DARPA STTR DPA26TZ06-DV004: SHIELDER, Scalable Hard-Mask Materials with Improved Etch Resistance for Extreme-Aspect-Ratio Fabrication
Quick Answer
DPA26TZ06-DV004 is a DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. DARPA wants a fundamentally new class of nanofabrication hard mask, one that survives aggressive plasma etching well enough to enable 100:1 aspect ratio structures with sidewall roughness under 2 nanometers. The award is $1,500,000 over 24 months with a $450,000 option over 12 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The problem statement is a manufacturing bottleneck, not a science project. Current hard masks are thick CVD inorganic films such as silicon dioxide and silicon nitride, or sputtered metals. To get enough etch resistance they must be deposited thick, which induces high stress, structural instability, pattern distortion, and reduced feature fidelity during the etch. Conventional metal masks are polycrystalline, and their grain boundaries erode unevenly under ion bombardment, propagating severe line-edge and sidewall roughness into the finished device.
DARPA is explicit about the kind of answer it wants. Proposed approaches should bypass those degradation mechanisms by using low-dimensional, continuously ordered, inherently grain-free, or self-regenerating structures. That phrase is the design brief. If your material is polycrystalline and thick, you are proposing an incremental improvement to the thing DARPA said is broken.
Because this is an STTR, you must team with a research institution, and the small business and the institution each have statutory minimum shares of the work. That partnership is not optional packaging, it is an eligibility requirement.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: DPA26TZ06-DV004
Title: Scalable Hard-mask materials with Improved Etch resistance and Low Degradation for Extreme-aspect-Ratio fabrication (SHIELDER)
Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2). This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only
Technical volume format: Standard, 35 pages. Feasibility documentation shall not exceed 10 pages, technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed 5 pages
Base award: $1,500,000
Base period of performance: 24 months
Option: $450,000 over 12 months
Component Technology Priority Areas: Advanced Materials, Microelectronics
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, which distinguishes it from the other two topics in this STTR release
Feasibility gate: measured etch selectivity exceeding 50:1, demonstrated aspect ratio greater than 25:1, and sidewall roughness under 5 nm RMS, all with metrology data
Phase II end state: etch selectivity greater than 150:1, aspect ratio 100:1, line-edge and sidewall roughness under 2 nm RMS
Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards
Technical and Business Assistance: DARPA will provide up to $25,000 for the Direct to Phase II
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. DARPA will not accept late proposals
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: nanofabrication, dry etching, hard mask, etching selectivity, high-aspect-ratio, pattern transfer
The Feasibility Bar, Which Is the First Thing to Check
This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only. Proposals will be considered for DP2 funding for teams that provide compelling evidence of the feasibility of their novel hard-mask materials at a laboratory or R&D fabrication facility. Proposers must provide data showing that Phase I feasibility has been achieved through prior work. Four categories of documentation are required.
Etch selectivity data
Experimental data demonstrating the successful deposition, synthesis, or transfer of low-stress mask films, alongside measured etch selectivity exceeding 50:1 against target substrates such as silicon or complex oxides, under aggressive dry plasma conditions.
Note the two halves. You need the film, made by a real process, and you need a measured selectivity number above 50:1 in aggressive conditions. "Low-stress" is in the requirement, which means film stress is a reported quantity, not an afterthought.
High-aspect-ratio pattern transfer
Proof-of-concept fabrication data showing deep pattern transfer into a substrate, achieving an aspect ratio greater than 25:1 without significant mask degradation, faceting, or critical dimension loss.
The three named failure modes are the vocabulary DARPA will use to read your data. Show cross sections that let a reviewer confirm the absence of mask erosion, top-corner faceting, and CD loss, and label them in those terms.
Edge fidelity and roughness verification
High-resolution metrology data, for example cross-sectional SEM, TEM, or AFM, verifying pristine pattern transfer, specifically demonstrating etched structures with nanometer-scale sidewall roughness under 5 nm RMS.
RMS is specified. Report the measurement method, the sampling length, and the instrument, because roughness numbers are meaningless without them and a reviewer in this field knows it.
Scalability and integration pathway
Initial feasibility data or a substantiated extrapolation demonstrating a viable pathway to scale the masking technology from lab-scale prototypes to wafer-level dimensions, for example via CVD, ALD, or scalable continuous transfer methods.
Proposers must document how their proposed materials and process flows align with standard commercial fabrication or DoW constraints, specifically addressing CMOS compatibility, thermal budget, vendor and foundry transferability, and any additional constraints imposed by the application of interest.
This fourth item is the one most likely to be underwritten by a strong materials team, and it is the one where "a substantiated extrapolation" is explicitly allowed in place of data. Take the invitation, but substantiate it. Four named constraints are listed, and each deserves an explicit answer: is the material CMOS-compatible, what is the thermal budget, can a foundry or vendor actually run it, and what does your target application add.
What the gate screens for
Read the four together and the intended team becomes clear: a small business with a working deposition or transfer process and real etch data, partnered with a research institution that understands the erosion physics. Selectivity above 50:1 with sub-5 nm sidewalls at better than 25:1 aspect ratio is not a paper result. It is a measured result from a cleanroom.
Note also the standard Appendix A rule that applies here: work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. Data from a collaborator you have not yet teamed with does not satisfy the gate. And if the technology in your feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property, you must either own that IP or have obtained license rights prior to proposal submission, with documentation of ownership or license rights included in the Technical Volume.
What DARPA Is Actually Looking For
The objective
Develop and demonstrate novel nanofabrication hard-mask materials that exhibit substantially improved plasma etch resistance, enabling the implementation of extreme high-aspect-ratio structures with excellent pattern-transfer fidelity, minimal sidewall roughness, and precise dimensional control.
Proposed solutions should overcome the fundamental limitations of conventional lithography masks in a scalable fabrication environment by creating next-generation technologies capable of delivering high-resolution nanoscale features encountered across semiconductor, photonic, MEMS, and quantum device platforms.
Why DARPA cares
Next-generation defense-relevant microsystem technologies, such as 3D integrated circuits, high-density memory arrays, MEMS inertial sensors and RF filters, and integrated photonic devices, rely on the precise manufacturing of extreme high-aspect-ratio features within a chip.
Emerging architectures for multiferroic memory and logic components, such as those being pioneered under DARPA's Fast and Curious program, stand to benefit immensely from novel process flows capable of delivering deep trenches with ultra-low line-edge roughness.
As critical dimensions of these devices continue to shrink to improve performance or reduce size and cost, the ability to accurately transfer lithographic patterns into underlying substrates such as silicon via aggressive plasma etching has become a primary manufacturing bottleneck.
The named reference to DARPA's Fast and Curious program is a signal worth following. If your mask enables deep, ultra-smooth trenches in multiferroic stacks, saying so in the program's own terms gives a reviewer an immediate transition story.
What is wrong with the state of the art
Current state-of-the-art hard masks predominantly utilize thick chemical vapor deposition inorganic films, for example silicon dioxide and silicon nitride, or sputtered metals. These conventional technologies face fundamental physical limitations at extreme scales.
To achieve the necessary etch resistance, standard masks must be deposited with significant thickness, which induces high stress, structural instability, pattern distortion, and reduced feature fidelity during the etch process.
Conventional metal masks exhibit polycrystalline structures. Their inherent grain boundaries erode unevenly under ion bombardment, propagating severe line-edge and sidewall roughness that degrades the electrical and structural integrity of the final device.
The design brief
This STTR topic seeks highly innovative masking materials that disrupt the current paradigm. The goal is to identify and develop solutions that deliver ultra-high etch selectivity while addressing the weaknesses of current state-of-the-art solutions.
Proposed approaches should inherently bypass the degradation mechanisms of traditional masks by utilizing low-dimensional, continuously ordered, inherently grain-free, or self-regenerating structures to ensure pristine pattern transferring with low line-edge roughness even when subjected to aggressive, high-density plasma.
Four structural strategies are named. Low-dimensional points at two-dimensional crystalline materials, and DARPA cites a 2026 Nature Materials paper on two-dimensional crystalline hard masks for high-aspect-ratio nanofabrication. Continuously ordered and inherently grain-free both point away from polycrystalline films. Self-regenerating is the most unusual of the four and the most open: a mask that replenishes itself during the etch is a different failure model entirely. Pick your mechanism, name it in DARPA's vocabulary, and explain the physics.
Substrates and tools
Solutions do not have to be limited to silicon processing and may target compound semiconductors, wide-bandgap materials, piezoelectric substrates, ceramics, heterogeneous material stacks, or any other microsystems platform relevant to the Department of War.
Compatibility with existing or minimally-modified reactive ion etching, inductively coupled plasma, Bosch Deep RIE, or related plasma fabrication tools is strongly preferred.
That preference matters commercially. A mask that requires a new etch tool has a much harder transition path than one that drops into an existing DRIE or ICP chamber, and DARPA has told you which it prefers.
Metrics of interest
Proposers should identify the underlying physical mechanisms responsible for enhanced pattern-transfer performance and demonstrate a clear path toward scalable manufacturing.
Metrics of interest include improvements in etch selectivity, maximum achievable aspect ratio, critical-dimension control, sidewall roughness, mask thickness reduction, process throughput, and compatibility with wafer-scale manufacturing.
Seven metrics. Selectivity and aspect ratio get the headline numbers, but mask thickness reduction and process throughput are the two that a fab actually cares about and that most proposals will neglect. A thinner mask that etches deeper is the whole point of the topic.
Phase II Requirements
Direct to Phase II: develop, integrate, and demonstrate the following five capabilities.
Scalable deposition, synthesis, or transfer methodologies for hard-mask materials. Candidate masks must demonstrate an etch selectivity exceeding that of state-of-the-art inorganic films or sputtered metals, for example greater than 150:1 mask-to-substrate under aggressive plasma conditions.
High-fidelity pattern transfer capabilities demonstrating extreme aspect ratios of 100:1 without mask failure, critical dimension loss, or top-edge faceting.
Sub-nanometer dimensional control, with candidate masks demonstrating etched structures with sidewall and line-edge roughness under 2 nm root-mean-square.
Compatibility with standard lithographic workflows. The hard mask itself must be readily patternable, for example via secondary chemical plasma or resist, while maintaining extreme resistance to the primary deep-etch plasma.
Mitigation of unwanted metallic or particulate contamination to levels acceptable for standard semiconductor, MEMS, or photonic device fabrication lines.
The patternability paradox, which deserves a section of your proposal
The fourth requirement is the hardest intellectual problem in the topic and the easiest to gloss over. The mask must be easy to pattern and nearly impossible to etch. Those are the same physical property pointed in opposite directions.
Every credible answer resolves this with a selectivity mechanism that is chemistry-specific rather than energy-specific: a secondary plasma chemistry or resist process that attacks the mask readily, and a primary deep-etch chemistry to which it is nearly inert. Say which two chemistries you use, what the selectivity ratio is in each direction, and how you keep the patterning step from damaging the mask's key structural property. A proposal that states a 150:1 selectivity number and never explains how the mask itself gets patterned has left out half the process.
The demonstration environment
Hard mask demonstration must be conducted in a standard cleanroom environment where the process can be scaled to production and which supports the processing of standard-size wafers using commercial Deep Reactive Ion Etching or other Inductively Coupled Plasma tools.
Patterning performance must be compared between the novel hard mask and a standard baseline mask material such as silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, or a sputtered metal, for example TiN or Cr.
The goal is to demonstrate that the novel mask successfully maintains structural integrity in aggressive etch conditions where standard masks fail, for example the novel mask maintains CD fidelity and sub-nanometer sidewall smoothness at etch depths that would completely erode or severely facet the standard mask.
Compared to standard masks, the proposed solution must deliver a statistically significant reduction in defect propagation and edge roughness.
Two words to take literally. "Standard cleanroom environment where the process can be scaled to production" means a university research cleanroom running quarter-wafer coupons may not satisfy the requirement on its own, so name your facility and its wafer capability. And "statistically significant" means a designed comparison with enough samples to support a statistical claim, not a pair of representative micrographs. Budget the wafer count.
Commercialization and transition obligations inside the technical work
This DP2 will also require a commercialization and transition plan along with technology development.
Throughout the phase, the proposers must collaborate with commercial and military 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 program.
The final report must also include technology transfer documents outlining planned opportunities for commercial and military applications.
Note "throughout the phase." End-user collaboration is a continuous requirement rather than a final deliverable, which in practice means named foundry, fab, or program-office contacts in your proposal. This is separate from and additional to the 5 page commercialization strategy required by Appendix A.
Deliverables
The deliverables for DP2 will include the final prototype mask formulation and process recipe, a comprehensive testing and validation report outlining the final demonstration, the technology transfer plan with commercialization plans, and the manufacturing and scaling strategy.
The Base Milestone Schedule
DP2 base milestones for this program should include the following.
Month 3. Establish and report baseline parameters for the candidate mask material and develop a comprehensive chemical vapor deposition, or equivalent scalable deposition, process map.
Month 6. Demonstrate initial solution-based, or alternative scalable, coating and dry etching. Achieve stable precursor formulation, continuous film formation on small-scale substrates, and an initial mask-to-substrate etch selectivity of at least 50:1.
Month 9. Screen multiple mask candidates and execute the first patterned etch using the down-selected scalable coating method. Demonstrate initial high-aspect-ratio patterning, for example greater than 75:1, with a line-edge roughness of 5 nm or less using a process flow that is scalable to production levels.
Month 12. Demonstrate process scalability with a target mask-to-substrate etch selectivity of at least 100:1.
Month 15. Expand process integration for the mask deposition. Achieve strict film thickness uniformity, for example less than 10 percent variation, across intermediate-scale substrates and demonstrate patterning resolution with minimum feature sizes of 100 nanometers or less.
Month 18. Validate mask performance on alternative, non-standard semiconductor or dielectric substrates. Demonstrate a minimum selectivity of 50:1 on at least two alternative materials and scale the coating process to larger wafer sizes.
Month 21. Execute integrated, wafer-level processing demonstrations. Show successful transfer or direct integration of the vapor-deposited films and validate extreme etching capabilities on application-specific substrates, for example semiconductor devices, MEMS components, or photonic structures.
Month 24. Final Phase II demonstration. Achieve extreme etch selectivity greater than 150:1, ultra-high aspect ratios greater than 100:1 on primary semiconductor substrates, and strict dimensional control with a line-edge roughness of 2 nanometers or less.
Reading the schedule
The performance ramp is legible and aggressive: selectivity goes 50:1 at Month 6, 100:1 at Month 12, 150:1 at Month 24, while aspect ratio goes 75:1 at Month 9 to 100:1 at Month 24 and roughness goes 5 nm at Month 9 to 2 nm at Month 24.
Notice that Month 6 asks for a selectivity you already had to demonstrate to win the award. That is intentional. The early base period is about reproducing your result inside a scalable coating process, not about beating it. Months 15 through 21 are the scale-up spine: uniformity across intermediate substrates, then two alternative material systems, then wafer-level integration.
Note also two schedule facts worth planning around. The milestones name specific deposition language, "chemical vapor deposition or equivalent scalable deposition" at Month 3 and "solution-based or alternative scalable coating" at Month 6, which suggests DARPA anticipated a solution-processed route while leaving the door open. If your process is neither, say clearly at Month 3 what your equivalent is.
One gap in the source document worth a question
The topic specifies base milestones through Month 24 and labels them "DP2 Base milestones." The award structure table lists a $450,000 option over 12 months. The topic does not describe what the option period covers or provide option milestones.
Appendix A requires a Phase II Option Statement of Work "if applicable, specified in the corresponding topic," which leaves it ambiguous whether an option SOW is required here and, if so, against what scope. This is a good candidate for a question to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil before October 14. In the meantime, the defensible approach is to propose an option scope that follows naturally from the Month 24 end state, most plausibly foundry qualification, extended substrate coverage, or pilot production of the mask material, and to say plainly that you are proposing it in the absence of stated option milestones.
Phase III Dual Use
Phase III efforts should focus on transitioning the developed hard-mask technology to DoW and commercial semiconductor fabrication facilities.
DoW applications include the domestic manufacturing of secure high-density memory, advanced electro-optical components, and high-performance MEMS and RF components for electronic warfare and GPS-denied navigation.
Commercially, this technology addresses fundamental physical scaling bottlenecks in the global semiconductor industry. Direct dual-use applications include the production of next-generation 3D semiconductor transistors, multiferroic memory and logic components, and high-coherence solid-state quantum devices.
The commercial case here is unusually strong for a defense topic, because high-aspect-ratio etch is a rate limiter in 3D NAND, DRAM capacitor formation, through-silicon vias, and MEMS timing and inertial devices, all of which are large existing markets with identifiable buyers. The GPS-denied navigation mention is the specific defense pull: high-performance MEMS inertial sensors depend on deep, smooth, high-aspect-ratio trenches, and that is a stated DoW need with named programs behind it.
The STTR Partnership Requirement
This is an STTR, not an SBIR, and the difference is structural rather than administrative. STTR awards require a formal partnership between the small business concern and a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum shares of the work performed by each. The small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution must perform at least 30 percent, with the balance allocated between them or to other subcontractors.
Two notes specific to this document. First, the DARPA STTR Release 6 instructions do not restate the work-split percentages. They direct proposers to follow all general instructions provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA, which is where the split, the research institution eligibility rules, the required allocation-of-rights agreement, and the intellectual property provisions live. Read that document, not just this one.
Second, unlike the two other topics in this release, DPA26TZ06-DV004 does not assign specific roles to the small business and the research institution. Topic DV005 in this same release does, stating that the research institution will lead fundamental research while the small business focuses on productization and integration. The absence of that language here means you define the division of labor yourself, and a reviewer will read it as a proxy for whether the partnership is real.
For a topic like this one, the natural split writes itself. The research institution owns the erosion physics, the mechanism identification DARPA explicitly asked for, and the advanced metrology, which is where TEM and AFM capability usually lives. The small business owns the scalable deposition or transfer process, the cleanroom demonstration on standard wafers, the contamination control, and the foundry transfer path. Say which institution, which faculty PI, which instruments, and which tasks.
Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics
The award
$1,500,000 over a 24 month base, plus a $450,000 option over 12 months, for $1,950,000 across 36 months if the option is exercised.
This is the largest base award and the longest total period of the three topics in this STTR release, and the only one where the option is small relative to the base. The resources made available under each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. 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.
Contract type
Multiple awards are anticipated. DARPA may award FAR-based Government contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototypes agreements under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4022, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively.
Note the authority citation. The DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions cite 10 U.S.C. 4021 for the same instrument, while this STTR document cites 10 U.S.C. 4022. If you are preparing both an SBIR and an STTR proposal in this cycle, do not assume the OT paperwork is identical.
In all cases, the Government Contracting Officer reserves the right to select award instrument type, regardless of the instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees.
DARPA points proposers to the DARPA SBIR/STTR Pre-Award Checklist on its Small Business website and asks that it be completed prior to being selected for award. It also reserves the right to remove a proposal from award consideration if the parties fail to reach agreement on terms within a reasonable time, or if the proposer fails to provide requested additional information within three business days.
Templates are mandatory
Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments to the announcement posted at dodsbirsttr.mil. Use of these templates is mandatory. The Direct to Phase II Volume 3 Cost Proposal Template is an Excel spreadsheet available on the DARPA Small Business site.
Cost substantiation, which is stricter than most proposers expect
All proposed costs should be accompanied by documentation to substantiate how the cost was derived. DARPA gives examples: paystubs or a DCMA rate agreement for direct labor, historical invoices or a current contract for consultants, and historical invoices, current quotes, or market research for materials and equipment.
Proposers do not necessarily have to propose the cheapest item or supplier, but should explain the decision to choose one over another. Failure to include documentation with your proposal will delay contract negotiation.
All subcontractor and consultant costs must be detailed at the same level as prime contractor costs for labor, travel, and equipment, and must be substantiated with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations under FAR 15.404-3(b), entered in the Explanatory Material section of the online cost proposal form. Subcontractors should send unsanitized cost proposals directly to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
This matters a great deal on an STTR, where the research institution is a subcontractor performing at least 30 percent of the work. Its budget has to be built out at prime-level detail and price-analyzed by you.
If subcontractors will be performing Fundamental Research, you must either provide a separate statement of work outlining the work that qualifies as Fundamental Research, or identify within the prime statement of work which tasks are fundamental research. On a university-partnered STTR this is a live question, and getting it right early affects publication rights and contract terms.
Cost sharing is permitted but is not required and will not be an evaluation factor.
Technical and Business Assistance
The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act Section 7 mandates agencies to offer TABA. DARPA will provide up to $25,000 for the Direct to Phase II.
Worth noting precisely: this STTR document states the $25,000 figure but, unlike the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions, does not include language stating that TABA is in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee. Treat the SBIR wording as not automatically transferring, and if the distinction affects your budget, ask DARPA before October 14. 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, the highest-value TABA uses are intellectual property counsel, given that the feasibility documentation itself requires documented IP ownership or license rights, and manufacturing or foundry transition consulting, since foundry transferability is one of the four named integration constraints.
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. All questions must be in English.
Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated Frequently Asked Questions document under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.
DSIP technical support is available Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern, by email to DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
DARPA will not accept any late proposals.
Proposal format details
The Technical Volume must be a single PDF file including graphics. Perform a virus check before uploading, since a detected virus may cause rejection of the proposal. Do not lock or encrypt the file. Do not include or embed active graphics such as videos or moving pictures.
Number all pages consecutively. Font size should not be smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. The header on each page of the Technical Volume should contain your company name, the topic number, and the proposal number assigned by DSIP when the Cover Sheet was created, and may be placed in the one-inch margin.
The Proposal Cover Sheet must include a brief technical abstract of no more than 3000 characters describing the proposed R&D project with a discussion of anticipated benefits and potential commercial applications.
Do not include marketing material. Marketing material will not be evaluated.
Classification, marking, and registrations
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, as it may be released publicly if selected for award.
Proprietary or other CUI information may be included in the Technical Volume as needed, marked appropriately as CUI with the appropriate CUI Control Block on the first page of Volume 2. The Cost Volume should be marked CUI for PROPIN. Volumes 4 through 7 should be marked as appropriate based on content.
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. Final approved versions may appear on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and the SBA's award website at sbir.gov/awards.
Proposers should ensure they have an accurate and active entity registration on SAM.gov. Firms engaging in Controlled Unclassified Information, Export Controlled, or ITAR work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 self-assessment certification. The projected requirement for this topic is Level 1, and this topic carries no ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and notes Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io as an assistance resource.
On venture capital ownership
The DARPA STTR Release 6 instructions contain no provision addressing majority ownership by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms. This is a real difference from the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions, which include an explicit section permitting such ownership under three conditions.
Do not read the SBIR provision across to this document. Eligibility for STTR awards is governed by the DoW STTR Program BAA and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, and if your firm's ownership structure raises the question, get an answer from DARPA or from the DoW STTR Program BAA before you invest in a proposal rather than after.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW STTR 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 will not be evaluated nor considered for award.
There is a second, topic-specific non-responsiveness trap in Appendix A: proposals that do not adequately substantiate prior Phase I-equivalent feasibility for the components addressed will be deemed non-responsive and will not be evaluated for award.
Using the evaluation criteria, the Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses relative to each criterion, and 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 its weaknesses.
Awards will be made to proposers whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, consistent with instructions and evaluation criteria specified in the DoW STTR Program BAA and availability of funding.
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. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted, and an informal feedback session may be requested by 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 awardees upon contract execution at no cost to awardees. 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. Information in your commercialization strategy section is used to determine suitability for EEI participation, and selection for EEI is made independently after selection for award.
The References
Seven, and they map cleanly onto three arguments.
The problem is real and long-standing: Wu, Kumar, and Pamarthy, "High aspect ratio silicon etch: A review," Journal of Applied Physics, 2010. Huff, "Recent advances in reactive ion etching and applications of high-aspect-ratio microfabrication," Micromachines, 2021. Tang, Sandoughsaz, and Najafi, "Ultra high aspect-ratio and thick deep silicon etching (UDRIE)," IEEE MEMS, 2017.
The DoW pull: DARPA's Fast and Curious program, at darpa.mil.
The solution space DARPA has in mind: Esmeraldo Paiva et al., "High Aspect Ratio Nanoscale Pores through BCP-Based Metal Oxide Masks and Advanced Dry Etching," ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, 2023. Bernet et al., "Highly selective anisotropic dry etching of smooth SiO2 nanostructures using SF6 plasma and Cr hard mask: Toward sustainable plasma etching," Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology B, 2026. Venkatram et al., "Two-dimensional crystalline hard masks for high-aspect-ratio nanofabrication," Nature Materials, 2026.
The last of these is the most consequential. A 2026 Nature Materials paper on two-dimensional crystalline hard masks is almost certainly the proximate inspiration for the "low-dimensional, continuously ordered, inherently grain-free" language in the design brief. Read it, and position your approach relative to it explicitly, whether you are extending it, competing with it, or doing something else entirely. The block-copolymer metal oxide mask reference points to a second recognized route. If your approach is neither, the burden is on you to explain why it beats both.
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: 24 months from award
Option: 12 additional months if exercised
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Test yourself against the four feasibility categories with real data: measured selectivity above 50:1, aspect ratio above 25:1 with no degradation or faceting or CD loss, sidewall roughness under 5 nm RMS with named metrology, and a substantiated scale-up pathway addressing CMOS compatibility, thermal budget, foundry transferability, and application constraints. Confirm the feasibility work was substantially performed by you or your PI. Resolve IP ownership or licensing now, because documentation of ownership or license rights must be in the Technical Volume. Identify and commit your research institution partner, with a named faculty PI, specific instruments, and a task split that satisfies the STTR work-share minimums, and start the institution's subaward paperwork immediately, since university contracting offices are slow in October. Confirm cleanroom access that supports standard-size wafers and commercial DRIE or ICP tools. Download the mandatory Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ and keep rechecking it. Read the Venkatram 2026 Nature Materials paper and the two other solution-space references. Decide your contract type. Confirm SAM registration.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 10 page feasibility documentation first, since it is the gate and since inadequate substantiation makes the proposal non-responsive. Include the reference list on the last page of the feasibility documentation, counting toward its page limit, and the one-page commercialization potential summary. Then draft the 20 page technical proposal against Appendix A's required sections, with the statement of work as a substantial portion. Address the patternability paradox explicitly. Send your questions to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil early enough to matter.
October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory Excel template across 24 months plus the 12 month option, and get your research institution's budget in at prime-level detail with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations. Substantiate every cost with paystubs, rate agreements, quotes, or invoices. Decide and document the Fundamental Research treatment for the university tasks. Price wafer counts for the statistically significant baseline comparison, alternative substrate materials, and metrology time. Draft the 5 page transition and commercialization strategy against Appendix A's nine required elements.
October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with data rights assertions, IP documentation, CVs, subcontractor pricing considerations, and any optional advocacy or letters of intent that substantiate specific commercialization claims. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering that the Corporate Official cannot certify until Volume 7 is submitted. Run compliance: single unlocked PDF, no embedded video, 10-point minimum font, consecutive page numbers, correct header on every page, 3000 character abstract, CUI marking on Volume 2 and Volume 3, mandatory Excel cost template, no marketing material.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP. Confirm that mandatory supporting documents actually uploaded, since a completed proposal submission in DSIP does not indicate that they did.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is DARPA STTR topic DPA26TZ06-DV004?
DPA26TZ06-DV004, called SHIELDER, is a DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Scalable Hard-mask materials with Improved Etch resistance and Low Degradation for Extreme-aspect-Ratio fabrication," released under the DoW 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop and demonstrate novel nanofabrication hard-mask materials with substantially improved plasma etch resistance, enabling extreme high-aspect-ratio structures with excellent pattern-transfer fidelity, minimal sidewall roughness, and precise dimensional control.
How much funding is available?
The base award is $1,500,000 over 24 months, with a $450,000 option over 12 months, for a maximum of $1,950,000 across 36 months if the option is exercised. DARPA will also provide up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance for the Direct to Phase II.
When is the proposal deadline?
The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil. DARPA will not accept late proposals.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal?
No. This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only.
What must my prior work already show?
Four things, documented with data. Measured etch selectivity exceeding 50:1 against target substrates under aggressive dry plasma, along with successful deposition, synthesis, or transfer of low-stress mask films. Proof-of-concept pattern transfer at an aspect ratio greater than 25:1 without significant mask degradation, faceting, or critical dimension loss. High-resolution metrology such as cross-sectional SEM, TEM, or AFM verifying sidewall roughness under 5 nm RMS. And initial feasibility data or a substantiated extrapolation showing a viable pathway to wafer-level scale, addressing CMOS compatibility, thermal budget, vendor and foundry transferability, and application-specific constraints.
Who has to have performed the feasibility work?
Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. Additionally, if the technology is subject to intellectual property, you must own the IP or have obtained license rights prior to proposal submission, with documentation included in the Technical Volume.
What are the Phase II performance targets?
Etch selectivity greater than 150:1 mask-to-substrate under aggressive plasma conditions, extreme aspect ratios of 100:1 without mask failure or CD loss or top-edge faceting, and sidewall and line-edge roughness under 2 nm RMS. The mask must also be readily patternable, and metallic or particulate contamination must be mitigated to levels acceptable for standard semiconductor, MEMS, or photonic fabrication lines.
What kind of material is DARPA looking for?
Approaches that inherently bypass the degradation mechanisms of traditional masks by using low-dimensional, continuously ordered, inherently grain-free, or self-regenerating structures. DARPA specifically identifies the problems with the state of the art as excessive required thickness, which induces stress and pattern distortion, and polycrystalline grain boundaries, which erode unevenly under ion bombardment and propagate roughness.
Does the solution have to work on silicon?
No. Solutions may target compound semiconductors, wide-bandgap materials, piezoelectric substrates, ceramics, heterogeneous material stacks, or any other microsystems platform relevant to the Department of War. Compatibility with existing or minimally-modified RIE, ICP, Bosch DRIE, or related plasma tools is strongly preferred.
Where must the Phase II demonstration take place?
In a standard cleanroom environment where the process can be scaled to production, supporting the processing of standard-size wafers using commercial Deep Reactive Ion Etching or other Inductively Coupled Plasma tools.
Do I have to compare against a baseline mask?
Yes. Patterning performance must be compared between the novel hard mask and a standard baseline such as silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, or a sputtered metal like TiN or Cr, and the proposed solution must deliver a statistically significant reduction in defect propagation and edge roughness.
Do I need a research institution partner?
Yes. STTR awards require a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares for each party: at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the research institution. The DARPA instructions direct proposers to the DoW STTR Program BAA for those general requirements. Unlike topic DV005 in this same release, DV004 does not prescribe how the roles divide, so you define the split.
How long can my technical volume be?
The standard format is 35 pages. Feasibility documentation shall not exceed 10 pages, the technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed 5 pages and should be the last section of the Technical Volume. Appendix A states that the commercialization strategy will not count against the proposal page limit, so confirm with DARPA how the three numbers combine if it affects your layout. Font must be at least 10-point on 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1. Firms engaging in Controlled Unclassified Information, Export Controlled, or ITAR work for DARPA more broadly must have CMMC Level 2 self-assessment certification.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
No topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on DPA26TZ06-DV004. The other two topics in this STTR release, DV005 and DV006, both carry one.
Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?
No. DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026, with the topic number in the subject line, and must include a point of contact name, email, and phone number. DARPA maintains a consolidated FAQ on its Small Business site.
What contract types can DARPA award?
FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototypes agreements under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4022. Note that the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions cite 10 U.S.C. 4021 for the same instrument type.
Are the templates mandatory?
Yes. Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments to the announcement and use of these templates is mandatory. The Volume 3 template is an Excel spreadsheet.
How much cost documentation do I need?
All proposed costs should be accompanied by documentation substantiating how the cost was derived, such as paystubs or a DCMA rate agreement for labor, contracts or historical invoices for consultants, and quotes, invoices, or market research for materials and equipment. Subcontractor and consultant costs must be detailed at the same level as prime costs and substantiated with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations under FAR 15.404-3(b). Subcontractors send unsanitized cost proposals to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
Is cost sharing required?
No. Cost sharing is permitted but is not required and will not be an evaluation factor.
Are venture capital backed companies eligible?
The DARPA STTR Release 6 instructions contain no provision on majority ownership by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms, unlike the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions, which explicitly permit it under three conditions. Do not assume the SBIR provision applies here. Check the DoW STTR Program BAA and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, or ask DARPA before October 14.
What happens if my feasibility documentation is thin?
Appendix A states that proposals which do not adequately substantiate prior Phase I-equivalent feasibility for the components addressed will be deemed non-responsive and will not be evaluated for award. That is a separate and stricter trap than being scored poorly.
How will my proposal be evaluated?
Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Proposals are evaluated individually on their own merit rather than against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiation or resubmission. Proposals that do not comply with the BAA requirements or the research objectives of the topic are non-conforming and are not evaluated.
Will I get feedback if not selected?
Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative for each proposal submitted, and an informal feedback session may be requested by email at sbir@darpa.mil, granted at DARPA's sole discretion.
Can I include advocacy letters?
Yes, optionally, and they do not count against the page limit. They should only be submitted to substantiate transition or commercialization claims actually made in your commercialization strategy, and DARPA asks you not to submit them merely for the sake of including them. Letters from Government personnel will not be considered. Faxed or separately emailed letters will not be accepted.
What is the commercial market?
Domestic manufacturing of secure high-density memory, advanced electro-optical components, and high-performance MEMS and RF components for electronic warfare and GPS-denied navigation on the defense side. Commercially, next-generation 3D semiconductor transistors, multiferroic memory and logic components, and high-coherence solid-state quantum devices.
Who do I contact with questions?
Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, by October 14, 2026. Administrative questions about the DARPA program and these proposal instructions also go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. DSIP technical support is DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. Feedback session requests go to sbir@darpa.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Lead with the mechanism, not the number. DARPA asked proposers to identify the underlying physical mechanisms responsible for enhanced pattern-transfer performance, and it named four structural strategies it has in mind. A proposal that opens with "our mask achieves 60:1 selectivity" is weaker than one that opens with "our mask is grain-free, which removes the uneven erosion pathway that limits sputtered metals, and here is the selectivity that follows."
Answer the patternability paradox in its own section. The mask must be readily patternable and extremely etch resistant. Name the two chemistries, give the selectivity in both directions, and show that patterning does not damage the property that makes the mask work. This is the requirement most likely to separate serious proposals from optimistic ones.
Report roughness like a metrologist. RMS values with no stated method, scan length, or instrument are not evidence to a reviewer who does this for a living. Give the AFM scan parameters or the SEM and TEM conditions, and be clear about the distinction between line-edge roughness and sidewall roughness, since the topic uses both terms and sets different targets at different milestones.
Take mask thickness reduction seriously as a selling point. It is in the metrics of interest and it is the mechanism behind the whole topic: thick masks cause stress, distortion, and instability. If your material delivers the same etch depth at a fraction of the thickness, that is the headline, and it is more persuasive to a fab than a selectivity ratio.
Name your cleanroom and your wafer size. The Phase II demonstration requires a standard cleanroom where the process can scale to production, running standard-size wafers on commercial DRIE or ICP tools. If your work to date is on coupons in a university lab, explain how you get to wafers, and budget it.
Budget the statistical comparison. "Statistically significant reduction in defect propagation and edge roughness" against a baseline mask means wafer counts, replicates, and a designed experiment. Most proposals will show two micrographs. Showing a plan for a real comparison is cheap differentiation.
Build the research institution partnership as a technical argument, not a compliance step. DV004 does not prescribe the role split, which means a reviewer reads yours as evidence of whether the partnership is genuine. The natural division is that the institution owns erosion physics, mechanism identification, and advanced metrology, while the small business owns scalable deposition, cleanroom demonstration, contamination control, and the foundry path. Name the institution, the PI, the instruments, and the tasks, and start the subaward paperwork immediately.
Resolve the Fundamental Research question early. With a university performing at least 30 percent of the work, whether those tasks are Fundamental Research affects publication rights and contract terms, and DARPA requires you to either separate that work into its own statement of work or identify it within the prime statement of work. Decide before you write the SOW, not after.
Address all four integration constraints by name. CMOS compatibility, thermal budget, vendor and foundry transferability, and application-specific constraints. Each is a sentence or a paragraph, and skipping any of them in the feasibility documentation is an easy weakness for an evaluator to write down.
Position against the 2026 Nature Materials two-dimensional crystalline hard mask paper. It is cited in the topic and it almost certainly shaped the design brief's language. Whether you are extending that work, competing with it, or pursuing a self-regenerating route instead, saying so explicitly shows you know the state of the art, which Appendix A requires you to persuade reviewers of.
Ask about the option period. The topic gives base milestones through Month 24 and no option milestones, while the award table lists $450,000 over 12 months. Send that question to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil, and in the meantime propose an option scope that follows from the Month 24 end state, such as foundry qualification or pilot production, stating plainly that you are doing so absent stated milestones.
Do not import the SBIR document's provisions. Three concrete differences between this STTR document and the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions matter to a proposer: the OT authority citation, the absence of any venture capital ownership provision, and the absence of the language stating that TABA sits on top of the cost ceiling. If you are submitting to both programs this cycle, read both documents.
