OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV007: Scalable Processing of Large Area, Oriented 2-Dimensional Polymer Films
Quick Answer
OSW26TZ06-NV007 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The program moves discoveries out of university laboratories and into small businesses. This topic is about manufacturing: covalent organic frameworks and other two-dimensional polymers have remarkable properties but almost always come out of synthesis as an insoluble powder nobody can use. The ask is a continuous process that makes them into large-area films with the sheets aligned perpendicular to the film plane. The award must not exceed $250,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 15 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The Phase I target is specific and it is a manufacturing number, not a materials number. Develop a continuous process producing 2D polymer ensemble films at a rate of 100 feet per minute, at least 1 foot wide, and 1 to 50 microns thick. That is a roll-to-roll line rate, and stating it that way tells you the government is not asking for a better film in a beaker. It is asking whether this class of material can be made industrially at all.
The problem the topic identifies is orientation and defects. Methods that cast directly from monomer solution can be scaled up in a roll-to-roll process but often result in films that are mechanically weak, because it is difficult to control the size and orientation of the individual sheets and they often lack sufficient intermolecular interactions. That is the gap: scalable processes give you weak films, and processes that give you good films do not scale.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV007
Title: Scalable Processing of Large Area, Oriented 2-Dimensional Polymer Films
Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program
Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Phase I
Award: must not exceed $250,000
Period of performance: 12 months
Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated
Component Technology Priority Area: Advanced Materials
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Contested Logistics Technologies
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release
Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level
Material class: 2-dimensional polymers, including covalent organic frameworks
Orientation requirement: individual sheets highly oriented perpendicular to the film plane, for membrane applications
Phase I process target: 100 feet per minute, film at least 1 foot wide, 1 to 50 microns thick
Phase II process target: deposition rate increased by 2 to 5 times, with expanded film width and thickness range
Process requirement: amenable to roll-to-roll processing or a related method to produce continuous films
Named defect categories to control: point and stacking defects within 2D polymer crystals, stacking defects between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination, and crystallite size distribution
Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected
Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000
Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5
Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted
Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: 2-dimensional polymers, covalent organic frameworks, polymer processing, crystallization, roll-to-roll
What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write
The S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs, and it is stated plainly.
The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.
The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.
The consequence for your technical volume
In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.
The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Both must be included within the 15-page limit.
So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget before you draft.
What the Topic Is Actually Asking For
The objective
Develop a reliable, cost-effective method to produce large area films of mechanically robust 2-dimensional polymers where the individual sheets are highly oriented perpendicular to the film plane, for membrane applications.
Every phrase in that sentence is a requirement. Reliable and cost-effective, which is a manufacturing standard rather than a research standard. Large area. Mechanically robust. Sheets oriented perpendicular to the film plane. And membrane applications as the target, which is what makes the orientation matter: a sheet lying flat blocks transport, while a sheet standing perpendicular to the film plane presents its pores as through-channels.
Why 2D polymers matter, and why nobody uses them
2-dimensional polymers such as covalent organic frameworks are an emerging class of materials which have displayed significant potential in applications ranging from catalysis, energy storage, dielectrics, nanofiltration, gas storage, and mechanically robust engineering materials. They are synthesized from geometrically pre-defined building blocks and can accommodate a wide variety of pore shapes, sizes, and functionality.
Most methods used to produce 2D polymers result in an insoluble microporous powder that cannot be processed into a functional form factor, which limits their relevance in commercial or military applications.
That is the whole problem in one sentence. The chemistry works. The material has designed pores. And it comes out as a powder you cannot make into anything.
What has been tried and why each approach falls short
The topic surveys the field with unusual candor, and each named limitation is a design constraint on your answer.
Top-down methods such as exfoliation or solution casting, and bottom-up methods that form films directly from cast monomer solutions, have been used to varying levels of success to access films and membranes. Interfacial polymerization has also been used to form films at the interface of two immiscible solvents.
Exfoliation based approaches are low-yielding.
Solution casting techniques often involve appending solubilizing groups to the pore wall, which can block access to the pore itself.
Methods that cast directly from monomer solution can be scaled up in a roll-to-roll process but often result in films that are mechanically weak, as it is difficult to control the size and orientation of the individual sheets and they often lack sufficient intermolecular interactions.
Read those three together and the design space narrows usefully. Exfoliation does not scale. Solubilizing groups defeat the purpose by blocking the pores you designed. Direct casting scales but gives weak, poorly oriented films. Your process has to scale like direct casting while controlling orientation and intermolecular interaction like the slower methods.
What the topic says is missing scientifically
More work is needed to understand the underlying kinetics and thermodynamics of the film forming processes as it relates to monomer selection, layer alignment, domain size, and formation of defects.
New engineering approaches are also needed to further control film formation, thickness, functionality, and orientation during deposition and post-processing.
Note the two halves. A science gap in kinetics and thermodynamics, and an engineering gap in process control. That pairing is exactly what an STTR partnership is for, and it maps onto the work split naturally.
The defect taxonomy, which is a gift
Special focus should be given to controlling and minimizing defects that could mitigate material performance: point and stacking defects within 2D polymer crystals, stacking defects in between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination within the films, and crystallite size distributions, to name a few.
Five named defect categories at three length scales. Within a crystal, between crystallites, and across the film. Plus contamination and size distribution.
That list is a checklist a reviewer can grade against, and most proposals will address pinholes and stop. A proposal that says, for each of the five, how it forms, how it is measured, and how the process controls it, is doing what the topic asked. Note also that residual solvent and reactant contamination is a chemistry problem in a manufacturing context, and it is exactly what bites a membrane in service.
The process requirements
The objective of this topic is to develop a scalable, cost-effective method to produce large area 2D polymer ensemble films with superb control over structural evolution.
Designed processes must consider monomer composition, long range structural order in lateral and parallel planes, interlayer interactions and flaw tolerance.
The process should be amenable to roll-to-roll processing or a related method to produce continuous films.
Note "flaw tolerance" alongside long range order. Those pull in opposite directions and the topic asks for both. A perfectly ordered film is brittle and a single flaw propagates. A flaw-tolerant film has some mechanism, whether crystallite size distribution, interlayer sliding, or a compliant phase, that arrests propagation. Addressing that tension directly is a strong move.
Note also "ensemble films." The topic uses that term repeatedly, and it signals that the film is understood as an assembly of crystallites rather than a single crystal. Your structural argument should be about the ensemble: crystallite size, orientation distribution, and the interfaces between them.
Phase I Requirements
Develop a continuous process to produce 2D polymer ensemble films from predefined monomer building blocks. The process should achieve a rate of 100 feet per minute of a film that is at least 1 foot wide and 1 to 50 microns thick.
Using computational modeling or experimental studies, identify the role of defects and flaws and quantify needed levels of domain size, layer alignment, and intermolecular interactions to achieve mechanically robust films.
Using insights gained from understanding the underlying film forming mechanism, develop a framework to be implemented in Phase II to achieve required structural ordering.
Reading these numbers
One hundred feet per minute is a real industrial line rate, comparable to commercial coating operations, and it is stated as a Phase I target rather than a Phase III aspiration. That is aggressive, and it tells you the topic is written for a team that already has continuous-processing capability rather than one that will build it.
One foot wide is modest for a roll-to-roll line and appropriate for a pilot. One to fifty microns is a wide thickness window, spanning thin membrane to substantial free-standing film, and it gives you latitude to choose where in that range your chemistry works.
The second task is a quantification task: identify the role of defects and quantify the needed levels of domain size, layer alignment, and intermolecular interactions. Note "needed levels." You are being asked to establish the structure-property relationship, not just to make a film. What domain size do you actually need for mechanical robustness, and what alignment, and what interlayer interaction strength.
The third task is a framework for Phase II. That is a design deliverable, and it connects directly to the required preliminary Phase II Plan.
How to structure a credible Phase I
The topic explicitly permits computational modeling or experimental studies, or both, for the defect and structure-property work, which is a real accommodation at this budget. A sensible plan pairs a modest continuous-coating demonstration with modeling that establishes the targets, rather than trying to fund both a full process development and a full characterization campaign at $250,000.
Be explicit about which monomer chemistry you use and why. The topic says films are made from predefined monomer building blocks and that the process must consider monomer composition, so monomer selection is part of the process design rather than a given.
And say how you measure orientation, because perpendicular sheet orientation is the defining requirement and it is not trivial to characterize in a thin film. Grazing-incidence X-ray scattering, polarized spectroscopy, cross-sectional electron microscopy, and transport measurements through the membrane are all defensible, and naming your method with its resolution is worth more than asserting the orientation.
Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes
Phase II
Further develop the processing approach from Phase I to increase deposition rate by 2 to 5 times while expanding the range of film width and thickness, while achieving domain sizes and orientations needed to form robust films.
The method should be amenable to post-processing including annealing, tensioning, or post-polymerization modification to further increase ordering and alignment.
Proxy measurement techniques may be developed to rapidly assess ordering and alignment.
Three things worth planning for now. A 2 to 5 times rate increase on top of 100 feet per minute puts you at 200 to 500 feet per minute, which is a commercial converting line rate. Three named post-processing routes are given, and annealing, tensioning, and post-polymerization modification are all standard polymer film operations, which suggests the topic wants this to fit existing converting infrastructure. And proxy measurement techniques for rapid ordering assessment is effectively an in-line quality control ask, which is what a manufacturing process needs and which almost no research effort builds.
That last item is a differentiator. If your Phase I includes even a preliminary in-line or rapid proxy metric for orientation, you have addressed a Phase II requirement early and shown you are thinking like a manufacturer.
Phase III
Phase III efforts will further optimize the processing method and scale production to manufacturing-relevant levels and rates to achieve films with large, highly aligned domains with minimal defects.
A variety of dual-use applications would benefit from an efficient production pipeline for 2D polymer films including nanofiltration membranes, battery separators, gas impermeable films, and critical mineral recovery.
Four applications, and they are worth separating by market character. Nanofiltration membranes and battery separators are large existing commercial markets with incumbent materials and known price points. Gas impermeable films is a packaging and barrier market. Critical mineral recovery is the one most aligned with the Contested Logistics Technologies Critical Technology Area, and it is a stated national priority with a supply chain argument behind it.
Because the Critical Technology Area here is Contested Logistics rather than Advanced Materials alone, the critical mineral recovery and water treatment angles are the strongest defense framing. A deployable membrane that recovers lithium or rare earths, or purifies water in an austere setting, connects a polymer processing result to a logistics problem.
The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights
This is an STTR, so a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.
If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.
STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.
What the split looks like on this topic
The natural division follows the topic's own two-part gap statement. The research institution owns the science: the kinetics and thermodynamics of film formation, the relationship between monomer selection and layer alignment, the defect taxonomy and its characterization, and the computational modeling that establishes needed domain size and interlayer interaction levels. The small business owns the engineering: the continuous deposition process, the line rate and web handling, thickness and width control, post-processing operations, and the path to manufacturing-relevant rates.
That split is unusually clean because the topic states both gaps explicitly, saying more work is needed to understand the underlying kinetics and thermodynamics, and that new engineering approaches are also needed to control film formation. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the characterization instruments, and the tasks.
Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.
The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now
This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.
Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.
The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.
This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.
Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.
Why this changes your Phase I plan
The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.
Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.
Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics
The award
The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.
Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.
The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate
The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.
Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.
Percentage of Work
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.
With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.
Technical and Business Assistance
Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.
All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.
The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, manufacturing and process scale-up consulting is the standout use, given that Phase II asks for a 2 to 5 times rate increase toward commercial converting line rates. Intellectual property counsel is a close second, since covalent organic framework chemistries and processing methods emerging from university laboratories carry real IP complexity and an allocation of rights agreement is required upon selection.
The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.
Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance
This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.
Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.
Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.
Notification and debriefings
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.
Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.
The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.
Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.
Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification
If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.
Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.
The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.
Questions
Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.
The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.
The References
Three, and all three are polymer chemistry papers from groups working on covalent organic framework processing. Notably, two of the three include a common author, which points at the research lineage.
Burke, Sun, Castano, Flanders, Evans, Vitaku, McLeod, Lambeth, Chen, Gianneschi, and Dichtel, Angewandte Chemie 132, 5203, 2020. The Dichtel group is among the most prominent in covalent organic framework synthesis and processing, and this paper is the most cited of the three.
Barnes, McLeod, and Lambeth, ACS Applied Polymer Materials 4 (3), 2017 to 2021, 2022.
Senarathna, Li, Perera, Torres-Correas, Diwakara, Boardman, Al-Kharji, Liu, and Smaldone, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 62, e202312617, 2023.
Two observations. McLeod and Lambeth appear on both the 2020 and 2022 papers, and the Army Research Laboratory has a polymer program with people of those names, which suggests this topic emerged from an internal Department research line with academic collaborators rather than purely from outside academia. If your research institution partner connects to that lineage, say so.
And the reference set is entirely chemistry, with nothing on roll-to-roll processing, web handling, coating fluid mechanics, or in-line metrology. That asymmetry mirrors the topic's own statement that new engineering approaches are needed. It also means your Related Work section carries the burden of demonstrating awareness of the manufacturing state of the art, so bring the coating and converting literature yourself. That is where the small business half of an STTR should be visibly strong.
Timeline and What to Do When
The dates
Topic opens: September 23, 2026
DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record
Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification
Period of performance: 12 months
Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV007?
OSW26TZ06-NV007 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Scalable Processing of Large Area, Oriented 2-Dimensional Polymer Films," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop a reliable, cost-effective method to produce large area films of mechanically robust 2-dimensional polymers where the individual sheets are highly oriented perpendicular to the film plane, for membrane applications.
What are 2-dimensional polymers and why are they hard to use?
2-dimensional polymers such as covalent organic frameworks are synthesized from geometrically pre-defined building blocks and can accommodate a wide variety of pore shapes, sizes, and functionality, with potential in catalysis, energy storage, dielectrics, nanofiltration, gas storage, and mechanically robust engineering materials. The problem is that most methods used to produce them result in an insoluble microporous powder that cannot be processed into a functional form factor, which limits their relevance in commercial or military applications.
What are the Phase I process targets?
A continuous process producing 2D polymer ensemble films from predefined monomer building blocks at a rate of 100 feet per minute, with the film at least 1 foot wide and 1 to 50 microns thick.
Is 100 feet per minute really a Phase I target?
Yes, as written. That is a real industrial line rate comparable to commercial coating operations, and it is stated as a Phase I target rather than a later goal. It suggests the topic is written for a team that already has continuous processing capability.
What else does Phase I require?
Using computational modeling or experimental studies, identify the role of defects and flaws and quantify needed levels of domain size, layer alignment, and intermolecular interactions to achieve mechanically robust films. And using insights from understanding the film forming mechanism, develop a framework to be implemented in Phase II to achieve required structural ordering.
Can I do Phase I with modeling instead of experiments?
The topic permits computational modeling or experimental studies, or both, for the defect and structure-property work. Given the budget, pairing a modest continuous-coating demonstration with modeling that establishes the needed structural targets is a defensible plan.
Why does sheet orientation matter?
Because the application is membranes. A sheet lying flat in the film plane blocks transport, while a sheet oriented perpendicular to the film plane presents its designed pores as through-channels. Perpendicular orientation is the defining requirement in both the title and the objective.
What is wrong with existing processing methods?
The topic names three limitations. Exfoliation based approaches are low-yielding. Solution casting often involves appending solubilizing groups to the pore wall, which can block access to the pore itself. And methods that cast directly from monomer solution can be scaled up in a roll-to-roll process but often result in mechanically weak films, because it is difficult to control the size and orientation of individual sheets and they often lack sufficient intermolecular interactions.
What defects must I control?
Five categories are named: point and stacking defects within 2D polymer crystals, stacking defects between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination within the films, and crystallite size distributions. The topic says special focus should be given to controlling and minimizing them.
What does the topic mean by ensemble films?
The term signals that the film is understood as an assembly of crystallites rather than a single crystal. Your structural argument should address crystallite size, orientation distribution, and the interfaces between crystallites, not just ideal in-crystal order.
What does Phase II require?
Further develop the Phase I processing approach to increase deposition rate by 2 to 5 times while expanding the range of film width and thickness, and while achieving the domain sizes and orientations needed for robust films. The method should be amenable to post-processing including annealing, tensioning, or post-polymerization modification to further increase ordering and alignment. Proxy measurement techniques may be developed to rapidly assess ordering and alignment.
What is the proxy measurement requirement really asking for?
Effectively in-line quality control. Rapid assessment of ordering and alignment is what a manufacturing process needs and what almost no research effort builds. Sketching one in Phase I addresses a Phase II requirement early.
What are the Phase III applications?
Nanofiltration membranes, battery separators, gas impermeable films, and critical mineral recovery. Given that the Critical Technology Area for this topic is Contested Logistics Technologies, critical mineral recovery and water treatment are the strongest defense framing.
Does the process have to be roll-to-roll?
The topic says the process should be amenable to roll-to-roll processing or a related method to produce continuous films. Roll-to-roll is the named example, and the Phase I line rate and film width targets are stated in roll-to-roll terms, but a related continuous method is acceptable.
How much funding is available?
The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.
When is the proposal deadline?
The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.
How long can my technical volume be?
Not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated, which is stricter than simply disregarding the extra pages. The transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both count inside that limit.
What extra content does this program require in the technical volume?
Two things beyond the standard DoW STTR Phase I content. A narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity. And a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II. Both must fit inside the 15 pages.
Do I need a research institution partner?
Yes. This is an STTR, which requires a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares of at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the institution per the DoW STTR Program solicitation. If selected, you must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and the research institution allocating intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization, using the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.
How does the Phase II submission window work?
Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and all Phase I awardees are eligible. A 30-day submission window is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, with details provided by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office. This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics, and proposals received outside the established window will not be evaluated.
What does that mean for how I plan Phase I?
You will be writing the Phase II proposal on partial Phase I results, six to nine months into a twelve-month effort. Front-load the work so your most persuasive results land early. The program also says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, so establish that relationship early in performance.
How is Phase II funded?
A 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.
How are proposals evaluated?
Against the DoW solicitation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach first, then qualifications of key personnel, then commercialization potential. The evaluation includes an assessment not only of the Phase I feasibility studies but of the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II. Only Government personnel evaluate proposals, except personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in it will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. Deviations from the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program BAA are not permitted. With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, model the arithmetic before finalizing the subaward.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.
Is this work classified?
No. Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level, and no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic or on any of the seven topics in this release.
Can I employ foreign nationals?
If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. The unclassified expectation makes this program more compatible with an open university research environment than several other components in this cycle.
Can I request a debriefing if not selected?
Yes. Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official within 30 days of receipt of the request. Oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.
When will I hear back, and who is notified?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record.
Who do I contact with questions?
Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Lead with the line rate, because it is the real filter. One hundred feet per minute of a film at least a foot wide is a manufacturing capability, not a laboratory result, and it is a Phase I target rather than an eventual goal. If you have continuous coating capability, name the equipment and the rates you have run. If you do not, explain concretely how you get there in twelve months on $250,000, because a reviewer will ask.
Answer the scale-versus-quality tension directly. The topic says direct casting scales but gives mechanically weak films with poor orientation, and that solubilizing groups block the pores you designed. Your process has to scale like the former while ordering like the latter. State the mechanism by which you get both, because that is the topic's central technical question.
Walk all five defect categories. Point and stacking defects within crystals, stacking defects between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination, and crystallite size distribution. For each, say how it forms, how you measure it, and how the process controls it. Most proposals will address pinholes and thickness uniformity and stop.
Say how you measure perpendicular orientation. It is the defining requirement in the title and objective, and it is hard to characterize in a thin film. Grazing-incidence X-ray scattering, polarized spectroscopy, cross-sectional microscopy, or transport measurement through the membrane are all defensible. Name the method and its resolution rather than asserting the result.
Address flaw tolerance alongside long range order. The topic asks for both, and they conflict: a perfectly ordered film propagates a crack, while a flaw-tolerant film has some arresting mechanism. Naming that mechanism, whether crystallite size distribution, interlayer sliding, or a compliant secondary phase, shows you understand the material as an ensemble rather than an ideal crystal.
Bring the manufacturing literature yourself. All three cited references are chemistry, and the topic itself says new engineering approaches are needed. Coating fluid mechanics, web handling, drying and solvent removal, and in-line metrology all belong in your Related Work, and that is where the small business half of the partnership should look strongest.
Propose a proxy metric early. Phase II says proxy measurement techniques may be developed to rapidly assess ordering and alignment, which is an in-line quality control requirement in disguise. Sketching one in Phase I addresses a Phase II need ahead of schedule and signals manufacturing seriousness.
Choose your monomer chemistry deliberately and say why. The topic says films are made from predefined monomer building blocks and that the process must consider monomer composition. Monomer selection is part of your process design, and connecting a specific chemistry to a specific alignment mechanism is stronger than treating the monomer as given.
Lead the commercialization case with critical mineral recovery and water. The Critical Technology Area is Contested Logistics Technologies, not Advanced Materials alone. Nanofiltration membranes and battery separators are bigger markets, but a deployable membrane that recovers critical minerals or purifies water in an austere setting is the framing that connects a polymer film to the stated priority.
Use the permitted modeling latitude. The topic explicitly allows computational modeling or experimental studies for the defect and structure-property work. At this budget, pairing a modest continuous-coating demonstration with modeling that establishes the needed domain size, alignment, and interaction levels is more achievable than funding both a full process build and a full characterization campaign.
Write the transition narrative as a real plan, not a paragraph. This program exists to move academic discoveries into small businesses. Whose discovery, moving how, through what mechanism, with what people, and what does the small business own afterward. That narrative is a program requirement and it is where the S&T Foundations mission lives.
Put key personnel forward. Qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization potential. On a basic research transition topic, naming the people who actually did the underlying science is worth more proposal space than a market sizing exercise.
Take the preliminary Phase II Plan seriously. The evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II, not just the Phase I studies. Fit it to the program's own structure of a base plus option, each 10 to 12 months and each up to $1,000,000, and make the product concrete.
Front-load the Phase I schedule. The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months in and it is the only one. Whatever a Phase II reviewer needs to see must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.
Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated, which is a harsher rule than most components apply, and it applies to a volume that must also contain the transition narrative and the Phase II Plan.
Start the allocation of rights conversation now. A written agreement allocating intellectual property and follow-on rights is required upon selection. On a topic where the core science originates in a university laboratory, that negotiation determines whether you have a commercial product at the end. Do not leave it until award.
Use the debriefing if you lose. A written debrief within 30 days of notification is available on request, and this program recurs. That is cheap, specific feedback most applicants never ask for.
