OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV008: Bio-Inspired Underwater Teams
Quick Answer
OSW26TZ06-NV008 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The premise is that fish swimming near each other get real hydrodynamic benefits from each other's wakes, that recent computational and experimental work has quantified those benefits, and that a team of unmanned underwater vehicles could capture them. The award must not exceed $250,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 15 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The framing is explicitly a technology push. Bio-inspired underwater vehicles have nearly matched the speeds and efficiencies of real fish. Now these platforms are on the cusp of operating as multiagent teams, which would further improve efficiency and unlock novel mission utility. The topic says this STTR will provide increased capabilities for UUV teams based on the technology push from the fundamental understanding we now have of how hydrodynamic benefits arise from underwater swimming in groups.
Two scoping decisions define who can bid. Conventional designs and propulsors such as propellers and jets are not in scope. And research and development into energy storage and into path planning are both explicitly out of scope, with the design required to use state-of-the-art energy storage and off-the-shelf path planning components. So the novelty must live in the propulsor, the body, the formation, and the sensing and control that maintains it.
The performance targets are concrete: untethered vehicles 1 to 5 meters in length, operating in salt water to 50 feet depth, minimum 4 meters per second with an objective of 6 or higher, with cost of transport optimized and demonstrably better than the state of the art.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV008
Title: Bio-inspired Underwater Teams
Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program
Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Phase I
Award: must not exceed $250,000
Period of performance: 12 months
Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated
Component Technology Priority Area: Trusted AI and Autonomy
Critical Technology Area: Contested Logistics Technologies
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release
Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level
Vehicle envelope: a group of untethered UUVs, each between 1 and 5 meters in length, capable of operating in salt water to depths of 50 feet, to support Phase II and Phase III testing
Speed: minimum 4 meters per second, with an objective of 6 meters per second or higher
Cost of transport: the project should optimize cost of transport and demonstrate clear improvement over the state of the art for the chosen vehicle length and speed
Quietness: underwater acoustic energy generated by the vehicles should be minimized by design
Out of scope: conventional designs and propulsors such as propellers and jets; research and development into energy storage; research and development into path planning
Power: the design shall not rely on energy harvesting from the environment but may incorporate energy recovery from mechanical motion itself, and shall use state-of-the-art energy storage
Transition customer: the Navy, with Phase I framed as demonstrating feasibility in meeting Navy needs and Phase III including support to Government testing
Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected
Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000
Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5
Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted
Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: biological propulsion, unmanned underwater vehicle teams, biologically-inspired design
What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write
The S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs, and it is stated plainly.
The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.
The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.
The consequence for your technical volume
In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.
The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Both must be included within the 15-page limit.
So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget before you draft.
What the Topic Is Actually Asking For
The objective
Utilize the fundamental understanding of hydrodynamic benefits from underwater vehicles swimming in proximity to each other to develop and demonstrate a design for an underwater vehicle team optimized for range, endurance, speed and quietness.
The design should be based on rigorous analysis and leverage results from recent computational and experimental fluid dynamics investigations that have shown significant gains in efficiency resulting from group swimming.
The design should also leverage new vehicle design spaces that result from the platform being unmanned, which might include novel propulsors, for example fins, tails or other bio-inspired mechanisms, that utilize unsteady propulsion, body shape and body deformation.
Three design levers are named: novel propulsors using unsteady propulsion, body shape, and body deformation. All three are things a manned vehicle cannot easily do and an unmanned one can, which is the point of the phrase "new vehicle design spaces that result from the platform being unmanned."
The premise, and why now
Bio-inspired underwater vehicles have nearly matched the speeds and efficiencies of real fish. Now, these platforms are on the cusp of operating as multiagent teams, which would further improve efficiency and unlock novel mission utility.
Recent work has shown how the hydrodynamic benefits of schooling can be translated into groups of underwater vehicles.
In this STTR, the use of physical models and 3D simulations of sufficient fidelity are expected to enable exploration and understanding of the effects of controlled variation of key parameters such as geometric positioning with respect to other wakes and body deformation in developing prototype underwater teams.
Recent progress in this area, combined with the wide availability of 3D physical and computational methods, presents a significant new opportunity for the application of fundamental knowledge to exploit the hydrodynamic benefits that result from schooling fish.
Note the two named key parameters: geometric positioning with respect to other wakes, and body deformation. Those are the variables the topic expects you to explore, and they correspond directly to the cited literature on formation geometry and on in-phase versus anti-phase body motion.
The scope exclusions, which are unusually explicit
This topic tells you what not to work on in more detail than most, and each exclusion is a gift because it removes a way to waste your fifteen pages.
Conventional designs and propulsors, such as propellers and jets, are not in scope for this topic.
The design shall not rely on energy harvesting from the environment, but can incorporate methods of energy recovery from mechanical motion itself. It shall utilize state-of-the-art energy storage, and research and development into energy storage is outside the scope of this topic.
The design shall use state-of-the-art means of transferring power to the propulsor.
Path planning should use off-the-shelf components to provide sufficient capability for the platforms to perform the demonstrations during Phase II and Phase III, including straight line tracks and simple maneuvers sufficient to demonstrate speed, range, endurance and acoustics. Research and development into path planning is outside the scope of this topic.
Read those together and the intended proposal shape is clear. Do not propose a better battery. Do not propose an autonomy stack. Do propose a propulsor, a body, a formation, and the sensing and control that holds the formation while capturing wake energy.
The energy distinction is subtle and worth getting right. Energy harvesting from the environment is excluded, meaning no solar, thermal gradient, or current harvesting. Energy recovery from mechanical motion itself is permitted, meaning recovering energy from the propulsor's own oscillation or from the incoming wake is in scope. That second permission is important, because extracting energy from a leading vehicle's wake is arguably the central mechanism the topic is funding.
The performance criteria
The overall design objective and targeted capabilities apply to a group of untethered UUVs, each between 1 and 5 meters in length, and capable of operating in salt water to depths of 50 feet, to support Phase II and Phase III testing.
The design will be evaluated according to measurable performance criteria.
Speed: a minimum of 4 meters per second, with an objective of 6 meters per second or higher.
Cost of transport: the proposed project should optimize cost of transport and demonstrate clear improvement over the state of the art for the chosen vehicle length and speed.
Quietness: underwater acoustic energy generated by the vehicles should be minimized by design.
Power: state-of-the-art energy storage, with energy recovery from mechanical motion permitted and environmental harvesting excluded.
Power transmission: state-of-the-art means of transferring power to the propulsor, with successful proposals explaining how the proposed means will contribute to meeting the performance objectives.
Sensing and control: approaches to sensing and dynamic control that optimize hydrodynamic interactions and flow physics are in scope, and the successful proposal will explain how these contribute to meeting the performance objectives.
Path planning: off-the-shelf components sufficient for the Phase II and Phase III demonstrations.
Vehicle cost: estimated cost of scaled manufacturing is a factor in the proposal evaluations and can be used to guide material and design selection. The successful proposal will identify supply chain risks and a mitigation plan.
Reading the speed and cost of transport requirements together
Four meters per second is roughly eight knots, and six meters per second is nearly twelve. For a bio-inspired oscillating-propulsor vehicle in the 1 to 5 meter class, that is fast. Most published bio-inspired platforms operate well below it.
Cost of transport is energy per unit mass per unit distance, and it is the right figure of merit because it captures the schooling benefit directly: if formation swimming works, the team's cost of transport is lower than a single vehicle's at the same speed. Note that the requirement is a clear improvement over the state of the art for the chosen vehicle length and speed, which means you pick the operating point and then must beat the incumbent at it. Choose deliberately and defend the choice.
Quietness is stated as a design objective rather than a number, which gives you latitude but also means you should propose your own acoustic metric. Oscillating propulsors are inherently different acoustically from propellers, generally with energy concentrated at low frequency harmonics of the flapping rate rather than in blade-rate tonals and cavitation. That is a genuine advantage worth quantifying rather than asserting.
Vehicle cost and supply chain, which are scored
Estimated cost of scaled manufacturing is explicitly a factor in proposal evaluations, and the successful proposal will identify supply chain risks and a mitigation plan.
That is unusual in a basic research topic and it should not be treated as boilerplate. A team of vehicles means unit cost multiplies, so an expensive vehicle makes the whole concept unaffordable. Give a cost estimate at scale, name the materials and components driving it, and identify the supply chain risks, which for a bio-inspired vehicle typically means actuators, high-energy-density cells, and any specialty compliant materials.
Phase I Requirements
The small business shall demonstrate the feasibility of the concept in meeting Navy needs for a team of UUVs capable of meeting the desired performance objectives, via model-scale experiments, computation, previous results and data, or fabrication of components, if feasible, for any difficult-to-manufacture component.
This body of evidence shall support the high-risk aspects of the design.
The Phase I should convincingly show that the design is sufficiently robust to undergo the testing described in Phases II and III.
Reading this scope
Four permitted forms of evidence, and the list is generous: model-scale experiments, computation, previous results and data, or component fabrication for difficult-to-manufacture parts. You may use any combination, and previous results and data are explicitly acceptable, which rewards a team that already has a platform or a body of wake-interaction results.
The organizing principle is "the high-risk aspects of the design." That phrasing invites you to name your risks explicitly and then show evidence against each one. For this topic the high-risk items are plausibly: achieving 4 to 6 meters per second with an unsteady propulsor, holding formation precisely enough to capture wake benefit, the actuator and power transmission at that speed and duty cycle, and the acoustic signature.
The last sentence is the real test: convincingly show that the design is sufficiently robust to undergo Phase II and Phase III testing. Phase II is in-water untethered testing at a facility the small business arranges, so Phase I has to make a reviewer believe the vehicles will survive and perform in salt water at depth.
Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes
Phase II
The small business shall fabricate a prototype team of UUVs according to the requirements stated in the topic, and evaluate the design via in-water tests conducted at a facility arranged by the small business. These tests shall target the STTR performance objectives via untethered operations.
At a minimum, the prototype testing shall consist of basic operability testing, speed trials, range and endurance trials, and acoustic testing. The small business may propose other tests as needed to demonstrate the benefits of their design.
It shall also perform analyses to establish reliability, identify areas for further improvement, and analyze manufacturing scalability to transition the design to the Navy.
Two things to plan for now. The facility is arranged by the small business, which means test facility access is your responsibility and your cost. Salt water testing to 50 feet with acoustic instrumentation is not a swimming pool, and identifying that facility in your Phase I proposal is a credibility marker.
And four minimum test categories are named, with acoustic testing among them. Acoustic characterization of multiple vehicles operating in formation requires a hydrophone array and a quiet enough environment to measure against, which is a real facility constraint. Cost it.
Phase III
The small business shall apply the knowledge gained in Phase II to build an advanced prototype UUV team, test the advanced prototype according to the Phase II test goals, and support Government testing of the advanced prototype.
Note "support Government testing." That is a transition step with a Navy customer implied throughout, and it means the vehicles have to be robust and documented enough for someone else to operate.
The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights
This is an STTR, so a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.
If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.
STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.
What the split looks like on this topic
The natural division follows the topic's own structure. The research institution owns the hydrodynamics: the wake interaction physics, the 3D simulations of sufficient fidelity, the formation geometry and body deformation parameter studies, and the cost of transport modeling. That is precisely where the cited literature comes from. The small business owns the vehicle: propulsor mechanism and actuation, structural design for salt water at depth, power transmission, sensing and control implementation, manufacturing cost and supply chain, and the in-water test campaign.
The topic itself frames the effort as a technology push from fundamental understanding, and it expects physical models and 3D simulations of sufficient fidelity, which is university-scale computational and experimental fluid dynamics work. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the towing tank or flume and computational resources, and the tasks.
Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.
The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now
This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.
Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.
The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.
This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.
Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.
Why this changes your Phase I plan
The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.
Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.
Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics
The award
The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.
Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.
The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate
The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.
Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.
Percentage of Work
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.
With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.
Technical and Business Assistance
Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.
All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.
The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, manufacturing and supply chain consulting is the standout use, since estimated cost of scaled manufacturing is explicitly a proposal evaluation factor and the successful proposal must identify supply chain risks with a mitigation plan. Intellectual property counsel is a close second given the required allocation of rights agreement.
The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.
Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance
This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.
Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.
Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.
Notification and debriefings
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.
Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.
The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.
Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.
Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification
If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.
Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.
The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.
Questions
Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.
The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.
The References
Five, all from 2025, and all on the fluid mechanics of fish and foil interaction. That recency is itself the argument for the topic: this is a field where the fundamental understanding arrived recently enough that nobody has built vehicles around it yet.
Han, Seyedmirzaei Sarraf, Mivehchi, and Moored, "Tailoring formations of self-organizing hydrofoil schools towards high-efficiency," Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1012, A26, 2025. Self-organizing schools and formation tailoring, which is directly the formation geometry question.
Guo, Lauder, Thandiackal, and Dong, "Computational analysis of fish-foil pairing and wake energy extraction in low-speed flow," Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 20(5), 056011, 2025. Note "wake energy extraction," which is the mechanism the topic permits when it allows energy recovery from mechanical motion.
Menzer, Pan, Lauder, and Dong, "Fish schools in a vertical diamond formation: Effect of vertical spacing on hydrodynamic interactions," Physical Review Fluids 10(4), 2025. Vertical formation structure, a dimension most treatments neglect.
Guo and Dong, "A computational Study of In-Phase and Anti-Phase Interactions of Fish in a Phalanx School," Journal of Fluids Engineering 147(7), 2025. Phase relationship between neighboring swimmers, which is a control variable as much as a geometric one.
Huang, Wang, and Dong, "Vortex Dynamics in Wake-Body and Wake-Fin Interactions of Tuna-Like Staggered Swimming," Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 20(4), 2025.
The set is dominated by two groups, with Dong appearing on four of the five and Lauder on two, which points at the research lineage this topic expects you to draw on. If your research institution partner is one of those groups, the transition narrative is direct.
Note what the papers collectively tell you to control: formation geometry including vertical spacing, phase relationship between neighbors, and wake-body and wake-fin interaction. Those are exactly the parameters the topic names, and a proposal that maps its design variables onto this literature is speaking the reviewer's language. Note also that all five are computational or laboratory fluid mechanics; none is a vehicle paper. The vehicle engineering literature is yours to bring.
Timeline and What to Do When
The dates
Topic opens: September 23, 2026
DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record
Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification
Period of performance: 12 months
Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV008?
OSW26TZ06-NV008 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Bio-inspired Underwater Teams," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to use the fundamental understanding of hydrodynamic benefits from underwater vehicles swimming in proximity to each other to develop and demonstrate a design for an underwater vehicle team optimized for range, endurance, speed, and quietness.
What is explicitly out of scope?
Three things. Conventional designs and propulsors such as propellers and jets. Research and development into energy storage, with the design required to use state-of-the-art energy storage instead. And research and development into path planning, with off-the-shelf components required to be sufficient for the Phase II and Phase III demonstrations.
Can the vehicles harvest energy?
Not from the environment. The design shall not rely on energy harvesting from the environment, but it can incorporate methods of energy recovery from mechanical motion itself. That second permission matters, because extracting energy from a leading vehicle's wake is arguably the central mechanism the topic is funding, and one of the cited papers studies wake energy extraction directly.
What are the vehicle specifications?
A group of untethered UUVs, each between 1 and 5 meters in length, capable of operating in salt water to depths of 50 feet, to support Phase II and Phase III testing.
What speed is required?
A minimum of 4 meters per second, with an objective of 6 meters per second or higher. That is roughly eight to twelve knots, which is fast for an oscillating-propulsor vehicle in this size class and well above most published bio-inspired platforms.
How is efficiency measured?
Cost of transport. The proposed project should optimize cost of transport and demonstrate clear improvement over the state of the art for the chosen vehicle length and speed. Since you choose the length and speed, you also choose which incumbent you must beat, so name it and cite its cost of transport.
Is there a quietness number?
No. The topic states that underwater acoustic energy generated by the vehicles should be minimized by design, without a numeric target. That gives latitude but also means you should propose your own acoustic metric and predict it.
What design approaches does the topic want?
Novel propulsors, for example fins, tails, or other bio-inspired mechanisms, that utilize unsteady propulsion, plus body shape and body deformation. The topic frames these as new vehicle design spaces that result from the platform being unmanned.
What parameters should I be exploring?
The topic names two key parameters explicitly: geometric positioning with respect to other wakes, and body deformation. The cited literature adds vertical spacing within formations, in-phase versus anti-phase motion between neighbors, and wake-body and wake-fin interaction.
What does Phase I have to deliver?
A demonstration of the feasibility of the concept in meeting Navy needs for a team of UUVs capable of meeting the desired performance objectives, via model-scale experiments, computation, previous results and data, or fabrication of components for any difficult-to-manufacture component. That body of evidence shall support the high-risk aspects of the design, and Phase I should convincingly show the design is robust enough to undergo Phase II and Phase III testing.
Can I use prior results as Phase I evidence?
Yes. Previous results and data are explicitly among the four permitted forms of evidence, alongside model-scale experiments, computation, and component fabrication.
What does Phase II require?
Fabricate a prototype team of UUVs and evaluate the design via in-water tests conducted at a facility arranged by the small business, targeting the performance objectives via untethered operations. At a minimum the testing shall consist of basic operability testing, speed trials, range and endurance trials, and acoustic testing. It also requires analyses to establish reliability, identify areas for improvement, and analyze manufacturing scalability to transition the design to the Navy.
Who arranges and pays for the Phase II test facility?
The small business. Phase II tests are conducted at a facility arranged by the small business, and the requirement includes acoustic testing in salt water to 50 feet, which is a substantial facility need. Identifying that facility in your Phase I proposal is a credibility marker.
Is manufacturing cost evaluated?
Yes. Estimated cost of scaled manufacturing is explicitly a factor in the proposal evaluations and can be used to guide material and design selection, and the successful proposal will identify supply chain risks and a mitigation plan. For a team of vehicles, unit cost multiplies, so this is not boilerplate.
Who is the transition customer?
The Navy. Phase I is framed as demonstrating feasibility in meeting Navy needs, Phase II analyzes manufacturing scalability to transition the design to the Navy, and Phase III requires supporting Government testing of the advanced prototype.
Is sensing and control in scope?
Yes. Approaches to sensing and dynamic control that optimize hydrodynamic interactions and flow physics are in scope, and the successful proposal will explain how these contribute to meeting the performance objectives. Note the distinction from path planning, which is out of scope.
How much funding is available?
The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.
When is the proposal deadline?
The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.
How long can my technical volume be?
Not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated, which is stricter than simply disregarding the extra pages. The transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both count inside that limit.
What extra content does this program require in the technical volume?
Two things beyond the standard DoW STTR Phase I content. A narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity. And a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II. Both must fit inside the 15 pages.
Do I need a research institution partner?
Yes. This is an STTR, which requires a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares of at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the institution per the DoW STTR Program solicitation. If selected, you must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and the research institution allocating intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization, using the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.
How does the Phase II submission window work?
Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and all Phase I awardees are eligible. A 30-day submission window is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, with details provided by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office. This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics, and proposals received outside the established window will not be evaluated.
What does that mean for how I plan Phase I?
You will be writing the Phase II proposal on partial Phase I results, six to nine months into a twelve-month effort. Front-load the work so your most persuasive results land early. The program also says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, so establish that relationship early in performance.
How is Phase II funded?
A 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.
How are proposals evaluated?
Against the DoW solicitation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach first, then qualifications of key personnel, then commercialization potential. The evaluation includes an assessment not only of the Phase I feasibility studies but of the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II. Only Government personnel evaluate proposals, except personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in it will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. Deviations from the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program BAA are not permitted. With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, model the arithmetic before finalizing the subaward.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.
Is this work classified?
No. Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level, and no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic or on any of the seven topics in this release.
Can I employ foreign nationals?
If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. The unclassified expectation makes this program more compatible with an open university research environment than several other components in this cycle.
Can I request a debriefing if not selected?
Yes. Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official within 30 days of receipt of the request. Oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.
When will I hear back, and who is notified?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record.
Who do I contact with questions?
Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Respect the exclusions, and say that you have. No propellers or jets, no energy storage research, no path planning research. A proposal that spends pages on an autonomy stack or a battery chemistry has spent them on work the topic removed from scope, and a reviewer will read that as not having read the topic.
Use the energy recovery permission deliberately. Environmental harvesting is excluded, but energy recovery from mechanical motion itself is permitted, and wake energy extraction is exactly what the cited Guo and colleagues paper studies. That permission is arguably the heart of the topic, and building your efficiency argument on it is stronger than treating formation flying as merely drafting.
Defend your operating point on cost of transport. The requirement is clear improvement over the state of the art for the chosen vehicle length and speed. You choose the length between 1 and 5 meters and the speed at or above 4 meters per second, which means you also choose which incumbent you are beating. Name it, cite its cost of transport, and show yours.
Take 4 to 6 meters per second seriously as a hard problem. Eight to twelve knots from an oscillating propulsor in this size class is well above most published bio-inspired platforms. If your evidence base is at lower speed, say so and show the scaling argument rather than letting a reviewer discover the gap.
Quantify quietness, since the topic only asks you to minimize it. Propose your own acoustic metric and predict it. Oscillating propulsors concentrate energy at low-frequency harmonics of the flapping rate rather than in blade-rate tonals and cavitation, which is a real advantage over a propeller and worth showing with numbers rather than asserting.
Address formation-holding as a control problem with a tolerance. Capturing wake benefit requires being in the right place relative to a leader's wake, and the cited literature shows the benefit depends on spacing and phase. What positioning accuracy do you need, how do you sense it underwater without external references, and what happens to the efficiency gain when you drift? That question is where sensing and control earns its place in the proposal.
Map your design variables onto the cited literature. Formation geometry including vertical spacing, in-phase versus anti-phase motion, and wake-body and wake-fin interaction are the parameters those five papers isolate, and they are the same parameters the topic names. Showing the mapping demonstrates you have read the science the topic is pushing.
Cost the vehicle and name the supply chain risks. Estimated cost of scaled manufacturing is explicitly an evaluation factor, and a team multiplies unit cost. Actuators, energy storage cells, and specialty compliant materials are the usual risk items for a bio-inspired platform. Give numbers and a mitigation plan.
Identify your Phase II test facility in Phase I. Phase II requires in-water untethered testing at a facility the small business arranges, including acoustic testing, in salt water to 50 feet. That facility is your cost and your risk, and naming it converts a plan into a commitment.
Name your high-risk items and show evidence against each. Phase I asks for a body of evidence supporting the high-risk aspects of the design, which is an invitation to structure the proposal around risks rather than around tasks. Speed from unsteady propulsion, formation-holding accuracy, actuator and power transmission at duty, and acoustics are the plausible four.
Remember the customer is the Navy. Phase I is framed as demonstrating feasibility in meeting Navy needs, Phase II analyzes manufacturing scalability to transition the design to the Navy, and Phase III supports Government testing. Write to a Navy program reader, and if you have any Navy engagement, say so.
Write the transition narrative as a real plan, not a paragraph. This program exists to move academic discoveries into small businesses. Whose discovery, moving how, through what mechanism, with what people, and what does the small business own afterward. That narrative is a program requirement and it is where the S&T Foundations mission lives.
Put key personnel forward. Qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization potential. On a basic research transition topic, naming the people who actually did the underlying science is worth more proposal space than a market sizing exercise.
Take the preliminary Phase II Plan seriously. The evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II, not just the Phase I studies. Fit it to the program's own structure of a base plus option, each 10 to 12 months and each up to $1,000,000, and make the product concrete.
Front-load the Phase I schedule. The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months in and it is the only one. Whatever a Phase II reviewer needs to see must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.
Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated, which is a harsher rule than most components apply, and it applies to a volume that must also contain the transition narrative and the Phase II Plan.
Start the allocation of rights conversation now. A written agreement allocating intellectual property and follow-on rights is required upon selection. On a topic where the core science originates in a university laboratory, that negotiation determines whether you have a commercial product at the end. Do not leave it until award.
Use the debriefing if you lose. A written debrief within 30 days of notification is available on request, and this program recurs. That is cheap, specific feedback most applicants never ask for.
