OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV010: Architected Energy Dissipation Structures With Tunable Rigid-Flexible Behaviors
Quick Answer
OSW26TZ06-NV010 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. Protection materials are usually either rigid or flexible, and the Department wants both in the same material: rigid under severe loading, fluid-like and conformable under gentle loading. The vehicle is a newly discovered family of structures called polycatenated architected materials, essentially 3D chainmail made by additive manufacturing. 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 problem statement is compact and correct. Most protection structures are either rigid materials such as metals, ceramics, and composites designed to carry significant mechanical loads or blunt kinetic threats, or flexible materials such as elastomers, foam structures, and structures based on polymeric fibers intended to compress or stretch, which are conformable and effective at reducing peak accelerations. Most protection solutions cannot provide both rigid material response and conformability, which limits applications for the Warfighter.
What makes this topic timely is a 2025 Science paper. Polycatenated architected materials derive their mechanical behaviors not through intrinsic material properties but rather through geometric arrangement of internal solid elements, rings or cage-like particles interconnected into 3D networks. Under severe loading, rigid elements may align and develop complex force chains that exhibit high strength. Under gentle loading, elements reorganize, slide, and rotate, which reads as fluid-like.
Phase I is unusually concrete for a basic research topic. Design architected structures in an approximate rectangular configuration of 82 by 87 by 19.5 millimeters, which is a helmet pad footprint, fabricate a minimum of 10 test specimens, and run impact tests from 1 to 50 joules against legacy foam pads.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV010
Title: Architected Energy Dissipation Structures With Tunable Rigid-Flexible Behaviors
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
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: polycatenated architected materials, essentially 3D chainmail, realized through additive manufacturing
Phase I specimen geometry: an approximate rectangular configuration of 82 mm by 87 mm by 19.5 mm thickness, approximating a commonly tested helmet pad configuration
Conformability requirement: architected sheets shall display conformability to various geometries including features with radii of curvature ranging from approximately 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters
Mechanical objectives: maximize energy absorption efficiency in through-thickness compression as described in Equation 1 of the cited Clough reference, while minimizing shear stiffness in the thickness direction
Phase I specimen count: a minimum of 10 test specimens
Phase I impact testing: across the range of 1 to 50 joules, using legacy foam pads as a comparison
Phase II specimen count: a minimum of 20 specimens in the Phase I geometrical configuration
Government collaboration: teams will be expected to work alongside Army scientists and engineers, and in Phase II will work with Army Research Laboratory scientists to design, manufacture, and deliver test specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL
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: conformable structures, lightweight armor, Soldier protection, metamaterial, architected material, additive manufacturing
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 and demonstrate architected energy dissipation structures with rigid responsiveness at large tensile, compressive, and shear strains, but capable of conformability to surfaces of complex topographies and other fluid-like behaviors in response to small strains.
The strain-dependent behavior is the whole idea. Rigid at large strain, fluid-like at small strain. That inversion of ordinary material behavior is what polycatenated structures make possible and what no conventional material offers.
The problem
The Department requires lightweight protection materials for a variety of applications, including personal protection, vehicle safety, and shielding sensitive electronics.
Most protection structures are either rigid materials, for example metals, ceramics, and composites, designed to carry significant mechanical loads or blunt kinetic threats, or flexible materials, for example elastomers, foam structures, and structures based on polymeric fibers, intended to compress or stretch, which are conformable and effective at reducing peak accelerations.
However, most protection solutions cannot provide both rigid material response and conformability, which limits applications for the Warfighter.
That is a real and familiar tradeoff. A rigid plate spreads load and stops penetration but does not follow the body. A foam pad conforms and reduces peak acceleration but offers little structural resistance. The Warfighter carries both, at weight and bulk cost.
The enabling discovery
Recently, a new family of energy dissipating structures known as polycatenated architected materials has been introduced that may display both solid-like and fluid-like behaviors.
These structures, essentially 3D chainmail and realized through additive manufacturing, derive their mechanical behaviors not through intrinsic material properties, but rather through geometric arrangement of internal solid elements, for example rings or cage-like particles interconnected into 3D networks. Note that these materials consist entirely of solid linkages, collectively displaying fluid-like behaviors in response to small deformations.
In response to severe loading, rigid elements may align and develop complex force chains that exhibit high strength and offer significant protection mechanisms not possible through conventional flexible options.
However, elements may also reorganize, slide, or rotate, which offers novel design mechanisms for dissipating energy, and new ways to enable comfort for applications related to personal protection.
Two mechanisms, and they are worth distinguishing because they are the levers you design against. Force chain formation under severe load is where the strength comes from, and it depends on element geometry and how elements interlock when they align. Element reorganization, sliding, and rotation is where the dissipation and the conformability come from, and it depends on linkage clearance and friction.
The phrase "consist entirely of solid linkages" is doing real work. There is no fluid, no fill, no phase change. The fluid-like response is purely geometric, which is what makes the material manufacturable in one additive build and what makes it robust.
The design task
The goal of this topic is to create architected structures with tunable mechanical energy dissipating behaviors that can vary spatially throughout the material.
Teams will investigate element and linkage materials, geometries, and nearest neighbor spacings to design architected structures that perform optimally for various static and dynamic loading conditions, for example via tensile, compression, impact, and rheology characterization.
Teams will then design, process, characterize, and simulate energy dissipating behaviors of materials in multiple geometrical configurations, for example through comparisons to legacy impact attenuating materials like foams that are used for impact protection such as knee pads, elbow pads, and helmet pads.
Teams will be expected to work alongside Army scientists and engineers to guide the design, manufacturing, and testing of materials.
If successful, this effort would enable new materials design tools for the Department to create customized protection structures for the expeditionary Soldier.
Three design variables are named: element and linkage materials, geometries, and nearest neighbor spacings. Four characterization modes are named: tensile, compression, impact, and rheology. The inclusion of rheology is notable and appropriate, because a material with fluid-like small-strain behavior genuinely has rheological properties, and measuring them is how you quantify the conformability side.
Note also "vary spatially throughout the material." Spatial tunability is the Phase II objective, and it is what turns a material into a design tool: stiffer where load must be carried, more compliant where the body needs to move.
And note that working alongside Army scientists and engineers is stated as an expectation in Phase I, becoming a specific Army Research Laboratory collaboration in Phase II.
Phase I Requirements
Design architected structures with individual linked grains in the following approximate rectangular configuration: 82 mm by 87 mm by 19.5 mm thickness. The given geometry approximates a commonly tested helmet pad configuration and will allow teams to make comparisons to known technologies.
Architected sheets shall display conformability to various geometries including features with radii of curvature ranging from approximately 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters.
The through-thickness compression response of the material should seek to maximize energy absorption efficiency as described in Equation 1 of reference 4. Simultaneously, the material should minimize shear stiffness in the thickness direction.
Teams will use advanced processing techniques, for example additive manufacturing approaches, to fabricate a minimum of 10 test specimens.
Teams will perform computer simulations and initial experimental mechanical characterization to estimate in-plane and out-of-plane loads required to initiate solid-to-fluid transitions in the architected materials.
Teams will perform impact tests across the range of 1 to 50 joules and use legacy foam pads as a comparison.
Reading this scope
This is the most prescriptive Phase I in the release, and that is helpful. A fixed specimen geometry, a fixed specimen count, a fixed energy range, a named comparison baseline, and a named equation for the figure of merit. Very little is left to interpretation, which means the evaluation will turn on how well you execute rather than on how you scoped it.
The 82 by 87 by 19.5 millimeter geometry is deliberately a helmet pad, and the topic says so: it will allow teams to make comparisons to known technologies. The first cited reference is an Army Research Laboratory technical report on improving Advanced Combat Helmet low-velocity impact performance through pad material response optimization, which is almost certainly where that geometry and the comparison baseline come from. Read it.
The radius of curvature range of 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters is tight. Conforming to a 5 millimeter radius with a 19.5 millimeter thick structure is a demanding bend, and it constrains your element size and linkage clearance directly. Work that geometry out early, because it may be the binding constraint on your architecture.
The two mechanical objectives pull against each other in a productive way: maximize energy absorption efficiency in through-thickness compression while minimizing shear stiffness in the thickness direction. Compression stiffness and shear compliance in the same structure is exactly the rigid-plus-conformable combination the objective describes, expressed as two measurable quantities. Note that the energy absorption efficiency definition is specified by equation rather than described, so use that equation and cite it.
The 1 to 50 joule impact range spans a wide dynamic regime, from a light bump to a substantial blunt impact. Fifty joules is in the neighborhood of helmet impact test energies, and 1 joule probes the low-strain fluid-like regime. Testing across both is how you demonstrate the strain-dependent transition.
And the solid-to-fluid transition loads, in-plane and out-of-plane, are a named Phase I output to be estimated through both simulation and initial experiment. That transition threshold is the single most characteristic number of this material class, and it is what a designer would tune.
Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes
Phase II
Design and demonstrate architected structures with variable energy dissipating properties with respect to spatial position. Teams may consider multi-material or variable grain and linkage architectures to achieve the tunable behaviors.
Process a minimum of 20 specimens in the geometrical configurations provided for Phase I and develop test techniques to assess the response of structures whose energy dissipation behaviors vary spatially.
Simulate the mechanical behaviors of the architected structures in response to compressive, tensile, shear, and impact loads. Determine loads required to initiate flexible-rigid transitions at various spatial positions within the structure.
Work with Army Research Laboratory scientists to design, manufacture, and deliver test specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL.
Develop commercial and outreach plans to market the technology for civilian and defense markets, and develop plans to scale manufacturing.
Two things to plan for now. Spatial variation is the Phase II leap, and the topic names two routes: multi-material builds, or variable grain and linkage architectures within a single material. The second is more manufacturable in a single additive build and is arguably the more elegant answer.
And delivering specimens to ARL for advanced dynamic mechanical testing is a concrete transition step with a named laboratory. Your specimens will be tested by someone else on their equipment, which argues for conservative claims, well-documented specimen fabrication, and enough specimen count to send parts away. Note that Phase II asks for a minimum of 20 specimens partly for that reason.
Note also that developing test techniques to assess spatially varying response is itself a Phase II deliverable. Standard mechanical test methods assume a homogeneous specimen, and a structure whose properties vary across its area needs new measurement approaches. That is a real research contribution and it is easy to underplan.
Phase III
The discovery of polycatenated mechanical metamaterials has introduced a new family of structures that may display both solid-like and fluid-like behaviors. The additional degrees of freedom associated with granular elements linked to nearest neighbors may enable a variety of new civilian and defense technologies, for example Soldier and vehicle protection, sports equipment, law enforcement, and lightweight concepts for dissipating vibrational energy.
Phase III efforts shall include outreach efforts based on market research to leverage opportunities in both civilian and defense markets. Implement plans to rapidly modify designs for specific customer needs. In addition, teams shall implement plans to scale manufacturing.
The commercial case here is unusually strong for a defense materials topic, because the helmet pad geometry the topic specifies is shared with sports equipment. Football, cycling, hockey, and motorsport helmet padding is a large existing market with active regulatory pressure on impact performance and a demonstrated willingness to pay for better protection. Law enforcement and industrial protective equipment follow the same path.
The vibrational energy dissipation application is a different and broader market, covering equipment mounts, electronics isolation, and machinery, and it exploits the same small-strain fluid-like behavior from a different direction.
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 design and science against processing and testing. The research institution owns the mechanics: the simulation of force chain formation and element reorganization, the parametric design of element geometry and nearest neighbor spacing, the theory of the solid-to-fluid transition, and the rheological characterization, since granular and architected material mechanics is where that expertise lives. The small business owns the manufacturing and evaluation: additive process development, specimen fabrication at count, impact and compression test execution against legacy foam baselines, the ARL specimen delivery relationship, and manufacturing scale-up.
Because the enabling discovery is a 2025 Science paper and the field is very new, the institution's contribution is substantive. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the additive equipment and mechanical test capability, and the tasks. Note that the topic also expects teams to work alongside Army scientists and engineers from Phase I onward, so the government is a third participant in the technical work rather than only a customer.
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 scale-up consulting is the standout use, since Phase II requires plans to scale manufacturing and Phase III requires implementing them, and additive manufacturing of interlinked structures at production volume is a genuine process engineering problem. Commercial market development is a close second, given the strong sports equipment and protective equipment adjacency the topic identifies.
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
Four, and they are exceptionally well chosen. Two are the enabling discovery, one is the Army baseline, and one supplies the figure of merit you are asked to maximize.
Staniszeski, J., and colleagues, "Improved Low-Velocity Impact Performance of the Advanced Combat Helmet at 17 ft/s through Optimization of Pad Material Response," ARL-TR-8808, September 2019. This is the Army Research Laboratory report on helmet pad optimization, and it is almost certainly where the 82 by 87 by 19.5 millimeter specimen geometry and the legacy foam pad comparison come from. Read it first, because it defines the incumbent you must beat and the test conditions the Army uses.
Zhou, W., and colleagues, "3D polycatenated architected materials," Science 387:6731, 269 to 277, 2025. This is the discovery paper the whole topic rests on. Read it closely, because the element geometries, linkage topologies, and the solid-to-fluid transition behavior it reports are your starting design space.
Liu, T., and colleagues, "3D self-locking granular metamaterial," Science 12(15), 2026. Self-locking is the force chain mechanism under severe load, viewed from the granular materials side.
Clough, E., and colleagues, "Elastomeric Microlattice Impact Attenuators," Matter 1, 1519 to 1531, 2019. This is the reference whose Equation 1 defines the energy absorption efficiency you are asked to maximize. You must have this paper, because the Phase I requirement cites its equation by number rather than restating it.
The set tells you exactly how to write. Ground the design space in Zhou 2025, use Clough 2019 for the figure of merit, and benchmark against the foam pads characterized in the ARL report. A proposal that does those three things is answering the topic in its own terms. A proposal that does not have the Clough equation right has failed a stated requirement.
Note that the Liu citation as printed lists Science with volume 12(15) and a 2026 date, which does not match Science's volume numbering. If you cite it yourself, verify the bibliographic details rather than copying them forward.
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-NV010?
OSW26TZ06-NV010 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Architected Energy Dissipation Structures With Tunable Rigid-Flexible Behaviors," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop and demonstrate architected energy dissipation structures with rigid responsiveness at large tensile, compressive, and shear strains, but capable of conformability to surfaces of complex topographies and other fluid-like behaviors in response to small strains.
What are polycatenated architected materials?
A recently introduced family of energy dissipating structures, essentially 3D chainmail realized through additive manufacturing, that may display both solid-like and fluid-like behaviors. They derive their mechanical behaviors not from intrinsic material properties but from the geometric arrangement of internal solid elements such as rings or cage-like particles interconnected into 3D networks. They consist entirely of solid linkages, with the fluid-like response arising purely from geometry.
What are the two mechanisms at work?
Under severe loading, rigid elements may align and develop complex force chains that exhibit high strength, offering protection mechanisms not possible through conventional flexible options. Under gentler loading, elements may reorganize, slide, or rotate, which provides energy dissipation and conformability. The first depends on how elements interlock when aligned; the second depends on linkage clearance and friction.
What is the Phase I specimen geometry?
An approximate rectangular configuration of 82 mm by 87 mm by 19.5 mm thickness. The topic states this geometry approximates a commonly tested helmet pad configuration and will allow teams to make comparisons to known technologies.
What conformability is required?
Architected sheets shall display conformability to various geometries including features with radii of curvature ranging from approximately 0.5 to 3.0 centimeters. Conforming to a 5 millimeter radius with a 19.5 millimeter thick structure is demanding and directly constrains element size and linkage clearance.
What are the mechanical objectives?
Two, and they pull against each other productively. The through-thickness compression response should seek to maximize energy absorption efficiency as described in Equation 1 of the cited Clough reference. Simultaneously, the material should minimize shear stiffness in the thickness direction. Compression stiffness with shear compliance in the same structure is the rigid-plus-conformable requirement expressed measurably.
What is Equation 1 and where do I find it?
It defines energy absorption efficiency and appears in Clough and colleagues, "Elastomeric Microlattice Impact Attenuators," Matter 1, 1519 to 1531, 2019. The Phase I requirement cites it by number without restating it, so you need that paper. Reproduce the equation, state your predicted value, and compare against the legacy foam baseline.
How many specimens and what testing does Phase I require?
A minimum of 10 test specimens, fabricated using advanced processing techniques such as additive manufacturing. Impact tests across the range of 1 to 50 joules using legacy foam pads as a comparison. Plus computer simulations and initial experimental mechanical characterization to estimate in-plane and out-of-plane loads required to initiate solid-to-fluid transitions.
What design variables should I investigate?
Element and linkage materials, geometries, and nearest neighbor spacings, to design structures that perform optimally for various static and dynamic loading conditions. The topic names four characterization modes: tensile, compression, impact, and rheology.
Why does the topic list rheology?
Because a material with genuinely fluid-like small-strain behavior has measurable rheological properties, and rheological characterization is how you quantify the conformability side rather than asserting it. It is the unusual entry in the list and most proposals will skip it.
What does Phase II require?
Design and demonstrate architected structures with energy dissipating properties that vary with spatial position, considering multi-material or variable grain and linkage architectures. Process a minimum of 20 specimens in the Phase I geometry, and develop test techniques to assess spatially varying response. Simulate behavior under compressive, tensile, shear, and impact loads, and determine loads required to initiate flexible-rigid transitions at various spatial positions. Work with Army Research Laboratory scientists to design, manufacture, and deliver test specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL. And develop commercial and outreach plans plus plans to scale manufacturing.
Do I work directly with the Army?
Yes. The topic states that teams will be expected to work alongside Army scientists and engineers to guide the design, manufacturing, and testing of materials, and Phase II specifically requires working with Army Research Laboratory scientists and delivering specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL.
What are the Phase III applications?
Soldier and vehicle protection, sports equipment, law enforcement, and lightweight concepts for dissipating vibrational energy. Phase III efforts shall include outreach based on market research in both civilian and defense markets, plans to rapidly modify designs for specific customer needs, and implementation of manufacturing scale-up plans.
What is the strongest commercial market?
Sports equipment padding is the closest adjacency, since the specified specimen geometry is a helmet pad and football, cycling, hockey, and motorsport padding is a large existing market with regulatory pressure on impact performance. Law enforcement and industrial protective equipment follow the same path, and vibrational energy dissipation for equipment mounts and electronics isolation is a separate broader market.
Why is the ARL helmet pad report important?
Staniszeski and colleagues, ARL-TR-8808, is the Army Research Laboratory report on improving Advanced Combat Helmet low-velocity impact performance through pad material response optimization. It is almost certainly the source of the specimen geometry and the legacy foam comparison, and it defines the Army's own test conditions and the incumbent's performance.
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
Get the Clough Equation 1 right. The Phase I requirement says the through-thickness compression response should seek to maximize energy absorption efficiency as described in Equation 1 of that reference, citing the equation by number without restating it. Reproduce it in your proposal, state your predicted value, and compare against the legacy foam baseline. Getting this wrong or omitting it fails a stated requirement.
Read the ARL helmet pad report before designing. Staniszeski and colleagues, ARL-TR-8808, is where the specimen geometry and the foam comparison almost certainly come from, and it defines the Army's own test conditions and the performance of the incumbent. Designing against it rather than against generic foam is the difference between a proposal aimed at this topic and one aimed at metamaterials generally.
Solve the 0.5 centimeter radius problem early. Conforming to a 5 millimeter radius of curvature with a 19.5 millimeter thick architected structure is a demanding bend, and it directly constrains element size, linkage clearance, and the number of layers through the thickness. It may well be the binding constraint on your architecture, so work the geometry before you write.
Frame the two mechanical objectives as one design problem. Maximize energy absorption efficiency in through-thickness compression while minimizing shear stiffness in the thickness direction. That combination is the rigid-plus-conformable requirement expressed measurably, and showing how your element geometry and linkage clearance achieve both is the core technical argument.
Report the solid-to-fluid transition loads as your headline number. In-plane and out-of-plane loads required to initiate the transition are a named Phase I output, they are the most characteristic property of this material class, and they are what a protection designer would tune. Estimate them by simulation and confirm by initial experiment, as the topic asks.
Include rheology, because the topic named it. Tensile, compression, impact, and rheology are the four listed characterization modes, and rheology is the unusual one. A material with genuinely fluid-like small-strain behavior has measurable rheological properties, and measuring them is how you quantify conformability rather than asserting it. Most proposals will skip it.
Distinguish the two mechanisms explicitly. Force chain formation under severe load gives strength and depends on how elements interlock when they align. Element reorganization, sliding, and rotation gives dissipation and conformability and depends on clearance and friction. Treating them as one phenomenon loses the design insight that makes this material class interesting.
Plan the ARL collaboration from Phase I. The topic expects teams to work alongside Army scientists and engineers in Phase I and to work with ARL scientists in Phase II to design, manufacture, and deliver specimens for advanced dynamic mechanical testing at ARL. Naming a contact or a prior relationship, if you have one, is worth real credibility, and knowing ARL's test capabilities shapes how you fabricate.
Fabricate more than the minimum. Ten specimens is the Phase I floor and 20 is the Phase II floor, but impact testing across 1 to 50 joules with a foam comparison, plus specimens delivered to ARL, consumes parts. Additive manufacturing makes extra specimens cheap. Budget generously and say so.
Think about spatial variation in Phase I even though it is a Phase II task. Variable grain and linkage architectures within a single build are more manufacturable than multi-material approaches, and sketching that path in your preliminary Phase II Plan shows you understand where the program is going.
Lead the commercial case with sports equipment. The specified geometry is a helmet pad, and football, cycling, hockey, and motorsport padding is a large existing market with regulatory pressure on impact performance and demonstrated willingness to pay. That is a stronger and more immediate commercialization story than defense procurement alone, and the topic names sports equipment itself.
Address manufacturing scale honestly. Additive manufacturing of interlinked, non-assembled structures is elegant at specimen scale and challenging at production volume, and Phase II requires plans to scale it while Phase III requires implementing them. Build rate, post-processing of unfused powder or resin trapped in linkages, and inspection of internal linkages are the real issues.
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.
