DARPA SBIR DPA26BZ06-DV024: New World Screwworm Networked Detection, Identification, and Surveillance System
Quick Answer
DPA26BZ06-DV024 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. DARPA wants an autonomous, networked insect trap that detects and identifies New World Screwworm flies on board, without a technician driving out to service it and without shipping samples to a laboratory. The economic case is stated in the topic: re-entry of New World Screwworm into the United States could cost U.S. cattle producers $732 million per year. The award is $1,100,000 over a 12 month base, with two sequential $500,000 options of 6 months each, for a total of $2,100,000 across 24 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The current state of the art is deliberately unflattering, and DARPA spells it out. The USDA is using three types of traps at the US Southern Border, sticky fly traps, liver-baited net traps, and gator traps, all of which require manual servicing, fly collection, and fly delivery to a laboratory. Suspected samples go to the National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa for official confirmation. The lure in use, Swormlure-5, is a synthetic bait on a mix of volatile organic and volatile sulfur compounds that is not specific to New World Screwworm and can lure other species.
So the topic asks you to beat two things at once: a trap that needs a human, and a lure that is not selective. That dual requirement is the shape of the whole program.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: DPA26BZ06-DV024
Title: New World Screwworm Networked Detection, Identification, and Surveillance System
Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Innovation Research Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2). This is a Direct to Phase II topic only
Technical volume format: Standard Proposal Format, 35 pages
Base award: $1,100,000
Base period of performance: 12 months
Option 1: $500,000 over 6 months
Option 2: $500,000 over 6 months
Total if all options exercised: $2,100,000 across 24 months
OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Applied Artificial Intelligence
Component Technology Priority Area: Biotechnology
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic
Required facility access: the performer must have access to an ACL-3 test facility
Phase II demonstration standard: TRL 6 using a prototype system in a relevant environment
Target device size and weight: approximately 15 cm by 15 cm by 15 cm, 600 g
Technical and Business Assistance: up to $25,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling
Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: New World Screwworm, NWS, sensor, lure, pest, identification, network, detection, surveillance, monitoring
Read This First: The ACL-3 Facility Requirement
Buried in the Phase II description is a sentence that functions as an eligibility gate: the performer must have access to an ACL-3 test facility.
ACL-3, Arthropod Containment Level 3, is the containment standard for work with arthropods that pose significant risk, and access to a compliant facility is not something you arrange in a month. If you are proposing to work with live New World Screwworm, or with a surrogate species requiring that containment level, you need this access identified and documented before you submit.
Practically, that means either you operate an ACL-3 arthropod containment facility yourself, or you have a partner institution that does and a written arrangement to use it. Very few small businesses hold ACL-3 arthropod containment. University entomology departments, USDA facilities, and a handful of contract research organizations do. Identify yours early and name it in the proposal, because a reviewer who cannot see how you will conduct the work will treat the plan as not credible.
Note also the related constraint: New World Screwworm is a regulated pest not currently established in the United States, so live-organism work carries permitting requirements alongside containment requirements. Address both.
What DARPA Is Actually Looking For
The problem and the money
New World Screwworm, or NWS, scientific name Cochliomyia hominivorax, larvae infest the living tissue of warm-blooded animals. NWS is prevalent in South America and the Caribbean, and it is estimated that re-entry of NWS into the United States could cost US cattle producers $732 million per year, citing USDA 2025.
Screwworm flies lay eggs in open wounds. The eggs hatch into maggots, or larvae, that eat live tissue, causing a worsening, often painful and foul-smelling wound, citing CDC 2025.
Wildlife and free-ranging animals are an important pathway for New World Screwworm to spread, making surveillance beyond livestock essential, citing Arizona 2026.
What is deployed today, and why it is inadequate
The current state of the art for NWS detection and tracking being used at the US Southern Border involves three types of traps: sticky fly traps, liver-baited net traps, and gator traps. All of which require manual servicing, fly collection, and fly delivery to a laboratory.
The state-of-the-art lure to attract NWS flies to a trap is Swormlure-5, a synthetic bait based on a mix of volatile organic and volatile sulfur compounds. However, such baits are not specific to NWS and can lure other species.
The USDA has deployed over 100 NWS-specific traps and lures across high-risk areas of U.S. Border States and is leveraging thousands of fruit fly and insect traps all along the Southern Border. Suspected NWS samples are forwarded for official confirmation to the USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa, the national reference lab responsible for screwworm diagnostics.
Read that last point carefully. Every suspected detection today travels from the border to Iowa. The latency in that pipeline is the operational problem your device eliminates, and quantifying that latency reduction is a strong argument to make.
The system DARPA wants
A real-time, autonomous, persistent, networked NWS detection, identification, and surveillance system is necessary for accurate and timely tracking and forecasting of the movement of the New World Screwworm.
Such a system must operate reliably in rugged, remote regions lacking power and communications infrastructure by leveraging on-board data processing and machine learning analysis. This can enable on-board insect identification, for example using low-power, localized optical, acoustic, electrical, or chemical sensing, and eliminate the need for manual sample collection and laboratory diagnostics.
Furthermore, these devices must form resilient, low-bandwidth ad-hoc networks to transmit real-time, highly compressed detection telemetry, enabling NWS movement forecasting and biosecurity intervention even in remote and disconnected environments.
The objective, stated at the top of the topic, is to develop and demonstrate a real-time, networked pest detection, identification, and surveillance technology that provides actionable New World Screwworm detection and identification accuracy, system reliability, low maintenance, and long and unattended operation.
Note the five named outcome qualities: detection and identification accuracy, system reliability, low maintenance, long operation, and unattended operation. Those are your performance dimensions.
The Phase II Requirements, Which Are Unusually Specific
DARPA lists what the DP2 effort will develop, integrate, validate, and demonstrate. This list is effectively the specification, and it is worth walking in full because each bullet is a checkable requirement.
System level
A scalable, networked NWS detection, identification, and surveillance system suitable for areal coverage as large as national borders.
Improved lure over Swormlure-5
Greater NWS selectivity. Increased lure attraction range to reduce the number of traps needed. Volatility consistent with a one-month maintenance interval.
Those three are in tension with each other, which is what makes the lure work hard. Greater selectivity usually means a narrower chemical signature, which often reduces attraction range. Longer volatility means a slower release rate, which also cuts range. A proposal that claims all three without addressing the tradeoff will not persuade an entomologist.
Improved trap design
No dependence on sticky coatings. Unattended trap or device operation, including advanced pest identification that does not require manual insect collection and laboratory analysis. Remote user communications with the trap or device, and communications between traps or devices.
On-board detection, identification, and surveillance hardware and software
Single or multi-sensor design, for example capacitive, optical, or optoacoustic. High NWS probability of detection and probability of false alarm to provide for actionable decision making. Capability to distinguish between NWS and related species such as Cochliomyia macellaria. Capability to distinguish between marked sterile and non-sterile NWS. Remotely upgradable code. Enables NWS movement forecasting. Capability to handle multiple pests via code update.
Two of those deserve emphasis. Distinguishing Cochliomyia hominivorax from Cochliomyia macellaria, the secondary screwworm, is a hard discrimination problem between closely related congeners, and it is the specific reason a non-selective lure plus a coarse sensor is insufficient. And distinguishing marked sterile from non-sterile NWS matters because the sterile insect technique is the primary control method: releases of sterilized males suppress wild populations, and a surveillance system that cannot tell a released sterile fly from a wild one will produce false alarms during a control campaign. That requirement tells you the system has to work alongside an active eradication program.
Low maintenance
Battery life of a minimum of 3 months, assuming low NWS prevalence and a strong user-device and device-device network signal. Required maintenance, for example lure refreshment, interval of two weeks or longer. Simple, rapid maintenance procedure.
Note the mismatch worth resolving in your design: battery life minimum 3 months, but lure refreshment interval two weeks or longer, while the lure volatility target elsewhere is stated as consistent with a one-month maintenance interval. Read the one-month lure volatility as the goal and the two-week interval as the floor, and be explicit about what your design achieves.
Physical
Lightweight, easily deployed, low cost. Approximately 15 cm by 15 cm by 15 cm, 600 g.
That is a small, light device. Fifteen centimeters cubed and 600 grams constrains battery capacity, which constrains sensing and compute, which constrains identification accuracy. The whole design closes or does not close on that budget, and showing the budget is the most persuasive thing you can put in the proposal.
Program-level Phase II requirements
The performer must have access to an ACL-3 test facility. The system demonstration must be conducted at TRL 6 using a prototype system in a relevant environment. DP2 will also require commercialization and transition planning along with technology development. Throughout the phase, the proposers must collaborate with commercial and government end-users to refine operational requirements and deployment scenarios of their developed solution. Manufacturing and scaling plans for production must also be developed before the end of the Phase. The final report must also include technology transfer documents outlining planned opportunities for commercial and government applications.
Note that end-user collaboration is a stated requirement, not a suggestion. USDA APHIS is the obvious government end-user, and the topic's references are almost entirely USDA documents. Establishing that relationship before you propose is worth real effort.
The Feasibility Requirement
This is a Direct to Phase II topic only. The Government expects that the small business has accomplished the following in a Phase I-type feasibility effort and developed a prototype NWS Distributed Detection System to address, at a minimum, the basic requirements of the stated objectives.
For this Direct-to-Phase II SBIR, a technical report containing Phase I Feasibility Documentation is required to demonstrate that Phase I feasibility has been met.
The Phase I Feasibility Documentation must contain a detailed description of the technical plan, milestones, and data substantiating that they have designed and field-tested a functional, low-power Distributed Detection System prototype outside of the SBIR program.
This feasibility report must provide empirical data verifying that the physically demonstrated sensor platforms can successfully isolate and identify target insects, while operating on strict energy budgets and seamlessly transmitting synchronized threat data across a coordinated wireless network.
Break that into its four claims, because all four must be evidenced. You designed and field-tested a functional low-power distributed detection system prototype. Outside the SBIR program. The physical platforms successfully isolate and identify target insects. And they operate on strict energy budgets while transmitting synchronized data across a coordinated wireless network.
Note the phrase "target insects" rather than New World Screwworm specifically. That is a meaningful opening. If you have a fielded distributed insect detection network working on a different target species, that plausibly satisfies the feasibility bar, and the NWS-specific discrimination becomes the Phase II development. Companies working in agricultural pest monitoring, mosquito surveillance, or stored-product pest detection should read this topic carefully rather than dismissing it as out of domain.
For the Standard Proposal Format, DP2 feasibility documentation shall not exceed 10 pages, the DP2 technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed five pages, which should be the last section of the technical volume.
The Milestone and Deliverable Schedule
DARPA specifies base and option milestones and deliverables separately. Build your plan to match.
DP2 Base milestones, 12 months
Month 1: identify the candidate sensor technologies, lure chemistries, and device physical design.
Month 3: initial test results for various sensor and lure combinations integrated into a device. Finalize the device sensors and lure chemistry options. Develop the prototype device design and device test plan.
Month 6: assemble at least four prototype devices and collect initial test results for the prototype devices, individually and networked. Begin battery life and lure longevity testing.
Month 9: collect initial NWS probability of detection and probability of false alarm results against unrelated and related insects, for example Cochliomyia macellaria.
Month 12: refine the sensor subsystem for improved NWS detection and identification. Initial networked system demonstration, including remote user-device and device-device connectivity and remotely upgradable code.
DP2 Base deliverables
Month 1: sensor and lure candidate selection and design of experiments report.
Month 3: sensor and lure test results report, and device design and test plan.
Month 6: report describing test results for individual and networked devices.
Month 9: report describing NWS detection and identification results against unrelated and related insects, including updates to sensor design and lure technologies.
Month 12: Phase II feasibility report documenting device and system design, testing and validation, performance to date, manufacturing and scaling plans, and commercialization and transition plan.
DP2 Option 1, months 13 to 18
Milestones: Month 15, design scale-up to pilot plant quantities. Month 18, prototype system demonstration in a relevant environment.
Deliverables: Month 15, report documenting pilot plant design and operations. Month 18, report on field demonstration results.
DP2 Option 2, months 19 to 24
Milestones: Month 21, scale-up to pilot plant quantities. Month 24, final performance testing and commercialization plan.
Deliverables: as listed in the topic, Month 15 report documenting pilot plant design and operations, and Month 18 final report on system design and performance, and commercialization and transition plan.
Note that the Option 2 deliverable months in the topic read Month 15 and Month 18, which duplicates the Option 1 deliverable months and does not align with the Option 2 milestone months of 21 and 24. That looks like a drafting error. The sensible reading is that Option 2 deliverables fall at Months 21 and 24 matching their milestones, and this is a good question to submit to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil before the October 14 deadline.
Also worth noting: the milestone structure moves to pilot plant quantities in both options, which signals that DARPA is thinking about manufacturing scale early. A device intended for national border coverage needs to be producible in the thousands, and the topic's design targets of lightweight, easily deployed, and low cost point the same way.
Phase III Dual Use
Successful development of an NWS distributed detection and surveillance system will have significant applications in both military and commercial sectors.
The most direct DoW application involves force protection disease vector control.
In addition, the distributed insect detection technology may expand to non-agricultural or disease prevention applications such as insect swarm behavioral changes as a proxy for human activities.
If the pest sensor and identification device can be made multifunctional in terms of what it senses, for example movement or vibration, or a chemical moiety, applications can expand farther into areas such as vehicle detection or an electronic "sniffer."
The key commercial application is agriculture protection for both crops and livestock, which also overlaps with National Security.
That progression is worth following in your commercialization strategy. The near market is agricultural pest surveillance, which is large and already buys traps. The defense market is force protection vector control. And the topic itself raises the possibility that a distributed low-power multi-modal sensing network with on-board classification generalizes well beyond insects, which is a longer-term argument for platform value rather than product value.
Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics
The award
$1,100,000 over a 12 month base, plus Option 1 of $500,000 over 6 months and Option 2 of $500,000 over 6 months. Total $2,100,000 across 24 months if both options are exercised.
The Government reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance. The resources made available for each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.
Contract type, which you must elect
DARPA may award FAR-based contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototype under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4021, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively. Proposers must state their requested contract type in their proposal.
If requesting a cost-plus reimbursement contract, include your Defense Contract Management Agency Final Determination Letter showing approval of your accounting system. If requesting an Other Transaction for Prototype, include a completed OT in your proposal using the Model OT for Prototype on the DARPA Small Business site, plus completed OT Certifications, both loaded in Volume 5, completing at minimum the color-coded areas and providing redlines with explanations for any article you wish to negotiate. No additional action is required for firm-fixed-price.
Templates are mandatory
Templates for Volume 2 and Volume 3 are provided as attachments on the DARPA Small Business website. Use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.
Technical and Business Assistance
Phase II awardees may request up to $25,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee. TABA funding requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award to ensure compliance with TABA requirements.
For this topic, market validation with agricultural end-users and regulatory support are both plausible uses, given that the device will need to work within USDA surveillance programs.
Questions and the FAQ
DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions related to improving the understanding of a topic's requirements must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, including the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated FAQ under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.
DARPA will not accept late proposals.
Classification and marking
All proposals are required to be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. Do not include any classified information in your proposal submission. Do not include any proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1.
Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals selected for contract award will undergo a DARPA Policy and Security Review and are subject to revision or redaction by DARPA. Final approved versions may appear on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and the SBA's award website at sbir.gov/awards.
Registrations
Proposers should ensure they have an accurate and active entity registration on SAM.gov. Those engaging in ITAR or CUI work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 certification, though the projected requirement for this topic is Level 1. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and notes Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io as an assistance resource.
Venture capital, hedge fund, and private equity ownership
Proposers that are more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination of these as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible to submit proposals in response to DARPA topics advertised within this BAA. Three conditions apply: register with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting; submit the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification, with the SBIR VC Certification available on the DARPA Small Business site, in Supporting Documents Volume 5; and immediately notify the Contracting Officer, register in the appropriate SBA database, and submit the required certification if you enter that ownership class after submitting but before receiving a funding agreement.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA will conduct an evaluation of each conforming proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and are therefore not evaluated nor considered for award.
Using the evaluation criteria, the Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses relative to each evaluation criteria, and based on those will determine the proposal's overall selectability for funding. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other but on their own individual merit.
A selectable proposal is one where the strengths of the overall proposal outweigh its weaknesses, with no accumulated weaknesses that would require extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal. A non-selectable proposal is one where the strengths do not outweigh the weaknesses.
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 calendar days of the closing date of the BAA. The Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email. In accordance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Appendix I, paragraph 4, subparagraph (d), DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via email at sbir@darpa.mil, provided at the sole discretion of DARPA.
Company Commercialization Report information will not be considered by DARPA during proposal evaluations.
Protests regarding the selection decision should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.
Post-award support
DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II and DP2 awardees upon contract execution at no cost to awardees, with the goal of maximizing the potential to move technology beyond Phase II into other research and development programs, DoW acquisition programs, other federal programs, or the commercial market. Awardees may also be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, an invitation-only program at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, supporting a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy.
The References, Which Are the Reading List
Seven references, and unusually for a DARPA topic they are almost entirely government program documents rather than research papers. That tells you the customer is a working surveillance program, not a research community.
USDA 2025, US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, New World Screwworm Ready Reference Guide, Historical Economic Impact, January 2025.
CDC 2025, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New World Screwworm, What You Need To Know, 2025.
USDA 2026a, US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Fly Trapping: A Critical Tool for Detecting New World Screwworm, June 2026.
USDA 2026b, US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Surveillance, July 1 2026.
USDA 2026c, US Department of Agriculture, San Angelo Strike Team Uses Baited Sticky Lure Traps to Track Screwworm Activity in Texas, June 27, 2026.
Hickner 2023, Paul V. Hickner et al., A new formulation of screwworm fly attractant with reduced hazardous chemicals and transport restrictions, Journal of Medical Entomology, 2023.
Arizona 2026, University of Arizona, U of A secures $3.74 million to strengthen Arizona's preparedness for New World screwworm, June 30 2026.
Two of these are worth particular attention. The Hickner 2023 paper is the lure chemistry reference, and since improving on Swormlure-5 is a named requirement, engaging with that work is the fastest way to show you understand the lure problem rather than treating it as a black box. And the USDA 2026a fly trapping document plus the USDA 2026c San Angelo Strike Team item describe the actual field operation your device has to fit into, including who deploys the traps and how.
The Arizona 2026 reference is also a signal about the ecosystem: a university with $3.74 million in NWS preparedness funding is both a potential ACL-3 partner and a potential competitor's partner.
Timeline and What to Do When
The dates
Topic opens: September 23, 2026
Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals
Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close
Base period: 12 months from award
Option 1: 6 months. Option 2: 6 months
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Secure and document ACL-3 test facility access, which is the hardest item and a stated Phase II requirement. Download the mandatory DARPA Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ for this topic and keep rechecking it. Assemble your feasibility package: evidence you designed and field-tested a functional low-power distributed detection system prototype outside the SBIR program, with empirical data on insect isolation and identification, strict energy budget operation, and synchronized data transmission across a coordinated wireless network. Read the Hickner 2023 lure paper and form a view on beating Swormlure-5 on selectivity, range, and volatility simultaneously. Reach out to USDA APHIS, since end-user collaboration is a stated Phase II requirement. Decide your contract type and prepare the corresponding documents. Confirm SAM registration. If venture-backed, register with the SBA Company Registry and obtain the SBIR VC Certification. Submit technical questions before October 14, including the Option 2 deliverable month discrepancy.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the technical volume in three parts: 10 pages of feasibility documentation, 20 pages of technical proposal, 5 pages of commercialization strategy. Structure the technical proposal around the specification list: system scalability, lure improvement with the three-way tradeoff addressed, trap design, on-board detection and identification including the Cochliomyia macellaria and sterile-versus-wild discriminations, low maintenance with the battery and lure interval budget shown, and the physical envelope with a power budget that closes at 15 cm cubed and 600 g.
October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory template across the base and both options, aligned to the stated milestones and deliverables. Price the ACL-3 facility access, prototype fabrication of at least four devices, insect colony or specimen access, and pilot plant design work.
October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with contract-type documents and certifications, complete Volume 7 and the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 35 pages with the three internal section limits observed, unclassified or CUI only, no proprietary information on the coversheet, mandatory cost template.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is DARPA SBIR topic DPA26BZ06-DV024?
DPA26BZ06-DV024 is a DARPA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "New World Screwworm Networked Detection, Identification, and Surveillance System," released under the DoW 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks a real-time, networked pest detection, identification, and surveillance technology providing actionable New World Screwworm detection and identification accuracy, system reliability, low maintenance, and long unattended operation.
How much funding is available?
$1,100,000 for a 12 month base period, plus Option 1 of $500,000 over 6 months and Option 2 of $500,000 over 6 months, for a total of $2,100,000 across 24 months if both options are exercised. Up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance may be requested in addition to the cost ceiling.
When is the proposal deadline?
October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals. Note the separate technical question deadline of October 14, 2026.
Do I need an ACL-3 facility?
Yes. The Phase II description states that the performer must have access to an ACL-3 test facility. Arthropod Containment Level 3 access is not quickly arranged, so either you hold it or you need a documented arrangement with an institution that does. Name it in the proposal.
Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?
No. DARPA states DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line by October 14, 2026. Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated FAQ on its Small Business site, updated until one week before the due date.
Why does this matter to the Department of War?
The topic names force protection disease vector control as the most direct DoW application, and notes that agriculture protection for crops and livestock, the key commercial application, also overlaps with national security. The economic figure DARPA cites is that re-entry of NWS into the United States could cost U.S. cattle producers $732 million per year.
What is wrong with current traps?
The three types in use at the US Southern Border, sticky fly traps, liver-baited net traps, and gator traps, all require manual servicing, fly collection, and fly delivery to a laboratory. Suspected samples are forwarded to the USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa for official confirmation. The latency and labor in that pipeline is the problem.
What is wrong with the current lure?
Swormlure-5, the state-of-the-art lure, is a synthetic bait based on a mix of volatile organic and volatile sulfur compounds, but such baits are not specific to New World Screwworm and can lure other species.
What must an improved lure achieve?
Three things: greater NWS selectivity, increased lure attraction range to reduce the number of traps needed, and volatility consistent with a one-month maintenance interval. Note these are in tension, since narrower selectivity and slower release both tend to reduce range. Address the tradeoff explicitly.
What discriminations must the sensor make?
Two named hard ones. Capability to distinguish between NWS and related species such as Cochliomyia macellaria, the secondary screwworm, which is a congener discrimination. And capability to distinguish between marked sterile and non-sterile NWS, which matters because the sterile insect technique is the primary control method and a surveillance system that cannot tell released sterile flies from wild ones will generate false alarms during a control campaign.
What sensing modalities are suggested?
Single or multi-sensor design, with capacitive, optical, and optoacoustic given as examples. Elsewhere the topic mentions low-power localized optical, acoustic, electrical, or chemical sensing. DARPA does not prescribe a modality.
What are the physical and power requirements?
Approximately 15 cm by 15 cm by 15 cm and 600 g. Battery life of a minimum of 3 months assuming low NWS prevalence and a strong network signal. Required maintenance such as lure refreshment at an interval of two weeks or longer, with a simple, rapid maintenance procedure. Lightweight, easily deployed, and low cost.
What networking is required?
Devices must form resilient, low-bandwidth ad-hoc networks to transmit real-time, highly compressed detection telemetry, enabling movement forecasting and biosecurity intervention even in remote and disconnected environments. The system must support remote user communications with the device and communications between devices, plus remotely upgradable code.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal?
No. This is a Direct to Phase II topic only. A technical report containing Phase I Feasibility Documentation is required to demonstrate that Phase I feasibility has been met.
What feasibility documentation is required?
A detailed description of the technical plan, milestones, and data substantiating that you designed and field-tested a functional, low-power Distributed Detection System prototype outside of the SBIR program. The report must provide empirical data verifying that the physically demonstrated sensor platforms can successfully isolate and identify target insects while operating on strict energy budgets and seamlessly transmitting synchronized threat data across a coordinated wireless network.
Does the feasibility work have to be on screwworm specifically?
The topic says "target insects" rather than naming NWS in the feasibility requirement, which suggests a fielded distributed insect detection network on a different species may satisfy the bar, with NWS-specific discrimination becoming the Phase II development. Companies in agricultural pest monitoring, mosquito surveillance, or stored-product pest detection should read the requirement closely rather than assuming they are out of domain. If in doubt, ask DARPA before October 14.
How long can my technical volume be?
35 pages in the Standard Proposal Format, structured as up to 10 pages of DP2 feasibility documentation, up to 20 pages of DP2 technical proposal, and up to 5 pages of Phase II commercialization strategy, which should be the last section.
What TRL must the Phase II demonstration reach?
TRL 6, using a prototype system in a relevant environment.
Is there an error in the Option 2 deliverable schedule?
It appears so. Option 2 milestones are stated at Month 21 and Month 24, but the Option 2 deliverables are listed at Month 15 and Month 18, which duplicates the Option 1 deliverable months. The sensible reading is that Option 2 deliverables fall at Months 21 and 24 matching their milestones. This is worth a question to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil before October 14.
Do I have to work with end-users?
Yes. Throughout the phase, proposers must collaborate with commercial and government end-users to refine operational requirements and deployment scenarios. USDA APHIS is the obvious government end-user, and the topic's reference list is largely USDA program documents.
Do I need manufacturing plans?
Yes. Manufacturing and scaling plans for production must be developed before the end of the Phase, and both options include milestones for scale-up to pilot plant quantities. The final report must also include technology transfer documents outlining planned opportunities for commercial and government applications.
Do I have to choose a contract type?
Yes. Proposers must state their requested contract type. DARPA may award FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototype under 10 U.S.C. 4021. Cost-plus requires your DCMA Final Determination Letter showing accounting system approval. An OT requires a completed Model OT plus OT Certifications in Volume 5. Firm-fixed-price requires no additional action.
Is the cost template mandatory?
Yes. Templates for Volume 2 and Volume 3 are on the DARPA Small Business website, and use of the DARPA Cost Proposal template is mandatory.
Are venture capital backed companies eligible?
Yes. Proposers more than 50 percent owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, private equity firms, or any combination as set forth in 13 CFR 121.702 are eligible, subject to registering with the SBA Company Registry Database before submitting, submitting the Majority-Owned VCOC, HF, and PEF Certification in Volume 5, and notifying the Contracting Officer if you enter that class after submitting but before award.
How will my proposal be evaluated?
Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. DARPA evaluates each conforming proposal in its entirety, documenting strengths and weaknesses relative to each criterion, then determines overall selectability. Proposals are not evaluated against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiations or resubmission.
Will I get feedback if not selected?
Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted in response to a topic, per the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive. An informal feedback session may additionally be requested via sbir@darpa.mil, at DARPA's sole discretion.
What is the commercial market?
The key commercial application named is agriculture protection for both crops and livestock, which the topic notes also overlaps with national security. Beyond that, DARPA raises the possibility that the distributed insect detection technology may expand to non-agricultural or disease prevention applications such as insect swarm behavioral changes as a proxy for human activities, and that a multifunctional sensor could expand into vehicle detection or an electronic sniffer.
Who do I contact with questions?
The DARPA Small Business Programs Office at SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil for both program administration and topic technical questions, with the topic number in the subject line. DSIP technical support at DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil, available Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET. DARPA also offers free resources through DARPAConnect at DARPAConnect.us.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Sort out ACL-3 access before anything else. It is a stated Phase II requirement, it takes time, and a proposal that cannot show where the containment work happens will read as unexecutable regardless of technical quality.
Read the feasibility requirement generously but honestly. It says target insects, not screwworm. A company with a fielded, networked, low-power insect detection system on another species has a plausible path in. A company with a laboratory demonstration and no field network does not, because the requirement is explicit about field testing and about synchronized data across a coordinated wireless network.
Show the power budget that closes at 600 grams. Fifteen centimeters cubed, 600 grams, three months of battery life, on-board machine learning classification, and mesh networking is a tight envelope. The single most convincing artifact you can include is a credible power and mass budget showing how sensing, compute, radio, and lure all fit. Most proposals will assert the requirements; showing the arithmetic distinguishes you.
Take the lure seriously as chemistry, not packaging. Greater selectivity, longer range, and one-month volatility pull against each other. Read Hickner 2023 and engage with the actual attractant chemistry. A proposal with an excellent sensor and a hand-wave at the lure has solved half the problem, and it is arguably the easier half given that a non-selective lure fills your trap with the wrong flies.
Solve the sterile-versus-wild discrimination explicitly. This is the requirement most likely to be skipped, and it is the one that reveals whether you understand the operational context. Sterile insect technique releases are how screwworm is controlled, so any surveillance system deployed during a campaign will see large numbers of marked sterile flies. Say how you tell them apart, and note what marking method you assume.
Quantify the latency you eliminate. Every suspected detection today goes to Ames, Iowa. Estimating the current detect-to-confirm timeline and what your device reduces it to is the clearest statement of operational value, and it is the argument USDA will care about.
Engage USDA APHIS now. End-user collaboration is a Phase II requirement, the reference list is mostly USDA documents, and the agency is actively running the surveillance program your device would join. A letter or documented engagement changes how the transition plan reads.
Design for thousands of units. The topic asks for coverage as large as national borders, names low cost as a design goal, and puts pilot plant scale-up in both option periods. Manufacturability is not a Phase III concern here, it is in the base and option milestones.
Build the multi-pest story into the architecture. Capability to handle multiple pests via code update is a stated requirement, and remotely upgradable code is another. That combination means the device should be a platform, and the commercialization argument is stronger for a platform that addresses agricultural pest surveillance broadly than for a single-species instrument.
Ask about the Option 2 deliverable months. The dates in the topic do not align with the Option 2 milestones. Submitting that question before October 14 both gets you an answer and demonstrates careful reading.
