ ‍

Yes. Contestants must be currently profitable and able to demonstrate creditworthiness. This is both an eligibility requirement and part of the scoring.

‍ ‍

How fast do I need to deploy the funds?

‍ ‍

Within six months. You must show both the ability to deploy the capital rapidly and the ability to achieve a measurable production increase or efficiency improvement inside that same six-month window.

‍ ‍

When is the deadline?

‍ ‍

August 28, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. ET. The submission window opened on July 28, 2026.

‍ ‍

How do I submit my entry?

‍ ‍

By email to investinnovate@sba.gov. There is no application portal and no fee.

‍ ‍

Do I have to submit a pitch deck?

‍ ‍

No. A pitch deck is suggested and the SBA provides an example outline, but it is optional. If you submit one, it should cover your company introduction, operating history and capital needs, potential impact and milestone plan, and references.

‍ ‍

Will the SBA take my intellectual property?

‍ ‍

No. All entries remain the sole intellectual property of the company that developed them, and accepting an award does not transfer any IP rights to the federal government.

‍ ‍

How are winners chosen?

‍ ‍

Submissions are first vetted for eligibility, completeness, business reputation, and conflicts of interest. A panel of SBA personnel then scores each surviving submission on four criteria: management team character and cohesion, business model, execution certainty, and mission alignment and impact. Geographic dispersal may also be considered.

‍ ‍

How many companies will win?

‍ ‍

The SBA intends to name 4 to 6 winners on or about September 10, 2026.

‍ ‍

Is there a cost to enter?

‍ ‍

No. Entry is free.

DARPA PINPOINT (HR001126S0016): What Your Startup Needs to Know

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

PINPOINT (Precision Inertial Navigation and Positioning On an Integrated Tesseract) is a DARPA Defense Sciences Office Broad Agency Announcement, number HR001126S0016, seeking revolutionary inertial measurement unit (IMU) technology for navigation in GPS-denied environments. DARPA wants novel micro-scale inertial sensors that break past the decade-long performance plateau of MEMS IMUs by using nonlinear physics such as electromagnetically levitated proof masses, high-velocity resonators, and non-linear mechanical structures, all co-designed with real-time adaptive control systems. This is a two-phase program, but only Phase I (24 months) is being solicited now. A conforming abstract is required by August 27, 2026, before any full proposal can be submitted, and full proposals are due September 25, 2026. Multiple awards are anticipated. Award instruments can be procurement contracts, cooperative agreements, or Other Transaction Agreements for Prototype.

Program Snapshot

Program name: Precision Inertial Navigation and Positioning On an Integrated Tesseract (PINPOINT). Funding opportunity number: HR001126S0016. Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Sciences Office (DSO). Announcement type: Initial Announcement (Broad Agency Announcement). Assistance Listing number: 12.910 Research and Technology Development. NAICS code: 541715. Posting date: August 6, 2026. Anticipated awards: multiple. Point of contact: PINPOINT@darpa.mil.

What Is PINPOINT?

PINPOINT is a DARPA program that challenges the research community to reinvent inertial navigation from the physics up. The goal is a proof-of-concept six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) IMU that delivers navigation and pointing performance approaching that of large, expensive navigation-grade systems, but in the small size, low weight, low power, and low cost (SWaP-C) footprint of modern tactical and unmanned platforms.

The program pairs two things that DARPA considers inseparable. The first is a new class of inertial sensor that operates in a highly nonlinear regime rather than the linear, small-motion regime that today's MEMS devices rely on. The second is an advanced, real-time adaptive control system designed to stabilize and actually harness those complex nonlinear dynamics. DARPA is explicit that these two elements must be co-designed together, not developed separately and bolted together later.

The Problem DARPA Is Trying to Solve

U.S. military operations depend heavily on GPS for positioning, navigation, and timing. That dependency becomes a liability in contested environments where GPS can be jammed, spoofed, or degraded by terrain and weather. When GPS goes down, warfighters fall back on Inertial Navigation Systems (INS), but current inertial technology forces a hard tradeoff.

At the high-performance end, strategic-grade systems such as ring-laser gyroscopes are precise but too large, too power-hungry, and too expensive for most tactical and unmanned platforms. At the compact end, MEMS IMUs are small and cheap, but their performance has been flat for roughly a decade. They suffer from noise and drift severe enough that they become unreliable within seconds. Alternatives such as visual navigation still rely on a baseline IMU, carry their own SWaP burden, and fail in fog, during rapid motion, or over featureless terrain like open water, clouds, and deserts.

PINPOINT is designed to close the gap between the large and costly high-performers and the SWaP-C-constrained tactical systems, delivering navigation-grade behavior in GPS-contested settings. DARPA points to its earlier Highly Accelerated Learning of Vibratory Systems (HALOVS) portfolio as a foundation, noting that resonators operating near the fundamental material fracture limit can offer more than two orders of magnitude improvement over today's devices, and that levitated structures can isolate the sensing mass from its substrate to eliminate anchor losses and environmental coupling.

What DARPA Is Looking For

DARPA wants revolutionary approaches, and it is blunt about what that means. The technical area is the physics and nonlinear control of inertial measurement units for tactical and unmanned missions. Proposers should investigate approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems.

Approaches DARPA specifically invites you to consider include electromagnetically levitated proof masses, non-linear resonators, high-velocity tethered microsystems, and non-linear mechanical structures. Prior participation in a DARPA program is not required, but proposers are encouraged to build on the public science documented in the HALOVS portfolio. The solicitation stays open to alternative approaches, provided you can show compelling evidence that your solution can hit the program metrics within the program timeline.

DARPA also wants more than hardware. Every performer will be required to deliver a comprehensive Design Guide and a Prototype Design Kit (PDK). The PDK must specify the simulated, usable design space and projected performance of the chosen technology platform, so that the delivered sensors can be redesigned as mission needs evolve over time. This is a core deliverable, not an afterthought.

What Is Explicitly Excluded

Research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice is specifically excluded. If your concept is a better version of a current MEMS device rather than a genuinely different physical approach, it will not align with this BAA. During conformity review, a proposal can be deemed non-conforming and removed from consideration if it does not investigate an innovative approach that enables revolutionary advances.

Target Applications and Performance Metrics

Each proposal must focus on a single target application and clearly state its system-level performance objectives, for example a circular error probable (CEP) for a given mission duration. You may submit multiple proposals, but each one must strictly address only one use case. DARPA offers two illustrative use cases with example metrics, and it also welcomes alternative defense-relevant use cases as long as the metrics you propose are at least as challenging.

Use Case One: Precision Strike Munitions

This application prioritizes high dynamic range plus robust shock and vibration immunity. The example Phase I targets are an accelerometer range of plus or minus 1,000 g, a gyroscope range of plus or minus 5,000 degrees per second, vibration survivability of 20 gRMS, shock survivability of 1,000 g, accelerometer noise (velocity random walk) of 10 millimeters per second per root hour, and gyroscope noise (angle random walk) of 1e-4 degrees per root hour.

The example Phase II targets, which are rough order-of-magnitude estimates only, scale up sharply: accelerometer range of plus or minus 10,000 g, gyroscope range of plus or minus 10,000 degrees per second, vibration survivability of 50 gRMS, shock survivability of 10,000 g, accelerometer noise below 1 millimeter per second per root hour, and gyroscope noise of 1e-5 degrees per root hour. SWaP is to be reported in the Design Guide.

Use Case Two: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems

This application prioritizes long-term stability so an INS can support dead reckoning in GPS-denied environments. The example Phase I targets are vibration survivability of 10 gRMS, accelerometer bias instability of 1 microgram measured as Allan Deviation at a 1,000-second integration time, and gyroscope bias instability of 1e-3 degrees per hour measured as Allan Deviation at a 1,000-second integration time.

The example Phase II targets, again rough estimates only, are vibration survivability of 20 gRMS, accelerometer bias instability of 0.1 microgram at the same 1,000-second point, and gyroscope bias instability of 2.5e-5 degrees per hour. SWaP is again reported in the Design Guide.

Alternative Use Cases

DARPA will consider other defense-relevant inertial-sensor use cases. Named examples include space operations, radiation-hard environments, navigation missions with intermediate time-scales, ten-year lifetime operation for ultra-low-power sensor networks, and hypersonic trajectories. If you propose an alternate use case, you must supply performance metrics that are at least as challenging as the examples above, and you must back your target with solid technical validation through modeling, simulation, and any available experimental data. You also need quantitative, measurable end-of-phase milestones, an estimated SWaP, and a clear plan including a description of the fabrication process.

Program Structure and Timeline

This BAA solicits Phase I only. Phase II is described for planning purposes and is not guaranteed.

Phase I (24 months)

Phase I asks performers to first prove out the mathematics and simulation of their nonlinear system and dynamic state estimator, then move to bench-top laboratory testing, and finally validate final designs through operational field-testing at designated Department of War (DoW) ranges. The concrete milestones and deliverables are as follows. At month 1, a program kick-off with presentation materials as a deliverable. At month 3, demonstrate and report preliminary mathematical models and simulation results of the control system and dynamic state estimator. At month 6, a Principal Investigator meeting with presentation materials as a deliverable. At month 12, a live laboratory demonstration and report covering all individual sensing components, meaning three acceleration and three rotation sensors, including angular rate, acceleration response, and Allan Deviation measurements out to at least 1,000 seconds for each sensing axis. At month 21, demonstrate sensors meeting Phase I metrics and deliver a minimum of three functional, packaged prototypes for independent verification and validation (IV&V) at a Government laboratory. At month 24, deliver the final hardware IMU samples for a total of five, plus the PDK and the final report.

Phase I performers must enter into an Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA). The ACA mandates sharing of critical, program-generated data among performer teams to accelerate cross-pollination, while setting up strict firewalls to prevent commercial misappropriation of proprietary intellectual property. This is a meaningful condition to understand before you commit, because it requires you to share certain program-generated data with other funded teams during Phase I. DARPA notes this broad data-sharing requirement will be relaxed in Phase II so industry-led teams can protect proprietary IP around their specific hardware and manufacturing processes.

Phase II (24 months, planning only)

Phase II is included for informational and planning purposes only. DARPA anticipates releasing Phase II proposal instructions to all Phase I performers by around month 20 of Phase I, through a separate solicitation. DARPA is not obligated to solicit Phase II, and the decision to continue will depend on Phase I results and available funds. The objective of Phase II is to improve sensor performance and demonstrate a packaging and ruggedization design that meets specific mission specifications, ending with transition-partner IV&V field testing and delivery of five packaged and tested IMU sensors.

Because of the phased approach, your current submission needs a fully definitized Phase I proposal with enough data for award negotiation, plus only a draft Statement of Work and a Rough Order of Magnitude cost for Phase II for Government planning purposes.

IV&V and Exit Criteria

DARPA describes illustrative test gauntlets. For precision strike munitions, the end of Phase I involves a repeated tri-axial 10,000 g shock survival test (referred to as the Hopkinson Bar Gauntlet), and the end of Phase II involves a live-fire launch from the Army SCAT gun in a surrogate munition, with an operate-through pass criterion requiring continuous accurate angular rate data through the launch event. For persistent autonomy, the end of Phase I involves a 24-hour thermal soak requiring a drift rate under 1.0e-3 degrees per hour at 1,000 seconds, and the end of Phase II involves a multi-hour flight on a Group 2 or Group 3 UAV with a pass criterion of CEP under 0.1 nautical miles per hour against truth data. Performer-defined use cases get a custom lab demonstration in Phase I and a custom field exam in Phase II, with pass criteria set during contract negotiation.

Meetings and Travel to Budget For

All proposals must build the following into schedule and cost. A two-day Principal Investigator meeting roughly every six months, and for costing you should assume these alternate between the U.S. east and west coasts. Regular quarterly teleconferences with the Government team for progress reporting and video demonstrations. At least one site visit per phase by the DARPA Program Manager.

Funding

DARPA does not publish a total program budget or a per-award dollar ceiling for the base Phase I effort in this BAA. That is normal for a DARPA BAA of this type, where award value is negotiated based on the technical and management approach in your proposal. Multiple awards are anticipated. Cost and schedule realism is an explicit and weighted evaluation criterion, so your budget needs to be defensible against your Statement of Work, with labor hours, materials, equipment, fabrication, and travel all substantiated.

For Other Transaction Agreements for Prototype, funding is structured as fixed payable milestones, meaning payment is rendered on successful completion of technically relevant, tangible events on the critical path, documented in the Schedule of Milestones and Payments. Some award instrument types carry specific cost-sharing requirements, so review the instrument-specific instructions linked in the solicitation.

Industry Immersion Program Option

The one concrete dollar figure in this solicitation applies to an optional add-on. Industry proposers that include university teams as subcontractors may propose an optional DSO Industry Immersion Program (IIP) task. It funds one U.S. citizen graduate student or postdoctoral researcher from each university partner to embed within a corporate partner's facility for a nine to twelve month period, with Government funding covering labor, travel, and per diem up to $160,000 per student. Each option is limited to a single student, and the decision to fund an IIP option is made independently of the decision to fund the base proposal.

Who Can Apply

All responsible sources capable of meeting the Government's needs may propose, including both U.S. and non-U.S. sources. Non-U.S. organizations and individuals may participate to the extent they comply with any required nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, and export control laws. Historically Black Colleges and Universities, small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, and minority institutions are encouraged to propose, though no portion of the announcement is set aside for these organizations.

There are important restrictions for certain institution types. University-Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), Government entities, and National Laboratories face limits. DARPA will not establish new contractual agreements for these entities under this solicitation, so a proposal submitted by one of them as prime may be deemed non-conforming. They may participate as subcontractors only under specific conditions, including a clearly defined role with a point of contact and a rough order of magnitude cost placed in the technical proposal only, since the cost proposal must exclude their funding. UARC subawards additionally require an organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan. If funded, these organizations must share their work with other performers on the same program.

Compliance Considerations

Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) applies to awards that take the form of procurement contracts. DARPA anticipates that procurement contracts under this BAA will require CMMC Level 1 or Level 2. The Government designates the required level in each resulting contract based on whether the work involves Federal Contract Information (FCI) or Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). CMMC Level 1 applies when only FCI is handled and requires implementing the 17 basic safeguarding requirements in FAR 52.204-21, with a current self-assessment recorded in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). CMMC Level 2 may apply when CUI is handled on non-Federal systems and requires implementing the 110 security requirements in NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2, again with a current self-assessment in SPRS. A valid, current certification at the required level is a condition of award, and the requirement flows down to subcontractors handling FCI or CUI. If you do not hold the required certification at award, you are ineligible for that award, so this is worth starting early. DARPA points to Project Spectrum and the APEX Accelerators program as free resources for compliance and registration support.

Two more considerations matter. Fundamental versus non-fundamental research: proposers should indicate whether their scope is fundamental research, though the Government has sole discretion to decide, and non-fundamental awards can carry publication restrictions requiring DARPA permission before publishing. And DARPA's Fundamental Research Risk-Based Security Review process will produce risk assessments of proposed senior and key personnel on fundamental research awards, adjudicated before final award and run separately from the scientific review.

How Proposals Are Evaluated

Proposals are evaluated on four criteria, listed here in descending order of importance. First, Overall Scientific and Technical Merit, meaning the approach is innovative, feasible, achievable, and complete, with detailed technical rationale, logically sequenced tasks, clearly defined deliverables, and identified technical risks with feasible mitigations. Second, Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission, meaning the effort supports the national security technology base and DARPA's mission to make pivotal early investments, with any intellectual property restrictions not significantly impeding Government transition. Third, Cost and Schedule Realism, meaning costs and schedule are realistic, substantiated, and aggressive but achievable. Fourth, Proposer's Capabilities or Related Experience, meaning demonstrated ability to manage complex efforts and deliver on performance, budget, and schedule.

How to Apply

There is a mandatory abstract phase. You must submit a conforming abstract before you can submit a full proposal. If your abstract is deemed non-conforming, any subsequent full proposal for that abstract will also be deemed non-conforming and removed from consideration. If DARPA does not recommend you submit a full proposal, you may still submit one as long as your abstract was conforming, but a favorable abstract response is not a guarantee of selection. Proposers who do not submit an abstract, or who submit a non-conforming abstract, cannot submit a full proposal.

Key dates, all in Eastern Time. Proposal abstract due date is August 27, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. The question submittal window closes September 15, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. Full proposals are due September 25, 2026, at 4:00 p.m.

Submission channels depend on instrument. Proposers requesting procurement contracts or Other Transaction Agreements submit through the Broad Agency Announcement Tool (BAAT). Proposers requesting cooperative agreements submit through Grants.gov and must also complete the SF424 (R&R) Budget form. Required attachments include the Abstract Summary Slide Template (Attachment A), Abstract Instructions and Template (Attachment B), Proposal Summary Slides (Attachment C), the Volume I Technical and Management template (Attachment D), the Volume II Cost template and DARPA Cost Proposal Spreadsheet (Attachments E and F), and, for Other Transactions, the Model OT for Prototype and the Schedule of Milestones and Payments (Attachments G and I). All technical, contractual, and administrative questions must go to PINPOINT@darpa.mil rather than to the Program Manager directly.

Is PINPOINT a Fit for Your Startup?

This is a strong fit if you are a deep-tech or hard-science company working in MEMS, precision sensors, photonics and levitated systems, nonlinear dynamics and control, or advanced microfabrication, and you have a genuinely novel physical approach to inertial sensing rather than an incremental MEMS improvement. It is also a fit if you can partner with a university group that brings the underlying physics, since the IIP option and the ACA structure both anticipate industry and academic teaming. It is a poor fit if your concept is evolutionary, if the core research is already complete and you are really seeking manufacturing funds, or if you have already received a positive funding decision for the same concept from DARPA or another agency, since all three of those conditions can make a submission non-conforming.

The timeline is compressed. With the abstract due August 27, 2026, the practical window to shape a competitive concept, line up any university partner, and produce a conforming abstract is short, so it is worth moving quickly.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is the DARPA PINPOINT program?

‍ ‍

PINPOINT is a DARPA Defense Sciences Office Broad Agency Announcement (HR001126S0016) seeking revolutionary inertial measurement unit technology for navigation in GPS-denied environments. It funds novel micro-scale inertial sensors that use nonlinear physics, co-designed with adaptive control systems, to deliver near navigation-grade performance in a low size, weight, power, and cost package.

‍ ‍

When are PINPOINT proposals due?

‍ ‍

A conforming abstract is due August 27, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, and it is mandatory. The question submittal window closes September 15, 2026. Full proposals are due September 25, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time. You cannot submit a full proposal without first submitting a conforming abstract.

‍ ‍

How much funding does PINPOINT provide?

‍ ‍

DARPA does not publish a total program budget or a per-award ceiling for the base Phase I effort in this BAA. Multiple awards are anticipated, and award value is negotiated based on your proposed technical approach, cost, and schedule. The only fixed figure stated is for the optional Industry Immersion Program, which provides up to $160,000 per embedded student.

‍ ‍

How long is the PINPOINT program?

‍ ‍

Phase I is 24 months. A 24-month Phase II is anticipated but is not being solicited now and is not guaranteed. Only Phase I is open under this announcement.

‍ ‍

What kind of technology is DARPA looking for?

‍ ‍

DARPA wants revolutionary inertial sensors operating in highly nonlinear regimes, using approaches such as electromagnetically levitated proof masses, non-linear resonators, high-velocity tethered microsystems, and non-linear mechanical structures, tightly co-designed with real-time adaptive control. Evolutionary improvements to existing MEMS devices are specifically excluded.

‍ ‍

Can startups and small businesses apply to PINPOINT?

‍ ‍

Yes. All responsible sources may propose, and small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, HBCUs, and minority institutions are encouraged, though there is no set-aside. Both U.S. and non-U.S. sources may participate subject to export control and security requirements.

‍ ‍

What award instruments are available under PINPOINT?

‍ ‍

DARPA may award procurement contracts, cooperative agreements, or Other Transaction Agreements for Prototype. The instrument affects your submission channel, your cost-sharing obligations, and whether CMMC applies.

‍ ‍

Does PINPOINT require CMMC certification?

‍ ‍

CMMC applies to awards that take the form of procurement contracts, and DARPA anticipates requiring CMMC Level 1 or Level 2 depending on whether the work involves Federal Contract Information or Controlled Unclassified Information. A valid, current certification at the required level is a condition of award, so it is worth starting the SPRS self-assessment process early.

‍ ‍

What are the evaluation criteria for PINPOINT?

‍ ‍

In descending order of importance: Overall Scientific and Technical Merit, Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission, Cost and Schedule Realism, and the Proposer's Capabilities or Related Experience.

‍ ‍

What is the Associate Contractor Agreement requirement?

‍ ‍

Phase I performers must enter an Associate Contractor Agreement that mandates sharing certain program-generated data with other funded teams, with firewalls to protect proprietary intellectual property. This broad data-sharing requirement is expected to relax in Phase II so teams can protect proprietary hardware and manufacturing IP.

‍ ‍

How do I ask DARPA questions about PINPOINT?

‍ ‍

Email all technical, contractual, and administrative questions to PINPOINT@darpa.mil. Do not email the Program Manager directly, as that may delay or prevent a response. The question submittal window closes September 15, 2026.

OSW26TZ05-NV003: High Throughput Wafer Scale Manufacturing of Custom Achromatic Infrared Meta Optics

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

OSW26TZ05-NV003 is a 2026 OSW-Reliance 21 STTR topic under the DoW STTR Program funding a cost-effective, high-throughput, wafer-scale manufacturing process for custom achromatic meta-optic components operating in the mid wave and long wave infrared bands. Because this is an STTR topic, the small business must formally partner with a U.S. nonprofit research institution or university, performing at least 40 percent of the work while the research partner performs at least 30 percent. Phase I offers a base award of up to $300,000 over 12 months with a 10-page technical volume limit. This topic is ITAR/EAR restricted. Proposals are due September 23, 2026 and must be submitted through DSIP.

Overview

Meta-optics replace bulky, multi-element, three-dimensional curved lenses with flat surfaces built from subwavelength-scale meta-units, dramatically cutting the size, weight, and complexity of infrared systems. That makes them attractive for portable IR vision systems, UAV surveillance platforms, and wearable electronics. A single meta-optic element can also be engineered to extract or encode information like polarization, wavelength, and wavefront shape directly from an incoming IR signal, enabling sensing and beam-shaping capabilities that conventional refractive optics cannot match.

The problem holding this technology back is chromatic aberration, along with a manufacturing bottleneck. Existing fabrication approaches, including electron beam lithography, UV immersion lithography, nanoimprint lithography, grayscale lithography, and deep UV projection lithography, are slow, require complex alignment, use expensive tooling, and have limited material compatibility. Most demonstrated achromatic metalenses to date also operate in the visible or near-infrared range rather than the MWIR (3 to 5 microns) or LWIR (8 to 14 microns) bands that matter for military infrared systems.

This topic wants a wafer-scale manufacturing process, compatible with standard semiconductor fabrication infrastructure, that can produce achromatic meta-optic components in high-index, IR-transparent materials across both MWIR and LWIR bands. Phase I focuses on proving the manufacturing process works for the MWIR band specifically, building meta-unit libraries across multiple IR materials, and quantifying performance metrics like phase control resolution, surface flatness for component integration, and the breadth of the meta-atom library. Phase II experimentally validates those Phase I performance targets, expands the meta-atom library into the LWIR band, and focuses on scaling the process to high-volume wafer-scale production without requiring the proposer to own a physical foundry.

Because this is an STTR topic, proposers must have a signed Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with their partnering nonprofit research institution or university, along with an intellectual property and data rights allocation statement between both parties, uploaded as supporting documentation. This topic is also ITAR/EAR restricted, so any proposed use of foreign nationals must be disclosed in detail, including country of origin, visa type, and specific tasks.

Worth noting: the solicitation's evaluation criteria section references weighting toward a "foundation-model-based collaborative AiTR approach," which appears to be boilerplate carried over from a different topic and does not match the meta-optics manufacturing description above. Companies should confirm evaluation criteria directly with the Technical Point of Contact before finalizing a proposal strategy.

Funding and Timeline

Phase I base award: up to $300,000 Phase I period of performance: 12 months Phase I technical volume limit: 10 pages Small business minimum work share: 40 percent of total cost Research institution/university minimum work share: 30 percent of total cost Proposal deadline: September 23, 2026 Submission portal: DSIP only, no other submission method is accepted Additional funding available: TABA funding, up to $6,500 for Phase I awardees and up to $50,000 per Phase II project Critical Technology Area: Scaled Hypersonics CMMC level requirement: Level 1 Export control status: ITAR/EAR restricted

Who Should Apply

This topic fits small businesses with nanofabrication, photonics, or optical metasurface expertise, particularly those who already have or can quickly establish a research partnership with a university or nonprofit lab active in meta-optics, semiconductor processing, or advanced materials. Because STTR requires a documented Cooperative Research and Development Agreement and an IP allocation statement before submission, companies should start that conversation with a research partner early rather than after the topic is already open.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for OSW26TZ05-NV003? The proposal deadline is September 23, 2026. Proposals must be submitted through DSIP before the topic closes.

How much funding is available for Phase I? Phase I offers a base award of up to $300,000 for a 12 month period of performance.

Why does this topic require a university partner? This is an STTR topic, not an SBIR topic. STTR requires the small business to formally partner with a U.S. nonprofit research institution or university, with the small business performing at least 40 percent of the work and the research partner performing at least 30 percent, measured by cost.

What documents does the university partnership require? A signed STTR Cooperative Research and Development Agreement between the small business and the research institution, along with an Allocation of Intellectual Property and Data Rights statement between both parties, both uploaded as supporting documents.

Is this topic export controlled? Yes. This topic is restricted under ITAR and EAR. Any proposed use of foreign nationals must be disclosed, including country of origin, visa or work permit type, and specific tasks assigned, and participation may be restricted.

What infrared bands does this topic target? Mid wave infrared, 3 to 5 microns, is the primary Phase I focus, with long wave infrared, 8 to 14 microns, added during Phase II.

Does the manufacturing process need to run in a proposer-owned foundry? No. Phase II specifically aims to scale the process to high-volume wafer-scale production without requiring the proposer to own a physical foundry.

Is TABA funding available for this topic? Yes. Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding, and Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project.

OSW26BZ05-DV014: In-Situ Metrology for Mesa-Wall Integrity in Large Format Small-Pixel Infrared Detector Array Fabrication

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

OSW26BZ05-DV014 is a 2026 OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic under the DoW SBIR Program seeking a non-destructive, quick-turn metrology tool that can screen full wafers for surface damage during small-pixel infrared detector array fabrication. Phase I offers a base award of $314,363 over 9 months with a 20-page technical volume limit. A Direct to Phase II track is available at $2,095,748 over 18 months. Proposals are due September 23, 2026 and must be submitted through DSIP.

Overview

The Department of War needs large-format, small-pixel focal plane arrays (FPAs) to support sensor platforms across ground, air, maritime, and space domains. As detector manufacturers push pixel sizes smaller to meet this demand, the fabrication process becomes more fragile. During pixel isolation, mesa-wall surface damage and unwanted surface currents introduce noise that degrades FPA performance and can compromise mission effectiveness.

This topic calls for a prototype instrument that can non-destructively assess mesa-wall integrity across full wafers up to 150mm in diameter, as well as piece parts, at cryogenic temperatures. The tool needs to work across both major detector material systems used in this space: Antimony-based III-V Type-II Superlattice (T2SL) and Mercury Cadmium Telluride (MCT), covering short wave through long wave infrared bands. The government is prioritizing in-situ measurement approaches that let fabricators catch and correct defects during processing rather than after the fact.

Companies with backgrounds in semiconductor metrology, surface current mapping, non-destructive testing, or infrared detector characterization are well positioned here. The solicitation explicitly encourages proposers to partner with prime contractors or commercial T2SL and MCT growth and processing houses, since access to real fabrication environments will matter for a credible Phase II and Phase III transition.

Phase I is about proving the underlying physics and measurement concept, using representative test structures or coupons rather than full production wafers. Phase II scales that concept into a working full-wafer prototype validated against traditional baseline testing at an actual DoW laboratory or FPA fabrication house. Phase III targets integration into IRFPA production lines, with clear relevance to sensors for air, space, maritime, and missile platforms.

Companies pursuing the Direct to Phase II track must already have completed proof-of-concept work independent of any prior federally funded SBIR or STTR Phase I effort, and must document that work thoroughly: technical reports, test data, prototype designs, and performance results.

Funding and Timeline

Phase I base award: $314,363 Phase I period of performance: 9 months Phase I technical volume limit: 20 pages Direct to Phase II award: $2,095,748 Direct to Phase II period of performance: 18 months Direct to Phase II technical volume limit: 20 pages Proposal deadline: September 23, 2026 Submission portal: DSIP only, no other submission method is accepted Additional funding available: Technical and Business Assistance (TABA) funding, up to $6,500 for Phase I awardees and up to $50,000 per Phase II project Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance CMMC level requirement: Level 1

Who Should Apply

This topic fits small businesses with proven capability in semiconductor surface characterization, cryogenic test instrumentation, or infrared detector fabrication diagnostics. Companies without direct access to T2SL or MCT wafer fabrication should plan to line up a partnership with a growth or processing house before proposing, since the solicitation specifically calls this out as encouraged.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for OSW26BZ05-DV014? The proposal deadline is September 23, 2026. Proposals must be submitted through DSIP before the topic closes on that date.

How much funding is available for Phase I? Phase I offers a base award of up to $314,363 for a 9 month period of performance.

Can a company skip Phase I and apply directly for Phase II? Yes. This topic accepts Direct to Phase II proposals, but only from companies that can document completed proof-of-concept work meeting the Phase I objectives, performed independently of any prior SBIR or STTR federal funding.

What materials does the metrology tool need to work with? The tool must be able to assess both Antimony-based III-V Semiconductor Type-II Superlattice (T2SL) and Mercury Cadmium Telluride (MCT) detector materials, across short wave to long wave infrared bands.

Does this topic require a security clearance? Phase I work is expected to be performed at the Unclassified//CUI level, and classified proposals are not accepted. A Phase II contract may require facility and personnel clearances if the work becomes classified.

What size wafers does the system need to measure? The system should accommodate wafers up to 150mm in diameter as well as piece parts.

Who evaluates these proposals? Government technical evaluators may come from Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army DEVCOM Army Research Lab, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory.

Is TABA funding available for this topic? Yes. Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding, and Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project, using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form.

OSW26BZ05-NP016: Desktop Instrument for Measuring Boresight Error as a Function of Incident Angle

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

OSW26BZ05-NP016 is a 2026 OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic under the DoW SBIR Program funding a benchtop instrument that measures boresight error and boresight error slope in infrared window materials as a function of temperature, temperature gradient, and angle of incidence. Phase I offers a base award of $300,000 over 12 months with a 10-page technical volume limit. This topic does not have a Direct to Phase II track. Proposals are due September 23, 2026 and must be submitted through DSIP.

Overview

Interceptor vehicles use infrared tracking systems to determine an object's position along the line of sight between the vehicle and the target. That line of sight passes through a protective window or dome. In supersonic and hypersonic flight, aerodynamic heating creates a temperature gradient across that window, which distorts the measured line of sight relative to the actual line of sight. That distortion is called boresight error, or BSE. As the vehicle's angle changes, BSE changes too, in a pattern known as boresight error slope, or BSES. Negative BSES is especially problematic because it prevents the guidance system from compensating accurately.

Right now, characterizing BSE and BSES relies on wind tunnel and flight testing, which are accurate but expensive and hard to schedule. This topic seeks a desktop testing apparatus that reproduces the relevant thermal and angular conditions without high-speed air flow, so companies developing novel IR window materials, including ceramics intended to reduce BSE and BSES, can iterate faster and de-risk expensive flight testing.

The instrument needs to measure unmounted or mounted IR window materials between 25mm and 100mm wide, across an incidence angle range of 0 to 75 degrees, temperatures from room temperature up to 1200 degrees Celsius, and at three wavelengths: 633 nanometers, 4 microns, and 10 microns. It needs an integrated computer and a usable graphical interface, plus the ability to create and measure a controlled temperature gradient between the top and bottom surfaces of the sample.

This is a strong fit for companies with backgrounds in optical instrumentation, laser and detector system integration, thermal testing, or materials characterization equipment. Phase I is a design and simulation exercise, with mockups of the data collection software as the deliverable. Phase II builds and delivers a working instrument to the Army Research Laboratory, including installation, training, and documentation.

Funding and Timeline

Phase I base award: $300,000 Phase I period of performance: 12 months Phase I technical volume limit: 10 pages Direct to Phase II: not available for this topic Proposal deadline: September 23, 2026 Submission portal: DSIP only, no other submission method is accepted Additional funding available: TABA funding, up to $6,500 for Phase I awardees and up to $50,000 per Phase II project Critical Technology Area: Scaled Hypersonics CMMC level requirement: Level 1

Who Should Apply

Companies building optical test and measurement equipment, especially those with experience in laser-based sensing, cryogenic or high-temperature test rigs, or hypersonic materials testing, should take a close look at this topic. Prior experience delivering instrumentation to a government laboratory is a plus given the Phase II delivery and training requirement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for OSW26BZ05-NP016? The proposal deadline is September 23, 2026. Proposals must be submitted through DSIP before the topic closes.

How much funding is available for Phase I? Phase I offers a base award of up to $300,000 for a 12 month period of performance.

Is Direct to Phase II available for this topic? No. This topic is only open to standard Phase I proposals.

What temperature and angle range does the instrument need to cover? The instrument must operate from room temperature to 1200 degrees Celsius and across incidence angles from 0 to 75 degrees, at three wavelengths: 633nm, 4 microns, and 10 microns.

What is delivered at the end of Phase II? A working instrument delivered to the Army Research Laboratory, along with documentation on safe operation and standard operating procedures, ideally with troubleshooting guides and training manuals, plus on-site installation and training.

Does this topic require flight testing experience? No. The entire point of the topic is to build a benchtop alternative to wind tunnel and flight testing, so simulation and bench-level instrumentation expertise is what matters most.

Who evaluates these proposals? Government technical evaluators may come from Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army DEVCOM Army Research Lab, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory.

Is TABA funding available for this topic? Yes. Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding, and Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project.

OSW26BZ05-NP017: Sensing Algorithms for Bandwidth Efficient Edge Radars (SABER)

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

OSW26BZ05-NP017, known as SABER, is a 2026 OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic under the DoW SBIR Program funding decentralized radar sensing algorithms that let three or more radar nodes cooperate on target detection and identification while minimizing the communications bandwidth needed between them. Phase I offers a base award of $306,500 over 6 months with a 10-page technical volume limit. This topic does not have a Direct to Phase II track and is ITAR/EAR restricted. Proposals are due September 23, 2026 and must be submitted through DSIP.

Overview

The Navy's Distributed Maritime Operations concept and related tactical imaging efforts depend on networking physically separated radar nodes into a single cooperative sensing mesh. Done well, this overcomes the limits of any single platform, including single points of failure and limited angular coverage, especially in contested and cluttered environments. The catch is that this shifts the performance bottleneck from individual sensors to the communications network connecting them. Streaming raw radar data gives the best imaging fidelity but overwhelms available bandwidth, while sharing only processed features or images saves bandwidth but degrades collaborative imaging quality.

SABER is looking for architectures and algorithms that jointly optimize communications and target inference across a decentralized radar network, processing data locally at each node and transmitting only the actionable intelligence or compressed imaging features needed for the network to fuse. Proposals need to specify their level of data fusion, whether decentralized signal-level, feature-level, or decision-level, along with the expected bandwidth requirements at each level.

Phase I is modeling and simulation heavy. The government wants proposers to demonstrate architecture feasibility, identify bandwidth bottlenecks as the key technical barrier, establish quantitative baselines for both network capacity and inference accuracy, and deliver a working proof-of-concept software implementation alongside a Phase II development plan aimed at hardware-in-the-loop testing.

This is a strong fit for companies with backgrounds in radar signal processing, distributed sensor networks, communications-constrained algorithm design, or information fusion. Because this topic is ITAR/EAR restricted, any proposed use of foreign nationals must be disclosed in detail, including country of origin, visa type, and specific statement of work tasks, and foreign national participation may be restricted under U.S. export control law.

Funding and Timeline

Phase I base award: $306,500 Phase I period of performance: 6 months Phase I technical volume limit: 10 pages Direct to Phase II: not available for this topic Proposal deadline: September 23, 2026 Submission portal: DSIP only, no other submission method is accepted Additional funding available: TABA funding, up to $6,500 for Phase I awardees and up to $50,000 per Phase II project Critical Technology Area: Applied Artificial Intelligence CMMC level requirement: Level 1 Export control status: ITAR/EAR restricted

Who Should Apply

Companies working on radar signal processing, distributed sensing, communications-efficient AI, or multi-node information fusion for maritime or ground surveillance are the target audience here. Given the short 6 month Phase I period and 10 page limit, proposers should already have a strong technical foundation to build on rather than starting from a blank page.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for OSW26BZ05-NP017? The proposal deadline is September 23, 2026. Proposals must be submitted through DSIP before the topic closes.

How much funding is available for Phase I? Phase I offers a base award of up to $306,500 for a 6 month period of performance.

Is Direct to Phase II available for this topic? No. This topic is only open to standard Phase I proposals.

Is this topic export controlled? Yes. SABER is restricted under ITAR and EAR. Any proposed use of foreign nationals must be disclosed, including country of origin, visa or work permit type, and the specific tasks assigned, and participation may be restricted.

How many radar nodes does the architecture need to support? The topic calls for cooperative inference across tactical networks with three or more nodes, scaling to more than two nodes for Phase II demonstration purposes.

What kind of data fusion should proposers plan for? Proposals should clearly state their fusion approach, whether decentralized signal-level, feature-level, or decision-level fusion, along with the anticipated bandwidth requirements for that approach.

What is the Phase I deliverable? A functional proof-of-concept software or algorithmic implementation, a technical feasibility assessment based on modeling and simulation results, and a Phase II development plan.

Is TABA funding available for this topic? Yes. Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding, and Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project.

OSW26BZ05-DV018: Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Radar Data Compression

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

OSW26BZ05-DV018 is a 2026 OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic under the DoW SBIR Program funding deep learning approaches, such as autoencoders or transformer models, that compress raw radar data into low-bit representations for efficient storage and transmission without losing radar utility. Phase I offers a base award of $314,363 over 12 months with a 20-page technical volume limit. A Direct to Phase II track is available at $2,095,748 over 24 months. This topic is ITAR/EAR restricted. Proposals are due September 23, 2026 and must be submitted through DSIP.

Overview

Next-generation radars, particularly synthetic aperture radar (SAR), generate enormous data rates that traditional image compression methods were never designed to handle. This topic is looking for neural compression approaches built specifically for the complex SAR data domain, using complex-valued neural network encoders and decoders that learn to compress raw pulses or range-Doppler maps into a compact latent representation with minimal distortion, while preserving the features that matter for detection and analysis.

Phase I is about designing and training autoencoder networks for radar data, benchmarking rate-distortion performance against classical compression methods on recorded datasets, and measuring the impact on target detection performance. Phase II moves the best-performing model onto embedded hardware for real-time compression, which likely involves quantization-aware training to reduce bit depth, and tests it against live radar feeds to evaluate image and track fidelity after decompression. Phase III integrates the technology into fielded radars or data links.

The dual-use angle here is broad. Any high-rate sensor stream benefits from this kind of compression, from unmanned aerial vehicle radar feeds to high-resolution weather radar data, which gives commercially minded proposers a real path to Phase III beyond DoW customers.

This is a strong fit for companies with deep learning expertise applied to signal processing, particularly teams with experience in autoencoders, transformer architectures, or complex-valued neural networks, combined with radar or SAR domain knowledge. Because this topic touches sensitive radar signal processing, it is ITAR/EAR restricted, and any proposed use of foreign nationals must be disclosed in detail.

Companies pursuing Direct to Phase II need documented proof-of-concept work that meets the Phase I objectives, independent of prior federally funded SBIR or STTR Phase I work, along with a clear commercialization discussion.

Funding and Timeline

Phase I base award: $314,363 Phase I period of performance: 12 months Phase I technical volume limit: 20 pages Direct to Phase II award: $2,095,748 Direct to Phase II period of performance: 24 months Direct to Phase II technical volume limit: 20 pages Proposal deadline: September 23, 2026 Submission portal: DSIP only, no other submission method is accepted Additional funding available: TABA funding, up to $6,500 for Phase I awardees and up to $50,000 per Phase II project Critical Technology Areas: Applied Artificial Intelligence and Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self) Export control status: ITAR/EAR restricted

Who Should Apply

Companies with strong applied machine learning teams, particularly those who have worked on compression, autoencoders, or generative models for scientific or sensor data, are a natural fit. Radar or SAR domain experience is a meaningful differentiator given the specificity of the technical objectives.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for OSW26BZ05-DV018? The proposal deadline is September 23, 2026. Proposals must be submitted through DSIP before the topic closes.

How much funding is available for Phase I? Phase I offers a base award of up to $314,363 for a 12 month period of performance.

Can a company skip Phase I and apply directly for Phase II? Yes. This topic accepts Direct to Phase II proposals, but only from companies that can document completed proof-of-concept work meeting the Phase I objectives, performed independently of any prior SBIR or STTR federal funding.

What kind of AI approach is the government looking for? Deep learning based compression, specifically autoencoder or transformer architectures, ideally using complex-valued neural networks suited to SAR and radar data.

Is this topic export controlled? Yes. This topic is restricted under ITAR and EAR. Any proposed use of foreign nationals must be disclosed, including country of origin, visa or work permit type, and specific tasks assigned, and participation may be restricted.

What is the required CMMC level? CMMC Level 2 (Self) is the projected requirement for this topic.

What civilian applications does this technology have? Weather radar data networks and medical imaging streams are both cited as dual-use applications with commercial potential.

Is TABA funding available for this topic? Yes. Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding, and Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project.

OSW26BZ05-DV019: Collaborative Distributed Swarm Radar

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

OSW26BZ05-DV019 is a 2026 OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic under the DoW SBIR Program funding signal processing methods that combine information from multiple small radar sensors, such as those carried on unmanned aerial systems, to improve collaborative target detection and identification. Phase I offers a base award of $314,363 over 12 months with a 20-page technical volume limit. A Direct to Phase II track is available at $2,095,748 over 24 months. This topic is ITAR/EAR restricted. Proposals are due September 23, 2026 and must be submitted through DSIP.

Overview

A network of radar-equipped UAS or dispersed sensors can act as a collaborative distributed radar team, pooling information to improve detection, tracking, and identification of ground or maritime targets beyond what any single radar in the network could achieve alone. This topic is looking for the sensor swarm geometries, data fusion schemes, and signal processing algorithms that make that teaming approach actually work.

Phase I is modeling and simulation focused. Proposers need to design candidate swarm geometries and fusion schemes, develop the signal processing algorithms, and use M&S to quantify the expected performance improvement of a radar team compared to a single radar operating alone. Deliverables include a feasibility study, system design, algorithm details, and the software implementation, along with any synthetic data generated during the study.

Phase II moves from simulation to hardware, building a prototype swarm of three or more sensors to validate the Phase I signal processing approach against real collected data, and quantifying performance gains for target detection, tracking, and identification relative to a single radar system. Phase II also requires a commercialization analysis based on what is learned during the hardware phase.

The dual-use potential is significant. Distributed radar swarms have clear civilian applications in environmental monitoring, such as fleets of gliders mapping terrain, as well as broader surveillance and emergency response use cases.

This is a strong fit for companies with experience in radar signal processing, sensor fusion, swarm robotics or UAS platforms, and distributed systems architecture. Because this topic touches sensitive radar and networked sensing technology, it is ITAR/EAR restricted, and any proposed use of foreign nationals must be disclosed in detail.

Funding and Timeline

Phase I base award: $314,363 Phase I period of performance: 12 months Phase I technical volume limit: 20 pages Direct to Phase II award: $2,095,748 Direct to Phase II period of performance: 24 months Direct to Phase II technical volume limit: 20 pages Proposal deadline: September 23, 2026 Submission portal: DSIP only, no other submission method is accepted Additional funding available: TABA funding, up to $6,500 for Phase I awardees and up to $50,000 per Phase II project Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self) Export control status: ITAR/EAR restricted

Who Should Apply

Companies with radar signal processing expertise, particularly those who have worked on multi-sensor fusion, swarm coordination, or UAS-mounted sensing payloads, are well positioned for this topic. A credible plan for building a three-plus node hardware testbed by Phase II will strengthen any proposal.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for OSW26BZ05-DV019? The proposal deadline is September 23, 2026. Proposals must be submitted through DSIP before the topic closes.

How much funding is available for Phase I? Phase I offers a base award of up to $314,363 for a 12 month period of performance.

Can a company skip Phase I and apply directly for Phase II? Yes. This topic accepts Direct to Phase II proposals, but only from companies that can document completed proof-of-concept work meeting the Phase I objectives, performed independently of any prior SBIR or STTR federal funding.

How many sensors are needed for the Phase II prototype? Phase II requires a prototype swarm of three or more sensors to test the collaborative signal processing approach in hardware.

Is this topic export controlled? Yes. This topic is restricted under ITAR and EAR. Any proposed use of foreign nationals must be disclosed, including country of origin, visa or work permit type, and specific tasks assigned, and participation may be restricted.

What civilian applications does this technology have? Environmental monitoring, such as glider swarms mapping terrain, along with broader surveillance and emergency response applications.

What does Phase II require besides the hardware demonstration? A commercialization analysis based on what the company learns during Phase II hardware testing, in addition to the signal processing software and collected data.

Is TABA funding available for this topic? Yes. Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding, and Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project.

OSW26BZ05-DV020: Joint Radar & Communication Waveforms

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

OSW26BZ05-DV020 is a 2026 OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic under the DoW SBIR Program funding dual-functional radar communication techniques that embed information directly into radar waveforms, reducing or removing the need for a separate communications datalink. Phase I offers a base award of $314,363 over 12 months with a 20-page technical volume limit. A Direct to Phase II track is available at $2,095,748 over 24 months. This topic is ITAR/EAR restricted. Proposals are due September 23, 2026 and must be submitted through DSIP.

Overview

Radar sensing and communications conventionally require separate hardware on surveillance platforms, which adds complexity, weight, and latency. This topic is looking for waveform diversity or modulated pulse techniques, sometimes called Dual-functional Radar Communication (DFRC), that encode arbitrary communication data directly into the radar pulse itself rather than sending it over a dedicated communications link.

Phase I calls for developing chirp or phase-modulated encoding schemes that embed additional information into a radar pulse, then validating through simulation or lab testbeds that a receiver can decode that embedded data while still correctly processing the radar return itself, with minimal degradation to radar signal processing performance. Phase II moves this into hardware, implementing the encoding and decoding scheme on a prototype radar and running real hardware tests to evaluate bit error rate against radar performance and study real-time operation requirements.

The commercial angle is meaningful here. Similar techniques could support civilian networks, such as embedding vehicle ID or geolocation into automotive radar pulses, or adding redundancy to automatic dependent surveillance broadcast systems used by the FAA.

This is a strong fit for companies with expertise in radar waveform design, RF communications, signal processing, or dual-function sensing systems. Because this topic touches sensitive radar and communications technology, it is ITAR/EAR restricted, and any proposed use of foreign nationals must be disclosed in detail, including country of origin, visa type, and specific tasks.

Companies pursuing Direct to Phase II must document completed proof-of-concept work meeting the Phase I objectives, performed independently of any prior federally funded SBIR or STTR Phase I effort.

Funding and Timeline

Phase I base award: $314,363 Phase I period of performance: 12 months Phase I technical volume limit: 20 pages Direct to Phase II award: $2,095,748 Direct to Phase II period of performance: 24 months Direct to Phase II technical volume limit: 20 pages Proposal deadline: September 23, 2026 Submission portal: DSIP only, no other submission method is accepted Additional funding available: TABA funding, up to $6,500 for Phase I awardees and up to $50,000 per Phase II project Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self) Export control status: ITAR/EAR restricted

Who Should Apply

Companies with radar waveform design experience, RF and communications engineering backgrounds, or prior work on dual-function radar communication systems should take a close look here. A credible plan for hardware validation by Phase II strengthens the proposal significantly.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for OSW26BZ05-DV020? The proposal deadline is September 23, 2026. Proposals must be submitted through DSIP before the topic closes.

How much funding is available for Phase I? Phase I offers a base award of up to $314,363 for a 12 month period of performance.

Can a company skip Phase I and apply directly for Phase II? Yes. This topic accepts Direct to Phase II proposals, but only from companies that can document completed proof-of-concept work meeting the Phase I objectives, performed independently of any prior SBIR or STTR federal funding.

What is Dual-functional Radar Communication? It is an approach where communication data is encoded directly into a radar's transmitted waveform, such as through chirp or phase modulation, rather than sent over a separate communications link.

Is this topic export controlled? Yes. This topic is restricted under ITAR and EAR. Any proposed use of foreign nationals must be disclosed, including country of origin, visa or work permit type, and specific tasks assigned, and participation may be restricted.

What civilian applications does this technology have? Embedding vehicle ID or geolocation data into automotive radar pulses, and adding redundancy to automatic dependent surveillance broadcast systems used in aviation.

What does Phase I need to demonstrate? That embedded communication data can be recovered from a radar pulse with minimal impact on the radar's own signal processing performance, validated through simulation or lab testbeds.

Is TABA funding available for this topic? Yes. Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding, and Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project.

OSW26BZ05-NV021: Co-packaging Digital Readout Integrated Circuits and Photonics for Advanced Infrared Imaging

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

OSW26BZ05-NV021 is a 2026 OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic under the DoW SBIR Program funding the design and fabrication of a readout integrated circuit with a photonic digital output for infrared sensors operating in cryogenic environments. Phase I offers a base award of $314,363 over 9 months with a 20-page technical volume limit. This topic does not have a Direct to Phase II track. Proposals are due September 23, 2026 and must be submitted through DSIP.

Overview

Modern infrared digital focal plane arrays can generate over 20 gigabits per second of data at standard video framerates in large formats. Getting that bitstream off the sensor in a cryogenic environment is genuinely hard, because it requires balancing electrical, mechanical, and thermal constraints simultaneously. Today's state of practice tops out around 3 gigabits per second per channel at 10 picojoules per bit, and the power that electrical output drivers consume becomes significant enough to shorten cryocooler lifetimes in large-format arrays.

Photonic integrated circuits (PICs) offer a potential 10x or greater improvement in bandwidth, latency, and energy consumption compared to standard electrical input/output approaches. The problem is that every demonstration to date has bolted an off-the-shelf readout integrated circuit (ROIC) to a PIC chiplet on an interposer, which reduces thermal load from wiring but does little to actually reduce overall power consumption. This topic wants a genuinely monolithic solution: either full integration of electronics and photonics on a single silicon wafer, or foundry-level integration of a photonic and electronic layer before detector hybridization, using one of the CMOS/PIC-capable foundries now offering 45 to 180 nanometer processes.

Phase I is about exploring foundry fabrication options for co-packaging or vertically integrating a digital ROIC with photonic chiplets, evaluating feasibility factors like bonding, metallization, planarity, and impurities, and producing an initial PIC design suited to cryogenic operation, along with any needed modifications to existing ROIC designs. Phase II carries this through to full design, tape-out, and fabrication, with cryogenic testing to demonstrate optical output performance, and ideally radiation testing and thermal cycling as well.

This is a strong fit for companies with expertise in photonic integrated circuit design, cryogenic electronics, mixed-signal ROIC design, or foundry-level chip integration. Radiation hardening for space applications is called out as a plus but not a requirement.

Funding and Timeline

Phase I base award: $314,363 Phase I period of performance: 9 months Phase I technical volume limit: 20 pages Direct to Phase II: not available for this topic Proposal deadline: September 23, 2026 Submission portal: DSIP only, no other submission method is accepted Additional funding available: TABA funding, up to $6,500 for Phase I awardees and up to $50,000 per Phase II project Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance CMMC level requirement: Level 1

Who Should Apply

Companies with photonics design capability, cryogenic mixed-signal electronics experience, or access to CMOS/PIC foundry relationships are the right audience here. This topic rewards proposers who can speak credibly to real foundry integration constraints rather than purely theoretical PIC design.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for OSW26BZ05-NV021? The proposal deadline is September 23, 2026. Proposals must be submitted through DSIP before the topic closes.

How much funding is available for Phase I? Phase I offers a base award of up to $314,363 for a 9 month period of performance.

Is Direct to Phase II available for this topic? No. This topic is only open to standard Phase I proposals.

Why does this topic call for monolithic integration instead of chiplet-on-interposer designs? Because chiplet-on-interposer approaches reduce thermal load from wiring but do very little to reduce overall power consumption, which is the actual problem the government is trying to solve for large-format arrays in cryogenic environments.

What data rates is this technology trying to support? State of the art digital infrared focal plane arrays can generate more than 20 gigabits per second, well beyond what current electrical output drivers can handle efficiently in a cryogenic environment.

Is radiation hardening required? No. Design hardening for space and high-radiation environments is called out as advantageous but remains optional for this topic.

What foundry capabilities does this topic assume are available? The topic references several foundries now offering 45 to 180 nanometer CMOS/PIC integration capability as a starting point for proposers.

What is the Phase I deliverable? A comprehensive final report detailing the PIC design, planned ROIC fabrication modifications, and a system integration plan.

Is TABA funding available for this topic? Yes. Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding, and Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project.

DTRA SBIR DTR26BZ05-NP001: Novel Technologies for CWMD and Related Threats

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

DTR26BZ05-NP001 is a Defense Threat Reduction Agency SBIR open topic seeking ways to detect radiological or nuclear threats using signals from ordinary military hardware and commercial devices, rather than building new, purpose-built sensors. Phase I awards go up to 250,000 dollars over 7 months. Phase II awards go up to 1,500,000 dollars over 24 months and are only open to Phase I awardees. Proposals are due September 23. The topic is ITAR and EAR restricted.

What This Topic Is Looking For

DTRA exists to help the Department of War detect, deter, and defeat weapons of mass destruction. The agency's problem is that purpose-built radiological and nuclear detection hardware is slow and expensive to develop, test, and field, and the commercial market for that kind of specialized equipment is thin.

This topic flips the approach. Instead of asking for a new sensor, it asks for a way to detect the storage, transfer, or use of WMD and related materials using signals that already exist. That could mean microphones, cameras, motion detectors, passive infrared, or other common sensors already sitting on military platforms or in commercial devices that have nothing to do with radiological detection on their own. The goal is to find a novel use case where ordinary, non-specialized signals or data can serve as an indication and warning capability for WMD threats.

This is structured as an open topic rather than a conventional one, which means DTRA is not specifying a particular technical objective or output up front. Proposers have room to define the use case themselves, provided it fits the broader mission of detecting WMD threats without bespoke sensors. Because it is an open topic, a company may submit only one proposal to it. If more than one proposal is submitted, only the most recently certified one will be evaluated, and all earlier submissions will be marked non-responsive.

Phase I, II, and III Expectations

Phase I is a feasibility study. The deliverable is proof of at least one feasible use case where a non-WMD-specific sensor, signal, or data source can detect a WMD threat or event, including characterization of the use case's applicability, customizability, and effectiveness, plus a proposed course of action for building a model or prototype in Phase II. The final Phase I deliverable is a report documenting the study and that course of action.

Phase II is only open to companies that received a Phase I award on this topic. It focuses on actually building the model or prototype identified in Phase I and testing it against relevant scenarios and data. The deliverable is the model or prototype itself, along with a final report containing an objective assessment of the technology and all test data and outcomes. Phase II proposals need to generally follow the same outline as the Phase I proposal, incorporating lessons learned, and should be ready to submit within 30 days after the Phase I period of performance ends.

Phase III is about refining the technology for broader mission use, improving effectiveness, usability, and sustainability, and delivering both a proven capability and a study of dual use applications spanning defense, government, and commercial use cases.

Funding and Timeline

Phase I award: up to 250,000 dollars for a 7 month period of performance, structured as 6 months of research plus a final month for the report. Phase I awards are issued as fixed-price purchase orders.

Phase II award: up to 1,500,000 dollars for a 24 month period of performance, issued as a definitive cost contract. Only Phase I awardees on this topic may submit a Phase II proposal.

TABA: up to 6,500 dollars for the Phase I project, and up to 50,000 dollars for the Phase II project, which can be split into two 25,000 dollar increments across sequential Phase II usage if needed.

Proposal deadline: September 23. All proposals must be submitted through DSIP, and proposals submitted through any other channel will be disregarded.

Award timeline: selection or non-selection notifications go out within 90 days of the BAA closing date. Selected offers then move through a DTRA acquisition package for contracting officer approval, which typically takes 120 to 180 days to reach contract execution.

Required Proposal Volumes

Every submission needs seven volumes: the Proposal Cover Sheet, the Technical Volume capped at 20 pages for Phase I and 40 pages for Phase II, the Cost Volume using DTRA's required Excel spreadsheet template, the Company Commercialization Report, Supporting Documents, Fraud Waste and Abuse Training, and the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations webform.

DTRA has one mandatory Supporting Documents requirement beyond the standard package: the Contractor Certification Regarding Provision of Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment. If a company has concerns about meeting this certification, it needs to submit a mitigation plan addressing those concerns rather than skip the requirement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for DTR26BZ05-NP001? September 23. Submission is only accepted through DSIP.

Can a company submit more than one proposal to this topic? No. This is an open topic, so a company may submit only one proposal. If multiple proposals are submitted, only the most recently certified one is evaluated, and earlier submissions are marked non-responsive.

What makes this an open topic instead of a conventional one? DTRA has not specified a particular technical objective or output. Proposers get to define the specific use case themselves, as long as it fits the mission of detecting WMD threats using non-specialized sensors, signals, or data sources rather than purpose-built detection hardware.

Can a company propose directly to Phase II? No. Phase II proposals may only come from companies that already hold a Phase I award on this specific topic.

What kind of company or team fits this topic best? Teams with signal processing, sensor fusion, or data science expertise who can identify a genuinely novel way to repurpose existing military or commercial hardware for detection, rather than teams focused on building new radiological or nuclear sensor hardware from scratch.

Is this topic export controlled? Yes. It is restricted under ITAR and may also fall under EAR. Any planned use of foreign nationals must be disclosed, including country of origin, visa status, and specific tasks.

How competitive is this program? DTRA receives roughly 250 proposals a year across its SBIR program and makes 17 to 20 awards annually, so the overall program is competitive, though award rates vary by topic and year.

What does DTRA expect as the final Phase I deliverable? A report proving out at least one feasible use case, along with a proposed course of action for building a model or prototype in Phase II. Phase I is a feasibility study, not a working prototype.

DARPA STTR DPA26TZ05-DV003: SPEED DIAL (Scalable Platform for Enterprise Engineering and Deployment towards Mathematics for the Discovery of Algorithms and Architectures)

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

DPA26TZ05-DV003, known as SPEED DIAL, is a DARPA Direct to Phase II STTR topic seeking a platform that brings AI-driven algorithm discovery out of the research lab and into everyday engineering workflows. The award is worth up to 750,000 dollars over a 12 month base period, with an optional 1,250,000 dollar, 12 month extension, for a total period of performance up to 24 months. Proposals are due September 23. Because this is an STTR topic, a formal research institution partnership is required.

What This Topic Is Looking For

DARPA's DIAL program already proved that AI can autonomously discover novel, high-performance algorithms, for example rediscovering the Kalman Filter using Transformers, rediscovering wavelets using genetic programming, and generating optimal meta-solvers for physics simulations. The problem is that these discovery engines are stuck in research environments. Engineers and scientists cannot yet pull a bespoke, AI-discovered algorithm into their actual workflow before running their standard process.

SPEED DIAL asks for a framework that closes that gap, built through a partnership between a university with deep algorithmic discovery expertise and a company representing the US industrial base. The Phase II work breaks into five tasks: building a unified discovery and deployment platform where engineers can define a problem space, boundary conditions, and hardware constraints to kick off discovery; embedding pervasive discovery engines, such as Transformer-based or genetic programming approaches, directly into the platform so industrial partners can discover bespoke algorithms for their own proprietary data; curating a version-controlled library of discovered algorithms organized by problem class with performance benchmarks; building in-context integration tools that pair a problem description with its algorithmic solution so retrieval is context-aware, and that deploy the algorithm into existing environments like MATLAB, Simulink, COMSOL, or custom C++ without manual code rewriting; and demonstrating the whole framework on at least two distinct defense-relevant problems such as hypersonic vehicle design, submarine acoustic signature analysis, or digital twin modeling.

A key requirement running through the whole topic is interpretability. Discovered algorithms cannot be black boxes. They need to be composed of transparent building blocks that a domain expert can actually understand, verify, and eventually certify.

DP2 Feasibility and Phase II Structure

This topic accepts Direct to Phase II proposals only, so no separate Phase I award will be made. Feasibility documentation needs to show three things already accomplished outside the STTR program: a track record of using methods like Transformers, genetic programming, or reinforcement learning to discover novel algorithms that beat state-of-the-art approaches in domains like time-series analysis, data compression, or partial differential equations; quantitative performance gains, with DARPA citing prior results like a 1000x improvement from AI-discovered wavelets and a 6.35x reduction in iterations for acoustic and sonar solvers as reference points; and evidence that the discovered algorithms are interpretable rather than opaque.

Phase II runs through a set of fixed milestones: a Month 4 system architecture document with an initial library of at least 5 foundational algorithms, a Month 8 prototype of the ambient discovery engine running in the background without interrupting the primary engineering workflow, a Month 12 demonstration of in-context deployment into a standard commercial environment without manual code rewriting, a Month 14 interim demonstration on a defense-relevant problem showing more than 10 percent improvement in computational efficiency, a Month 18 beta release of the full closed-loop platform, and a Month 24 final demonstration on a second major defense application along with the final software release and Phase III transition plan.

Phase III Outlook

On the defense side, DARPA points to faster and more accurate hypersonic vehicle design through better CFD simulation, improved sonar and radar signal processing for target detection, optimization of logistics networks in contested environments, and faster development of digital twins for military systems. Commercially, the same discovery framework applies to advanced manufacturing process optimization, financial modeling for risk analysis and trading, accelerated molecular dynamics simulation for drug discovery, and semiconductor chip layout optimization.

Funding and Timeline

Base award amount: up to 750,000 dollars for a 12 month period of performance.

Option amount: up to 1,250,000 dollars for an additional 12 months, bringing the total period of performance to 24 months.

TABA: DARPA offers up to 6,500 dollars per Phase I project and up to 25,000 dollars for the initial Phase II award.

Proposal deadline: September 23. Technical questions must be submitted by September 16, since DARPA does not answer questions submitted within 7 calendar days of the closing date.

STTR Requirements

Because this is an STTR topic, the proposing small business must partner with a qualifying research institution, and the topic itself is explicitly framed around a university-company partnership: a university bringing deep expertise in algorithmic discovery, paired with a company representing the US industrial base that can embed the tools into a real engineering workflow.

Proposal Format

This topic uses the standard Technical Volume format rather than the white paper and slide deck format. The Technical Volume splits into Part One, Feasibility Documentation, capped at 10 pages, and Part Two, the Technical Proposal, capped at 20 pages. A separate Phase II commercialization strategy section is required and capped at 5 pages, placed as the last section of the Technical Volume and not counted against the main page limit.

All proposals go through DSIP and require the standard seven volumes: cover sheet, technical volume, cost volume, Company Commercialization Report, supporting documents, Fraud Waste and Abuse training, and the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations webform, which must be completed as a webform and will not be accepted as a PDF upload.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for DPA26TZ05-DV003? September 23. Technical questions must be submitted by September 16.

Is this a Phase I or Phase II award? Phase II only. This topic accepts Direct to Phase II proposals exclusively, so proposers must document feasibility already achieved outside the STTR program rather than receiving a separate Phase I award.

Why does this topic require a research institution partner? This is an STTR topic, and the underlying concept is explicitly built around a university and industry partnership, pairing algorithmic discovery expertise from academia with a company able to deploy that work into real engineering practice.

What does interpretability mean for this topic specifically? Discovered algorithms cannot function as black boxes. They need to be built from transparent components that a domain expert who is not an algorithms specialist can understand and eventually verify or certify, which DARPA treats as essential for real-world adoption.

What page limits apply to the proposal? 10 pages for feasibility documentation, 20 pages for the technical proposal, and a separate 5 page commercialization strategy that does not count against those limits.

Is cost sharing required? No. Cost sharing is permitted under this BAA but is not required and will not be used as an evaluation factor.

What kind of team fits this topic best? A university partner with strength in algorithm discovery methods such as genetic programming, reinforcement learning, or Transformer-based approaches, paired with a small business that has real engineering workflow experience and a credible path to embedding the tool into commercial or defense engineering software.

DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ05-DV022: Commercialization of Ultra-High Payload-to-Weight UAS Subsystems

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ05-DV022 is a DARPA Direct to Phase II SBIR topic seeking to commercialize UAS subsystems that break the 4 to 1 payload-to-weight ratio, building directly on results from the DARPA Lift Challenge. The award is worth up to 1,250,000 dollars over an 18 month base period, with an optional 250,000 dollar, 6 month extension, for a total period of performance up to 24 months. Proposals are due September 23. The topic is ITAR and EAR restricted and carries a CMMC Level 1 requirement.

What This Topic Is Looking For

Most multirotor UAS today max out around a 1 to 1 payload-to-weight ratio. The DARPA Lift Challenge proved that a 4 to 1 ratio is achievable through aggressive weight minimization, advanced materials, and novel propulsion. This topic exists to take that proof of concept and turn it into a manufacturable, certifiable, commercially viable product.

Proposers choose one of two tracks and may only submit one proposal per track.

Track A, Revolutionary Aerodynamic Design, focuses on ultra-lightweight structures and novel airframe or rotor configurations, plus the commercialization subcomponents needed for a real product: communications, autonomy, safety systems, and transportability, along with starting the certification process.

Track B, Revolutionary Powertrain Design, focuses on transitioning a high-efficiency, high-power-density propulsion system away from hand-built prototypes and into a mass-produced, certified module that any UAS integrator could drop into their platform.

Both tracks are structured around the same demonstration philosophy: prove the design works, then prove it can be manufactured repeatably at scale, then prove it survives real operational stress, and finally deliver a complete technical data package with an active certification roadmap.

DP2 Feasibility and Phase II Structure

This is a Direct to Phase II topic only, so proposers need a working proof of concept already in hand. That means empirical data, flight logs, or prototype test results proving the baseline concept meets or exceeds the 4 to 1 payload-to-weight threshold, along with first order analysis that complements the empirical data. DARPA specifically calls out participation in the DARPA Lift Challenge as an ideal way to satisfy this requirement, though similar rigorous testing environments are also acceptable.

Phase II runs up to 24 months with Readiness Tests at Month 9 and Month 18, followed by an Ultimate Program Demonstration at Month 24. Each track escalates in difficulty at each checkpoint.

For Track A, the Month 9 test requires producing three identical structural components using scalable manufacturing and proving less than 10 percent variance in failure load across them at a 4 to 1 ratio. The Month 18 test requires integrating the airframe into a full UAS weighing no more than 1,320 pounds, complete with communications, autonomy, and safety systems, then flying an untethered hover demonstration at a 4 to 1 payload ratio for at least 5 continuous minutes. The Month 24 demonstration requires a complete technical data package and formal initiation of certification under standards like AS9100 for manufacturing and FAA airworthiness or military flight release for operational use.

For Track B, the Month 9 test requires producing three identical, mass-production-ready powertrain units and proving less than 5 percent performance variance across them on a dynamometer. The Month 18 test requires an accelerated life-cycle and environmental stress test following MIL-STD-810 procedures, plus a continuous operation test simulating a real heavy-lift mission profile without thermal failure or degradation. The Month 24 demonstration requires a final analysis package and a technical data package tailored for mass production, mapped against FAA airworthiness standards and relevant MIL-STDs.

Phase III Outlook

Phase III is oriented toward transition within the military and further commercialization. Military applications include tactical resupply, autonomous ammunition or ration delivery in contested logistics environments, and rapid casualty evacuation. Commercial applications include delivery of heavy construction materials to high-rise sites, automated disaster response logistics, heavy-duty agricultural spraying, and commercial cargo transport.

Funding and Timeline

Base award amount: up to 1,250,000 dollars for an 18 month period of performance.

Option amount: up to 250,000 dollars for an additional 6 months, bringing the total period of performance to 24 months.

TABA: up to 25,000 dollars per Phase II project, reviewed at time of award.

Proposal deadline: September 23. Technical questions must be submitted by September 16, since DARPA does not answer questions submitted within 7 calendar days of the closing date.

Proposal Format

This topic uses the white paper and slide deck Technical Volume format. The white paper cannot exceed 20 pages and needs to cover goals and impact, proof of concept feasibility documentation, a technical plan with milestones no more than a month apart, management and capabilities, and a transition and commercialization plan. The slide deck cannot exceed 15 slides and covers the same ground in pitch format, including cost, schedule, and DARPA's required quad chart templates.

All proposals go through DSIP and require the standard seven volumes: cover sheet, technical volume, cost volume, Company Commercialization Report, supporting documents, Fraud Waste and Abuse training, and the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations webform, which must be completed as a webform and will not be accepted as a PDF upload.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for DPA26BZ05-DV022? September 23. Technical questions must be submitted by September 16.

Is this a Phase I or Phase II award? Phase II only. Proposers must already have proof-of-concept data proving a 4 to 1 payload-to-weight ratio, since this topic accepts Direct to Phase II proposals exclusively.

Do I have to have competed in the DARPA Lift Challenge to qualify? No, but DARPA specifically calls Lift Challenge data ideal for meeting the proof-of-concept requirement. Data from other similarly rigorous testing environments is also acceptable.

Can a company propose to both Track A and Track B? A proposing team may submit one proposal per track, so a company could pursue both an aerodynamic design proposal and a separate powertrain proposal, but not more than one proposal per track, and no firm can be selected for more than one Phase II award on this topic overall.

What is the weight limit for the integrated UAS in Track A? No more than 1,320 pounds, which anticipates FAA Part 108 requirements for larger drone operations.

Is this topic export controlled? Yes. It is restricted under ITAR and may also fall under EAR. Any planned use of foreign nationals must be disclosed, including country of origin, visa status, and specific tasks.

Can venture capital or private equity backed companies apply? Yes. DARPA topics under this BAA explicitly accept proposals from companies more than 50 percent owned by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms, provided the company registers with the SBA Company Registry Database and submits the required VC certification.

DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ05-DV021: Open Architecture Platform for Underwater Vehicles for Rapid Adaptation, Collaborative Sensing, Navigation, and Autonomy

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ05-DV021 is a DARPA Direct to Phase II SBIR topic seeking a modular, open-architecture autonomous underwater vehicle platform that supports rapid payload swaps, fleet-scale deployment, and multi-vehicle collaboration. The award is worth up to 1,800,000 dollars over a 24 month period of performance, with no option period. Proposals are due September 23. This topic carries a CMMC Level 1 requirement.

What This Topic Is Looking For

DARPA wants to move away from proprietary, single-purpose underwater vehicles and toward an open ecosystem where hardware and software can be reconfigured without specialized tooling. Open architecture here means both physical modularity for hardware reconfiguration and adherence to open software standards so sensors, communications, navigation, and autonomy stacks can plug in interchangeably.

The platform needs to be two-person portable and support operations for up to 24 hours, while maintaining strict control across the water column, including fixed-depth stationkeeping, since vehicle stability directly determines whether the data collected is usable. DARPA describes an end-to-end mission lifecycle approach built around several capability areas: a modular, flooded-hull architecture that allows upgrades or repairs in hours or days without specialized tooling, software hooks that support task allocation across heterogeneous vehicles without burdening the end user, a seamless multimodal mesh communications network linking acoustic, RF, cellular, and satellite channels, an integrated software ecosystem connecting mission planning, command and control, and centralized data analytics, scalable hardware integration with software-optimized, customizable propulsion tailored to specific hydrodynamic profiles, and signature management to minimize acoustic and hydrodynamic wake.

DP2 Feasibility and Phase II Structure

This is a Direct to Phase II topic, so no Phase I award will be made. To qualify, proposers need to demonstrate feasibility across three domains: vehicle dynamics and hydrodynamic modeling data covering propulsion performance and signature characteristics, acoustic characterization and localization data covering individual platforms or multi-vehicle formations, and analytical or algorithmic proof supporting stable formation control under degraded communications or platform performance.

Phase II runs 24 months and is aimed at developing and demonstrating a functional, in-water prototype. Performers validate rapid reconfiguration by swapping payload housings and integrating new sensor packages within a target timeframe and without specialized tools, conduct at-sea testing of the multimodal communications mesh, and demonstrate dynamic, multi-vehicle collaborative sensing and autonomous navigation in a simulated operational environment.

Fixed milestones run from a Month 2 delivery of hardware and software interface standards through a Month 22 demonstration of a heterogeneous AUV fleet performing dynamic retasking, deconfliction, collaborative sensing, and automated data offloading, and a Month 24 finalized Phase III transition plan.

Phase III Outlook

Phase III is oriented toward scaling the platform for fleet-wide deployment and integration into broader defense and commercial enterprise architectures. The goal is to transition the system into a commercially viable product capable of rapid payload integration for advanced undersea systems programs, accelerating both experimentation and operational transition for end users across defense, commercial, and scientific maritime missions.

Funding and Timeline

Award amount: up to 1,800,000 dollars for the base period of performance.

Period of performance: 24 months, with no option period.

TABA: up to 25,000 dollars per Phase II project, reviewed at time of award.

Proposal deadline: September 23. Technical questions must be submitted by September 16, since DARPA does not answer questions submitted within 7 calendar days of the closing date.

Proposal Format

This topic uses the white paper and slide deck Technical Volume format. The white paper cannot exceed 20 pages and needs to cover goals and impact, Phase I equivalent feasibility across the three required domains, a technical plan with milestones no more than a month apart, management and capabilities, and a transition and commercialization plan. The slide deck cannot exceed 15 slides and covers the same ground in pitch format, including cost, schedule, and DARPA's required quad chart templates.

All proposals go through DSIP and require the standard seven volumes: cover sheet, technical volume, cost volume, Company Commercialization Report, supporting documents, Fraud Waste and Abuse training, and the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations webform, which must be completed as a webform and will not be accepted as a PDF upload.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for DPA26BZ05-DV021? September 23. Technical questions must be submitted by September 16.

Is this a Phase I or Phase II award? Phase II only. This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals exclusively. Proposers must document feasibility across vehicle dynamics, acoustic characterization, and formation stability through prior work.

What does two-person portable mean for this topic? The platform needs to be light and compact enough that two people can carry and deploy it without additional lifting equipment, while still supporting up to 24 hours of continuous operation.

How is fleet collaboration demonstrated in Phase II? Through at-sea testing of a multimodal mesh communications network and a simulated operational demonstration of dynamic retasking, deconfliction, and collaborative sensing across a heterogeneous fleet of vehicles.

Is this topic export controlled? The topic sheet does not include an ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph the way several other Release 5 DARPA topics do, and it carries a CMMC Level 1 requirement, but companies should still confirm export control status for their specific technical approach before proposing.

Can venture capital or private equity backed companies apply? Yes. DARPA topics under this BAA explicitly accept proposals from companies more than 50 percent owned by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms, provided the company registers with the SBA Company Registry Database and submits the required VC certification.

What kind of company fits this topic best? Teams with underwater vehicle engineering experience, particularly in hydrodynamics, acoustic signature management, multi-vehicle autonomy, and mesh communications, who can show prior modeling or testing data rather than starting from a blank sheet.

DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ05-DV020: Universal Cell Culture Platform for Rapid Establishment of Species-Agnostic Cell Lines and Autonomous Culture Operations

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ05-DV020 is a DARPA Direct to Phase II SBIR topic seeking a universal cell culture platform that can rapidly establish viable cell lines from non-model species and automate the culture optimization process that normally takes years. The award is worth up to 2,000,000 dollars over an 18 month period of performance, with no option period. Proposals are due September 23. This topic carries a lower CMMC Level 1 requirement and no ITAR restriction is listed.

What This Topic Is Looking For

Cell culture protocols today exist almost exclusively for well-characterized model organisms like human, mouse, and rat. For most other species, especially ones of interest for defense, biosecurity, agriculture, and public health, there is no established culture baseline, and building one from scratch normally takes years of manual, trial-and-error optimization that does not transfer well between labs. DARPA wants a platform that breaks this bottleneck, in part because it currently blocks gene-drive research in non-model invasive species.

Proposers must address two required components and are encouraged to address a third optional one.

Component 1 asks for species-agnostic biological methods, meaning universal or rapidly tunable media and substrate formulations, generalizable approaches to primary cell isolation, immortalization, or induced pluripotent stem cell reprogramming, and a structured, design-of-experiments framework for converging on viable culture conditions for a species that has never been cultured before.

Component 2 asks for autonomous, closed-loop culture automation, meaning independent environmental control per vessel or well so many optimization experiments can run in parallel, automated feeding, passaging, imaging, and sampling, and a closed-loop system where automated imaging and analysis feed directly into the next round of experimental conditions.

Component 3, which is optional but favorably reviewed, asks for the cellular substrate and workflows needed to characterize gene-drive and genetic biocontrol technologies in non-model species, strictly limited to in vitro and cellular work. No environmental release and no creation of a gene-drive-competent whole organism is permitted under this effort, and proposers addressing this component must explicitly address biosafety, biosecurity, and institutional oversight.

A proposer may only submit one proposal to this topic.

DP2 Feasibility and Phase II Structure

This is a Direct to Phase II topic, so no Phase I award will be made. Feasibility must already be demonstrated through prior work. For Component 1, that means showing established or maintained cell lines, or successful iPSC derivation, from at least two non-model species, ideally spanning more than one taxonomic class. For Component 2, that means showing prior operation of automated or closed-loop culture functionality with supporting performance data. For Component 3, if addressed, that means showing prior genome editing or construct delivery in a non-model cell line with documented biosafety practices.

Phase II is an 18 month effort aimed at advancing the platform from TRL 3 to 4 up to TRL 6 by program end. Performers stand up and validate the integrated platform against a reference species, then launch optimization campaigns on at least four new, non-model species not used in the feasibility demonstration, at least one of which must be vertebrate.

DARPA has set specific program metrics performers are expected to meet or exceed: less than 90 days to a validated cell line for a previously uncharacterized species, greater than 85 percent cross-run reproducibility with demonstrated cross-operator success, coverage of more than 4 species spanning more than 2 taxonomic classes, and genomic stability across more than 20 passages, equivalent to at least 5 generations. If Component 3 is addressed, performers also need to demonstrate in vitro construct delivery and gene-drive characterization with a functioning safeguard or containment mechanism.

Fixed milestones run from a Month 2 requirements analysis and biosafety baseline through a Month 17 capability demonstration across the required species set and a Month 18 final report.

Phase III Outlook

On the defense side, DARPA points to biosecurity and genetic biocontrol countermeasures, protecting force health from disease vectors, defending against invasive or pest species threatening installations and agriculture, and resilient, expeditionary biomanufacturing. Commercially, the platform applies to public health vector control, agricultural pest management, cellular agriculture and cultivated foods, biopharmaceutical and vaccine host line development, regenerative medicine, species conservation and biobanking, veterinary biotechnology, and contract research bioprocess development.

Funding and Timeline

Award amount: up to 2,000,000 dollars for the base period of performance.

Period of performance: 18 months, with no option period.

TABA: up to 25,000 dollars per Phase II project, reviewed at time of award.

Proposal deadline: September 23. Technical questions must be submitted by September 16, since DARPA does not answer questions submitted within 7 calendar days of the closing date.

Proposal Format

This topic uses the white paper and slide deck Technical Volume format. The white paper cannot exceed 20 pages and needs to cover goals and impact, Phase I equivalent feasibility, a technical plan with milestones no more than a month apart, management and capabilities including any biosafety and IBC oversight arrangements, and a transition and commercialization plan. The slide deck cannot exceed 15 slides and covers the same ground in pitch format, including cost, schedule, and DARPA's required quad chart templates.

All proposals go through DSIP and require the standard seven volumes: cover sheet, technical volume, cost volume, Company Commercialization Report, supporting documents, Fraud Waste and Abuse training, and the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations webform, which must be completed as a webform and will not be accepted as a PDF upload.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for DPA26BZ05-DV020? September 23. Technical questions must be submitted by September 16.

Is this a Phase I or Phase II award? Phase II only. No Phase I award will be made under this topic. Proposers must document feasibility equivalent to Phase I through prior work.

Are both required components mandatory? Yes. Component 1, species-agnostic culture methods, and Component 2, closed-loop automation, must both be addressed. Component 3, gene-drive enablement, is optional but favorably reviewed if included.

Does this topic allow whole-organism gene-drive work? No. Any Component 3 work is strictly limited to in vitro and cellular research. No environmental release and no creation of a gene-drive-competent whole organism is contemplated or permitted under this effort.

How many species does Phase II need to demonstrate? At least four new, non-model species not used in the original feasibility demonstration, with at least one of them vertebrate, and preference given to proposals covering a greater number of vertebrate or long-life-cycle species.

Can only one proposal be submitted per company? Yes. A proposer may submit only one proposal to this topic.

Is this topic export controlled? The topic sheet does not list ITAR or EAR restrictions the way several other Release 5 DARPA topics do, and it carries a lower CMMC Level 1 requirement, but companies should still confirm export control status for their specific technical approach before proposing.

Can venture capital or private equity backed companies apply? Yes. DARPA topics under this BAA explicitly accept proposals from companies more than 50 percent owned by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms, provided the company registers with the SBA Company Registry Database and submits the required VC certification.

DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ05-DV019: Semantically-Aware ISR

Below is a brief summary. Please check the full solicitation before applying (link in resources section).

Quick Answer

DPA26BZ05-DV019 is a DARPA Direct to Phase II SBIR topic seeking a mission-aware semantic communications system that can shrink the amount of ISR video data transmitted from small drones by roughly 90 to 99 percent while still preserving the information an operator actually needs. The award is worth up to 1,500,000 dollars over an 18 month base period, with an optional 500,000 dollar, 6 month extension. Proposals are due September 23. The topic is ITAR and EAR restricted, and no Phase I award will be made under this topic.

What This Topic Is Looking For

Small unmanned aircraft carrying electro-optical and infrared sensors generate far more video data than tactical communications links can carry, especially once those links are jammed, degraded, or squeezed down to single-digit kilobits per second. DARPA wants a system that solves this by reasoning about what actually matters in a scene rather than just compressing video harder.

The core requirement is an onboard, real-time, low-power processing layer that understands what the operator is actually looking for, even when that request is vague or context-dependent, tracks behavior and change across multiple frames rather than relying on fixed object categories, and transmits only compact semantic packets containing the regions, events, and context the operator needs to act.

Specific Phase II capabilities include mission-intent grounding that turns natural language operator requests into executable mission logic without retraining mid-flight, open-world spatiotemporal reasoning that can flag mission-relevant behavior even when the objects involved are unknown or camouflaged, multimodal fusion that combines EO video with at least one other sensor or metadata stream, and a traceability requirement so an operator can audit why any given piece of information was transmitted or suppressed. On the hardware side, the system needs to run at 5 watts of incremental power during interim testing with a final target of 2 watts, on embedded hardware such as NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano, Hailo-8L, Coral Edge TPU, AMD Kintex FPGAs, or ARM Cortex-M microcontrollers.

DARPA is explicit about what it does not want: conventional video compression without mission reasoning, fixed-taxonomy object detection or tracking, large vision-language models that cannot run onboard, anything requiring cloud processing or constant high-bandwidth reachback, and anything requiring replacement of existing flight controllers, radios, or ground stations. The topic also explicitly excludes weapon-release, lethal engagement, and named-person identification capabilities.

DP2 Feasibility and Phase II Structure

This topic accepts Direct to Phase II proposals only. There is no Phase I award, and proposers need to show Phase I equivalent feasibility was already achieved outside the SBIR program, with a technical readiness level of 4 or above at the start of Phase II for the perception, reasoning, and semantic encoding subsystems.

To document that feasibility, proposers need a prior prototype that ingests EO video and produces measurable data reduction against full-frame video, including at least one case where the reasoning depended on behavior or context rather than a single frame's object class. They also need preliminary measurements showing a credible path to at least 90 percent data reduction, documented edge deployment of at least one critical processing block with measured power and latency, a comparison against baselines like H.264, H.265, or AV1 compression and standard object detection pipelines, and a path-to-platform analysis naming at least two specific Group 1 or Group 2 small UAS targets or surrogates.

Phase II runs 18 months with a possible 6 month option to extend into multi-UAS semantic coordination, satellite or high-altitude downlink emulation, ruggedized packaging, and government-supported field demonstration. Performers integrate with two representative platform classes, Group 1 short-range systems like the RQ-11B Raven or RQ-20 Puma, and Group 2 longer-endurance systems like ScanEagle, though government-furnished platforms are not required and surrogates or recorded video are acceptable.

Fixed milestones run from a Month 1 system requirements review through a Month 18 capstone demonstration achieving at least 90 percent data reduction across both platform classes, with option period milestones at Month 21 for multi-UAS coordination and Month 24 for an operationally realistic capstone and productization package.

Phase III Outlook

DARPA expects Phase III funding to come from private industry or non-SBIR government sources, with the product taking the form of a small hardware-software module, embedded SDK, or sensor pipeline plugin. Defense applications include small UAS ISR, route reconnaissance, perimeter security, convoy overwatch, maritime surveillance, and sensor-to-shooter support under degraded or contested communications. Commercial applications include wildfire monitoring, search and rescue, law enforcement overwatch, infrastructure inspection, border and port security, offshore energy monitoring, precision agriculture, wildlife monitoring, and disaster assessment, along with a satellite or high-altitude platform variant for remote sensing downlink reduction.

Funding and Timeline

Base award amount: up to 1,500,000 dollars for an 18 month period of performance.

Option amount: up to 500,000 dollars for an additional 6 months.

TABA: up to 25,000 dollars per Phase II project, reviewed at time of award.

Proposal deadline: September 23. Technical questions must be submitted by September 16, since DARPA does not answer questions submitted within 7 calendar days of the closing date.

Proposal Format

This topic uses the white paper and slide deck Technical Volume format. The white paper cannot exceed 20 pages and needs to cover goals and impact, Phase I equivalent feasibility, a technical plan with milestones no more than a month apart, management and capabilities, and a transition and commercialization plan. The slide deck cannot exceed 15 slides and needs to cover the same ground in a more visual, pitch-style format, including cost, schedule, and quad chart summaries using DARPA's templates.

All proposals go through DSIP and require the standard seven volumes: cover sheet, technical volume, cost volume, Company Commercialization Report, supporting documents, Fraud Waste and Abuse training, and the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations webform, which must be completed as a webform and will not be accepted as a PDF upload.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for DPA26BZ05-DV019? September 23. Technical questions must be submitted by September 16.

Is this a Phase I or Phase II award? Phase II only. This topic explicitly states Phase I proposals will not be accepted or reviewed. Proposers must document Phase I equivalent feasibility achieved outside the SBIR program.

What data reduction target does this topic actually require? A threshold of 90 percent, or 10x, reduction versus full-frame video baselines by the end of Phase II, with an objective of 95 to 99 percent reduction in mission-suitable scenes.

Does this topic allow lethal or targeting applications? No. Weapon-release, lethal engagement, and named-person identification are explicitly excluded from this topic's scope.

What kind of company fits this topic best? Teams with strength in embedded AI, computer vision, and signal processing who can show a working prototype already deployed on low-power edge hardware, ideally with prior UAS or ISR sensor integration experience.

Is this topic export controlled? Yes. It is restricted under ITAR and may also fall under EAR. Any planned use of foreign nationals must be disclosed, including country of origin, visa status, and specific tasks.

Can venture capital or private equity backed companies apply? Yes. DARPA topics under this BAA explicitly accept proposals from companies more than 50 percent owned by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms, provided the company registers with the SBA Company Registry Database and submits the required VC certification.