Innovation Funding Database
Choose Your Area of Innovation:
Advanced Materials & Manufacturing
Aerospace & Spacetech
Agtech & Foodtech
Artificial Intelligence & Machines Learning
Biotech
Cleantech & Climatetech
Cybersecurity
Defensetech & Dual-Use Tech
eXtended Reality
Healthtech
Medtech
Other Tech
Quantum & Photonics
Robotics & Autonomous Systems
USSOCOM SBIR SOC26BZ06-DV006: RIPTIDE, Resilient Integrated Photonic Transport in Denied Environments
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $1.5m
Description: Complete guide to USSOCOM SBIR Direct to Phase II topic SOC26BZ06-DV006, RIPTIDE resilient photonic crosslinks for GPS-denied Group 3 UAS formations. Up to $1.5M over 18 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
SOC26BZ06-DV006, called RIPTIDE, is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic from United States Special Operations Command under the FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. USSOCOM wants a laser crosslink payload small enough for a Group 3 unmanned aircraft that simultaneously carries data, transfers time, finds direction, and measures range, so that a chain of eight to twelve aircraft spanning 200 to 300 nautical miles can navigate without GPS. The SBIR award maximum is $1,500,000 not to exceed, with up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance for an overall maximum of $1,525,000, over a period of performance not to exceed 18 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The technical requirement is stated precisely and it is demanding. The swarm shall maintain a navigation accuracy of 8 to 11 meters circular error probable, or better, at the most distant node of a distributed formation spanning 200 to 300 nautical miles over feature-sparse terrain, with the formation anchored to land-based references at one end and extending beyond visual navigation range at the other.
Before any of the technology, understand that USSOCOM disqualifies proposals for more reasons than any other component in this cycle, and several of those reasons have nothing to do with technical merit. A Government Letter of Support makes your proposal non-responsive. Subcontractor costs without copies of the subcontract agreements make it non-responsive. A consultant without an agreement letter makes it non-responsive. A missing Feasibility Appendix, a price above the ceiling, or a work share below 50 percent by an explicit formula all stop the evaluation. Those are covered in their own section below, and they deserve reading before you write a word.
One more thing to notice early. The Phase I feasibility study, which is prior work you must already have completed, is described as culminating in fabrication of a prototype payload and demonstration of a single optical flight link validating acquisition, precision tracking, and single-link state exchange. That is not a paper study. If you have not flown an optical link, read that sentence carefully before committing.
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 USSOCOM SBIR topic SOC26BZ06-DV006?
SOC26BZ06-DV006, called RIPTIDE, is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic titled "Resilient Integrated Photonic Transport in Denied Environments," released under the USSOCOM FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is applied research toward a capability providing resilient, jam-resistant communications and cooperative navigation for distributed Group 3 UAS formations operating in GPS-denied environments across a theater-scale formation spanning 200 to 300 nautical miles over feature-sparse terrain.
How much funding is available?
The SBIR award maximum is not to exceed $1,500,000, with TABA not to exceed $25,000, for an overall award maximum not to exceed $1,525,000, over a period of performance not to exceed 18 months. Any proposal above the price limit will not be evaluated or considered for award.
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.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal?
No. The USSOCOM instructions cover Direct to Phase II proposals only, and the topics are accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only.
How long can my technical volume be?
Not to exceed 10 pages. USSOCOM will only evaluate the first 10 pages; additional pages will not be considered or evaluated. Note that the Feasibility Appendix in Volume 5 has no minimum or maximum page limitation, which is the most important structural fact about writing this proposal.
Will a Government Letter of Support help my proposal?
The opposite. USSOCOM prohibits the inclusion of a Government Letter of Support, and any proposal response that includes one will be deemed non-responsive, meaning disqualified. This inverts what several other components in this cycle encourage.
What makes a proposal non-responsive?
Several things independent of technical merit. Including a Government Letter of Support. Including subcontractor costs without copies of the subcontract agreements. Proposing consultants without a separate agreement letter for each. Missing the Technical Volume, the Cost Volume, or the Feasibility Appendix. Exceeding the maximum price in Table 1. And a work share below 50 percent by USSOCOM's stated calculation.
How is the 50 percent work share calculated?
USSOCOM divides the overall price submitted or negotiated, minus the total cost of subcontractors and consultants with applied indirects, by the total price of the proposal. The resulting offeror percentage must be 50 percent or higher, and if it is lower the proposal will not be evaluated. Note separately that consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements together may not exceed one-half of the total contract price unless approved in writing by the Agreements Officer.
What must my feasibility documentation show?
That the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of the objectives described have been met, with potential commercial applications, documented through technical reports, test data, prototype designs and models, and performance goals and results. The work must have been performed and be owned, meaning data rights, by the offeror or the Principal Investigator. The Feasibility Appendix is evaluated first, and USSOCOM will not continue evaluating the proposal if feasibility is not established or if the work was not substantially performed by the offeror or the PI.
What specifically should the feasibility study have covered?
Eight things. Define the system architecture. Select the platform configuration. Model navigation performance across the full 200 to 300 nautical-mile multi-hop relay geometry including error propagation, time-transfer degradation, and observability across all hops. Study payload integration on a representative Group 3 UAS. Analyze attitude sensor bias instability. Trade front-end optics magnification against coarse pointer precision. And culminate in fabrication of a prototype payload and demonstration of a single optical flight link validating acquisition, precision tracking, and single-link state exchange.
Does the feasibility study really require a flight demonstration?
That is what the topic says: the study should culminate in fabrication of a prototype payload and demonstration of a single optical flight link. It is described as a Technology Readiness Level 3 study, which is normally analytical and experimental proof of concept rather than flight demonstration, so the label and the substance sit oddly together. The substance is what an evaluator will look for. If your prior work is ground-to-ground or analytical only, present exactly what you have and what it demonstrates rather than letting an evaluator find the gap.
What is the navigation accuracy requirement?
The swarm shall maintain 8 to 11 meters circular error probable, or better, at the most distant node of a formation spanning 200 to 300 nautical miles over feature-sparse terrain, anchored to land-based references at one end and extending beyond visual navigation range at the other. The requirement is defined at the scale of the full swarm, and the formation-level requirement takes precedence over any single link.
What relay geometry is expected?
Approximately 8 to 12 optical hops with per-hop ranges of 20 to 30 nautical miles is given as representative. Proposers may trade hop count against per-hop range, provided the architecture closes the full formation span and meets the formation-level CEP requirement.
What are the three architectural obligations?
Maintain a shared, formation-wide navigation solution across all nodes in the chain. Bound error growth across successive hops such that accumulated drift at the seaward edge remains within the formation-level accuracy requirement. And preserve formation coherence under the loss of individual nodes or links.
What four functions must each crosslink provide?
Simultaneously: high-capacity coherent optical communications with low probability of intercept and detection, two-way precision time transfer, precision optical direction finding, and ranging. Adjacent nodes exchange state vectors, time-transfer references, optical angle measurements, range measurements, and navigation corrections, and a distributed estimator fuses these with local inertial data.
What are the pointing and acquisition targets?
Wide-field acquisition sensing at tens of microradians of precision after approximately 1 second of integration, combined with high-bandwidth photonic beam steering and coherent detection for navigation-grade closed-loop tracking at sub-microradian angular resolution in less than 1 millisecond. Candidate payloads should provide broad angular coverage within Group 3 UAS SWaP constraints, including multi-sector optical apertures.
Why does the topic emphasize atmospheric ducting?
Because it appears three times: as a robustness condition in the feasibility attributes, and in Phase II as ducting effects on pointing-error bias and navigation state estimation. Over water at low altitude, ducting bends the optical path and biases apparent angle, which corrupts direction finding in a way that is correlated across a chain rather than random. That is the mechanism most likely to break a naive multi-hop error budget.
What does Phase II require?
Develop, install, and demonstrate a prototype system on a representative Group 3 UAS formation, extending from one link to multiple cooperating assets. Demonstrate a feature-rich-to-feature-sparse relay chain representative of a 200 to 300 nautical-mile formation, extend optical link range toward 20 to 30 nautical miles, investigate atmospheric ducting effects on pointing-error bias and navigation state estimation, validate cooperative navigation under degraded external-reference conditions, and characterize multi-hop distributed operation across multiple assets. Measured results will be scaled against the 8 to 11 meter CEP objective.
Do I have to fly the full formation in Phase II?
No. The measured results will be scaled against the formation-level objective, which means you demonstrate enough of the chain, at enough range, to support a scaled prediction. That makes the scaling methodology itself a deliverable, and a proposal promising the full 300 nautical mile formation on $1.5 million in 18 months is not credible.
What contract instrument will be used?
A fixed price, level of effort type, Other Transactions Agreement issued in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4022. Successful completion of the prototype may result in a follow-on production OTA or contract, and follow-on production awards may be FAR-based contracts or Other Transactions. The OTA template is completed only by offerors selected for award.
How is prototype success defined?
Successful completion of the prototype is defined as meeting one or more threshold requirements. On a topic with many stated parameters, that is a materially generous definition and it is worth understanding as you decide which thresholds to commit to.
Is this topic ITAR restricted, and what does that mean for foreign nationals?
Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774, and offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and assigned SOW tasks. More consequentially, USSOCOM states that firms employing foreign nationals to work on USSOCOM ITAR topics must possess an export license to receive a USSOCOM SBIR contract. That is a possession requirement, and export licenses take months.
Can I talk to the topic author?
No. USSOCOM does not allow direct communication with the topic authors, which differs from the DoW SBIR/STTR Program BAA instructions. All technical questions must go through DSIP Topic Q&A, and all questions and answers will be released to the general public. Only proposal preparation questions go to sbir@socom.mil, with the topic number in the subject line. Physical site visits are not permitted during the Pre-release and Open Periods.
What questions will USSOCOM not answer?
Programmatic questions such as providing the technical point of contact, the number of contracts to be awarded, the source of funding, or transition strategy.
Is there any interactive opportunity?
Yes. The USSOCOM SBIR/STTR Program Office will host a virtual USSOCOM Industry Day to specify requirements and stimulate small business and research institute partnership building, with date and time information at events.sofwerx.org.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
Yes. Information contained in the CCR will be considered by USSOCOM during proposal evaluations. Note the two-step mechanic: complete and certify it at sbir.gov, then have the Firm Admin upload it to Volume 4 in the Firm Information section of DSIP. That administrative dependency is a common cause of last-minute failures.
What goes in Volume 5?
Four USSOCOM items beyond the DoW BAA requirements. The Feasibility Study, with no page limit. A completed Section K, Representations, Certifications, and other statements of Offerors, which does not count toward the page limit and is where foreign national involvement is identified. Key Personnel resumes. And detailed TABA request documentation if TABA is requested.
What is the Statement of Objectives and what do I do with it?
The SOO and the Contract Data Requirements List are provided on DSIP and are meant to help you consider the required goals, scope, and deliverables. Your technical proposal shall include a non-proprietary Statement of Work with planned tasks and descriptions meeting the SOO goals. Do not upload the whole SOO as your SOW. Exceptions to the requirements need to be identified and explained. If selected, you will submit a separate non-proprietary SOW following the SOO format as Attachment 3, plus company information and expected milestones as Attachment 1.
What are the TABA rules?
Up to $25,000 for the initial Phase II award and up to an additional $25,000 for one sequential Phase II award, for $50,000 total per Phase II for a topic. TABA must fit within the maximum base value in Table 1 and its value must be in the Cost Volume. It cannot include profit or fee by the proposing small business, must be inclusive of provider indirects, and cannot be used in your G&A calculation. Fifty percent is provided at award and 50 percent upon approval of the final TABA report and provider invoices, and a report is required at the end of the base period. Five documentation items are required, and omitting any means denial. Five arrangements are prohibited, including proposing yourself, an affiliate, an investor, or an existing subcontractor or consultant as the provider.
When will I hear back, and can I get feedback?
Within 90 calendar days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, by email to the Corporate Official via DSIP. Non-responsive proposals are also notified. A non-selected offeror may make a written request to the Contracting Officer within 30 calendar days of receipt of notification for informal feedback, which the Contracting Officer will provide rather than a formal debriefing.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2 with self-assessment.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Settle the export license question before anything else. If you employ foreign nationals who will work on this ITAR topic, USSOCOM requires that you possess an export license to receive the award. That is possession, not disclosure, and licenses are not quick. On a topic where optical and photonics talent is internationally sourced, this is the most likely reason a technically strong firm cannot take the award.
Remove any Government Letter of Support. It is a disqualifier, it contradicts what other components encourage, and it is the kind of thing that survives in a proposal template reused from another agency.
Put the real analysis in the Feasibility Appendix, not the technical volume. Ten pages against unlimited pages is the structural fact that should drive your whole writing plan. The multi-hop error budget, the link budgets, the trade study across all viable design options, the flown single-link evidence, the attitude bias analysis, and the optics magnification trade all belong in the appendix, which is also evaluated first as a gate. The technical volume is for the Phase II plan and the non-proprietary Statement of Work.
Build the error budget across hops, with the correlation structure stated. Eight to eleven meters CEP at the far end of a twelve-hop chain is the requirement, and whether it closes depends entirely on whether per-hop errors are independent or share a common bias. That is why ducting matters. Presenting a per-hop budget, a correlation assumption, and the resulting formation-level number is the single most persuasive thing you can do, and it directly answers the obligation to bound error growth across successive hops.
Make the hop count versus per-hop range trade explicitly. The topic permits it and it is a real design lever: fewer longer hops reduce accumulated terms but demand more link margin, larger apertures, and tighter pointing at range, while more shorter hops relax the optics and stress the estimator. Show both ends of the trade and defend your choice.
Treat ducting as your differentiator. It is named three times, no reference is supplied for it, and it is the mechanism most likely to invalidate a naive error budget over water. Bring the maritime propagation and evaporation duct literature yourself and show how your architecture detects or bounds a correlated pointing bias. Most proposals will list ducting as a risk and move on.
Do not lead with a superb single terminal. The topic says explicitly that the formation-level requirement takes precedence over any single link. A proposal organized around terminal specifications, however good, is answering a question USSOCOM told you was subordinate. Organize around the formation and let the terminal follow.
Justify your SWaP against Group 3 numerically. Existing free-space optical terminals often exceeding Group 3 constraints is named as one of the three reasons the capability does not exist. Mass, volume, prime power, and thermal dissipation, against a stated aircraft, is the answer. And if you propose a gimbal rather than multi-sector apertures with photonic steering, you owe a strong SWaP argument, because the topic points toward the latter.
Map your architecture onto the four reference pillars. Link and atmosphere from Kaushal and Trichili, acquisition and pointing from Kaymak and Bashir, alternative PNT from the NAVIGATION work, and distributed estimation from Ou. Every reference carries a Government annotation explaining its relevance, which is effectively the reviewer's mental model handed to you. Use their vocabulary.
Get subcontract agreements and consultant letters executed early. Missing either is non-responsive, not merely weak. On a topic likely requiring an optical terminal specialist, a beam steering supplier, and a UAS integrator, that is several agreements with statements of work and detailed cost proposals to have in hand by October 21.
Run the 50 percent formula yourself. USSOCOM published the arithmetic, subcontractor and consultant costs are counted with applied indirects, and falling below stops the evaluation. Also watch the separate one-half ceiling on consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and subcontracts combined, which is where flight range and aircraft access costs land.
Lock down aircraft and range access now. Eighteen months to install and demonstrate on a representative Group 3 UAS formation, over a feature-rich to feature-sparse terrain transition, with multi-hop operation, means platform and range access are on your critical path from award. Naming them converts a plan into a commitment.
State your Phase II demonstration configuration and scaling methodology. Results will be scaled against the formation-level objective, so how many aircraft, at what ranges, over what terrain, and by what analysis you extrapolate is the deliverable. Being explicit here is more credible than promising the full formation.
Ask public questions carefully. All Topic Q&A questions and answers are released to the general public and there is no back channel. Ask about ambiguities in the requirement; do not reveal your architecture in a question.
Attend the Industry Day. It is the only interactive opportunity, its stated purpose includes stimulating small business and research institute partnership building, and this topic is one where the winning team is likely a terminal firm plus an integrator.
Complete and certify the CCR early. It is evaluated by USSOCOM, and the mechanic requires certifying on sbir.gov and then a specific Firm Admin uploading to DSIP. That dependency has ended more submissions than most technical problems.
OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV010: Architected Energy Dissipation Structures With Tunable Rigid-Flexible Behaviors
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $250k
Description: Complete guide to OSW Basic Research STTR Phase I topic OSW26TZ06-NV010, polycatenated architected materials for conformable Soldier protection. Up to $250,000 over 12 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
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.
OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV009: Expeditionary Solar Refinery for Direct Synthesis of Methanol Feedstock from Water and Air
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $250k
Description: Complete guide to OSW Basic Research STTR Phase I topic OSW26TZ06-NV009, expeditionary solar refinery making methanol from water and air. Up to $250,000 over 12 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26TZ06-NV009 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The ask is a portable device that takes sunlight, water, and air, and makes fuel. Specifically a system with solar, water, and carbon dioxide inputs that generates greater than 66 percent methanol in water at a rate of half a liter per hour, weighing under 90 pounds. 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 operational logic is a contested logistics argument. Modern warfare tactics have demonstrated the need to shift toward small, specialized, dismounted tactical units which can operate free from the supply line. Systems enabling Soldier power sustainment are essential to facilitate zero-resupply operations amid increasing energy requirements on the battlefield.
Three design constraints follow from that framing and they are unusual. The energy source needs to impart minimal cognitive load on the warfighters, acting passively until put into use. It should be invisible to modern uncrewed aircraft mounted sensors, meaning infrared detection, so heat emissions must keep the system near ambient to an IR camera. And the whole thing must fit inside 90 pounds and half a cubic meter.
The performance target is precise enough to design against: a single unit should meet the daily power requirements of up to four dismounted Soldiers, feeding direct or reformed methanol fuel cell systems including the Honey-Badger 20/50W PEM Power Generator, from a 0.5 liter potable water input cartridge equivalent to a standard water bottle.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV009
Title: Expeditionary Solar Refinery for Direct Synthesis of Methanol Feedstock from Water and Air
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 Areas: Advanced Materials, Renewable Energy Generation and Storage, Sustainment and Logistics
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
Inputs: solar energy, concentrated or ambient; water, potable or otherwise; and carbon dioxide, ambient or concentrated. These are the only chemical inputs
Output: greater than or equal to 66 percent methanol in water, immediately usable in direct or reformed fuel cell systems
Production rate: at least 0.5 liters of methanol per hour under direct fresh water access, ambient CO2, and clear weather
Weight limit: total system weight should not exceed 90 pounds, equivalent to a typical T6 battery
Volume limit: dimensions should not exceed 0.5 cubic meters
Thermal signature: heat emissions should be minimal such that the system remains near ambient to infrared cameras
Input cartridge: 0.5 liter, approximately 16.9 ounces of potable water, equivalent to a standard plastic water bottle volume
Named fuel cell: the Honey-Badger 20/50W PEM Power Generator
Deployment modes: operable in remote, austere locations without a direct Soldier interface, placed on the ground or secured to a light tactical off-road vehicle such as the Flyer 60
Power sourcing: ideally the system can also be directly powered by alternative sources such as military standard generators or wind
Phase II end state: Technology Readiness Level 6, with demonstration and delivery to a DoW transition partner required
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: photocatalysis, water-splitting, hydrogen, nanomaterial, semiconductor, fuel, portable
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
Generate a minimally viable component system with solar, water, and carbon dioxide inputs which generates greater than 66 percent methanol in water fuel at a rate of 0.5 liters per hour with a total system weight under 90 pounds.
Three numbers, all specific: 66 percent concentration, half a liter per hour, 90 pounds. Note that the objective calls for a minimally viable component system, not a product. Phase I is feasibility concepts.
The operational problem
Modern warfare tactics have demonstrated the need to shift toward small, specialized, dismounted tactical units which can operate free from the supply line. Systems enabling Soldier power sustainment are essential to facilitate zero-resupply operations amid increasing energy requirements on the battlefield.
To accomplish this demand, we need investments to capitalize on energy sources that can be replenished in austere environments, whether to directly power devices or charge batteries.
Further, this energy source needs to impart minimal cognitive load on the warfighters, acting passively until put into use.
Finally, it should be invisible to modern uncrewed aircraft mounted sensors, for example infrared detection.
A technology that enables continuous methanol fuel cell usage from just sunlight, water, and atmospheric gases can accomplish these goals for uninterrupted power in contested logistics environments.
Read the three non-performance requirements carefully, because they are the ones most proposals will neglect. Minimal cognitive load and passive operation until put into use means the device cannot need tending, monitoring, or intervention. Invisibility to infrared means the thermal design is a signature problem, not just an efficiency problem. And both of those constrain the chemistry, because an exothermic process with active thermal management is both hot and attention-demanding.
Why the Department believes this is now possible
The motivation for this topic has arisen from recent research that showed efficient utilization of locally available carbon resources and the selective synthesis of liquid fuels under austere conditions.
In one study, a solar-driven artificial photosynthesis platform was demonstrated that directly converts carbon dioxide and water into methanol, enabling onsite fuel generation without the high temperatures, pressures, and complex infrastructure required by conventional syngas-based processes.
In a complementary effort, a pathway was developed for converting stranded natural gas and methane emissions into transportable liquid fuel using only sunlight and water, overcoming long-standing challenges associated with methane activation and overoxidation.
Together, these advances establish scalable photocatalytic technologies for producing methanol from diverse carbon feedstocks, providing a foundation for expeditionary fuel manufacturing with reduced logistics burdens and enhanced energy resilience for distributed military operations.
The key claim is the avoidance of the conventional route. Industrial methanol comes from syngas at high temperature and pressure with substantial infrastructure. A photocatalytic route runs near ambient, which is exactly what makes a 90-pound portable version conceivable and what makes the low thermal signature achievable.
The system requirements in detail
Based on these advances, the proposed system will leverage solar, concentrated or ambient, energetic inputs along with water, potable or otherwise, and carbon dioxide, ambient or concentrated, as the only chemical inputs to generate methanol fuel capable of meeting the daily power requirements of up to 4 Soldiers.
This approach will produce greater than or equal to 66 percent methanol in water that is immediately available for use with direct or reformed fuel cell systems including the Honey-Badger 20/50W PEM Power Generator.
The system will be operable in remote, austere locations without a direct Soldier interface, while placed on the ground, or while secured to a light tactical off-road vehicle, for example a Flyer 60.
Operation with direct access to fresh water, ambient CO2, and clear weather conditions should generate at least 0.5 liters of methanol per hour, with increased efficiency if concentrated CO2 sources are available.
The total system weight should not exceed 90 pounds, equivalent to a typical T6 battery, nor the dimensions exceed 0.5 cubic meters.
Heat emissions from the system should be minimal such that the system remains near ambient to infrared cameras.
The system will be designed with a 0.5 liter input cartridge containing potable water, equivalent to a standard plastic water bottle volume, which will be converted into a 66 percent methanol and 33 percent water fuel stream.
Ideally, the system can also be directly powered by alternative sources, for example military standard generators or wind.
Achieving the desired production rate while remaining lightweight and utilizing onboard vehicle power will require an innovative approach.
The arithmetic worth checking before you propose
Two observations that a serious proposer should work through carefully.
Half a liter of methanol per hour from a half-liter water cartridge is a specific stoichiometric statement. Producing methanol from CO2 and water consumes water as the hydrogen source, and the output is specified as 66 percent methanol with 33 percent water, so the mass and mole balance between the input cartridge, the ambient CO2 capture rate, and the output stream is the first calculation to do. The topic asks for heat and mass balance calculations in Phase I for exactly this reason.
Half a liter per hour of methanol is a substantial energy flux. Methanol has a lower heating value around 20 megajoules per kilogram and a density near 0.79 kilograms per liter, so half a liter per hour is on the order of two kilowatts of chemical energy. Even at generous solar-to-fuel efficiency, the required solar collection area is well beyond what fits in 0.5 cubic meters unless the system deploys a much larger collector or the intended duty cycle differs from continuous operation.
That tension is worth raising through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes on October 7. It may be that concentrated solar with a deployable collector is intended, or that the rate applies to a burst rather than sustained operation, or that alternative power sourcing is expected to carry most of the load. The topic does say the system can ideally be directly powered by alternative sources such as military standard generators or wind, and it notes that achieving the desired production rate while remaining lightweight and utilizing onboard vehicle power will require an innovative approach, which hints that vehicle power is part of the answer.
Handle it transparently. Do the energy balance, state your assumptions about solar input and collector area, show what rate closes under what conditions, and say where you are interpreting the requirement. A proposal that presents the arithmetic honestly and proposes a defensible operating envelope is far stronger than one that asserts the number without showing it could work.
One small inconsistency in the source text
The description specifies a 0.5 liter input cartridge described as 16.9 ounces, and the Phase III section refers to a standard 16.8 ounce plastic water bottle. The difference is immaterial, but if you quote the figure, note that the document uses both.
The Phase III section also refers to on-site synthesis at lower temperatures stated as greater than 200 degrees C, which reads as a typographical inversion, since the argument is that photocatalysis operates below conventional syngas temperatures rather than above them. The intended meaning is almost certainly less than 200 degrees C.
Phase I Requirements
Create feasibility concepts for a methanol generation system with solar, water, and carbon dioxide inputs which generates greater than 66 percent methanol in water fuel at a rate of 0.5 liters per hour and a total system weight under 90 pounds.
Feasibility will be established by light harvesting toward methanol synthesis, catalytic or otherwise, and kinetics, turnover, and selectivity evaluation, and analytical modeling to include engineering diagrams, heat and mass balance calculations, and computer-aided design models of possible prototype architectures.
The final product is a Phase II development plan with performance goals and key technical milestones that address technical risk reduction.
Reading this scope
Phase I is concepts, chemistry evaluation, and analytical modeling. Not a working refinery.
Three chemistry deliverables are named: light harvesting toward methanol synthesis, and kinetics, turnover, and selectivity evaluation. Selectivity is the one to emphasize. CO2 reduction produces a spectrum of products, from carbon monoxide and formate through methane and methanol and beyond, and a low-selectivity catalyst produces a mixture no fuel cell can use. The requirement for 66 percent methanol in water, immediately available for use with a direct methanol fuel cell, is fundamentally a selectivity requirement.
Three modeling deliverables are named: engineering diagrams, heat and mass balance calculations, and computer-aided design models of possible prototype architectures. That is a systems engineering package, and it is where the weight, volume, and thermal signature constraints get resolved. The heat balance in particular does double duty, since it feeds the infrared signature requirement.
The final product is a Phase II development plan with performance goals and key technical milestones addressing technical risk reduction. Note that this coincides with the program's separately required preliminary Phase II Plan, so the two can be written as one artifact.
Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes
Phase II
Produce a prototype minimally viable product system for evaluation and assessment in accordance with the criteria established in the topic.
Demonstration and delivery to a DoW transition partner, for example DEVCOM C5ISR, DEVCOM Soldier Center, or DEVCOM GVSC, is required to establish compatibility with DoW systems and direct future product iterations.
The results of the evaluation will be leveraged to generate refinement plans for the prototype to better meet DoW requirements and determine product effectiveness in an operationally relevant environment.
The final products of Phase II include the prototype, evaluation with a DoW partner, and a Phase III development plan. The technology should reach Technology Readiness Level 6 at the conclusion of this phase.
Two items to plan for now. Delivery to a DoW transition partner is required, not optional, and three specific organizations are named. Identifying which one you would work with, and ideally having a contact there, strengthens your Phase I proposal considerably, because it turns an abstract transition claim into a named path. DEVCOM Soldier Center is the natural fit for dismounted Soldier power, DEVCOM C5ISR for the power and energy portfolio, and DEVCOM GVSC for the vehicle-mounted variant.
And TRL 6 at the end of Phase II means a system demonstrated in a relevant environment. From feasibility concepts to TRL 6 in one Phase II is aggressive, and your preliminary Phase II Plan should be honest about the intermediate steps.
Phase III
The end-state will be the introduction of an innovative strategy and prototype for producing methanol fuel in-field for use with DoW methanol fuel cell platforms. Because use of available materials represents an essential logistics benefit, the system will be designed to produce fuel from a standard plastic water bottle, carbon dioxide, and direct or indirect solar energy. Such a system will permit Soldier power sustainment for mounted or dismounted teams, facilitating zero-resupply operations.
A single unit should be able to meet the daily power requirements of 4 dismounted Soldiers. Multiple units should be able to link up and provide auxiliary power to a forward operating base. As the Department expands toward fuel cells for uncrewed aircraft and ground vehicles, the fuel produced will directly transition to power those technologies. In some military and commercial cases where methanol fuel cells are prevalent, the projected devices will be able to easily and cheaply replace solar panels and batteries.
Further, a simple, scalable method for methanol production can be directly plugged into commercial use cases, such as industrial feedstock for other reactions, for example formaldehyde, hydrocarbons, and olefins, for a wide array of applications such as polymers. In such cases, the methanol produced will enable on-site synthesis near factories at lower temperatures and energy costs than the current state of the art.
The linking claim is worth noting: multiple units combining to provide auxiliary power to a forward operating base is a scaling story that changes the addressable requirement from a squad-level accessory to a base-level capability. And the commercial case is genuinely large, since methanol is a major industrial feedstock and distributed low-temperature production would be a significant change to that supply chain.
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 is chemistry against systems. The research institution owns the photocatalysis: light harvesting materials, the CO2 reduction and methane activation chemistry, kinetics, turnover, and above all selectivity, since that is where the cited recent research and the requisite characterization capability live. The small business owns the system: the reactor architecture, gas and water handling, the CO2 capture front end, thermal design for the infrared signature requirement, weight and volume budgeting, integration with the named fuel cell, and the transition path to a DEVCOM partner.
The topic states that its motivation arose from recent research on solar-driven artificial photosynthesis and on photocatalytic methane-to-methanol conversion, which is academic work. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the specific catalytic system, 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 transition consulting is the standout use, since Phase II requires demonstration and delivery to a named DoW transition partner and reaching Technology Readiness Level 6. Intellectual property counsel is a close second, since photocatalyst compositions emerging from university laboratories are patent-dense and an allocation of rights agreement is required upon selection.
The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.
Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance
This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.
Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.
Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.
Notification and debriefings
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.
Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.
The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.
Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.
Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification
If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.
Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.
The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.
Questions
Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.
The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.
The References
Six, and they split into two useful groups: the Army fuel cell context and the photocatalysis science.
The fuel cell and Soldier power context, both Defense Technical Information Center reports.
Chu, Deryn, and colleagues, "Direct Methanol Fuel Cell Systems for Future Force Warriors: From Experimental and Simulations for Water And Methanol Crossover And Recycling To High Performance Fuel Cell Systems," DTIC technical report.
Cristiani, Jonathan, and colleagues, "Test and Evaluation of the Smart Fuel Cell C20-MP Direct Methanol Hybrid Fuel Cell System as a Soldier Power Source," DTIC technical report.
These two matter more than they look. They are the Army's own history with direct methanol fuel cells as Soldier power, including the water and methanol crossover problems that determine what fuel composition a direct methanol fuel cell can actually accept. The 66 percent methanol specification is not arbitrary, and these reports are where the reasoning behind that kind of number lives. Read them, and connect your output specification to what the fuel cell needs.
The CO2 to methanol science.
Navarro-Jaen, Virginie, Bonin, and colleagues, "Highlights and challenges in the selective reduction of carbon dioxide to methanol," Nature Reviews Chemistry 5, 564 to 579, 2021. Note "selective" in the title. This is the review that frames selectivity as the central challenge.
Ganesh, Ibram, "Conversion of carbon dioxide into methanol, a potential liquid fuel: Fundamental challenges and opportunities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31, 221 to 257, 2014.
The recent enabling results, which are the two studies the topic's motivation paragraph describes.
Tang, Songtao, and colleagues, "Dual-state stepwise methane-to-methanol conversion by water droplets with excellent yield and selectivity," PNAS 123(1), e2511126123, 2025.
Zhou, Peng, and colleagues, "Water-promoted selective photocatalytic methane oxidation for methanol production," Chemical Science 15, 1505 to 1510, 2024.
Note that the two most recent papers, which the topic calls the motivation, are both about methane to methanol rather than CO2 to methanol. The topic's own description says one study demonstrated a solar-driven artificial photosynthesis platform converting CO2 and water into methanol, and a complementary effort developed a pathway for converting stranded natural gas and methane emissions into liquid fuel. The reference list supports the methane pathway strongly and the direct CO2 pathway through the two review articles.
That asymmetry is worth attending to. The topic's stated inputs are water and carbon dioxide, with methane nowhere in the requirements, but its most recent cited results are methane activation work. If your approach is CO2 reduction, the two reviews are your grounding and you should be candid that the recent breakthroughs cited are in an adjacent chemistry. If your approach involves methane, note that methane is not among the permitted inputs, which are solar, water, and carbon dioxide only.
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-NV009?
OSW26TZ06-NV009 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Expeditionary Solar Refinery for Direct Synthesis of Methanol Feedstock from Water and Air," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to generate a minimally viable component system with solar, water, and carbon dioxide inputs which generates greater than 66 percent methanol in water fuel at a rate of 0.5 liters per hour with a total system weight under 90 pounds.
What are the permitted inputs?
Solar energy, concentrated or ambient; water, potable or otherwise; and carbon dioxide, ambient or concentrated. These are the only chemical inputs. Note that methane is not among them, even though two of the six cited references are methane activation papers.
What are the size and weight limits?
The total system weight should not exceed 90 pounds, described as equivalent to a typical T6 battery, and the dimensions should not exceed 0.5 cubic meters.
Is the production rate physically achievable in that envelope?
That is the central feasibility question and it deserves careful arithmetic. Half a liter of methanol per hour corresponds to roughly two kilowatts of chemical energy output, which sets a substantial floor on solar collection area at any plausible solar-to-fuel efficiency. The topic hints that the answer may not be solar-only continuous operation, noting that achieving the rate while remaining lightweight and utilizing onboard vehicle power will require an innovative approach, and that the system can ideally be directly powered by alternative sources such as military standard generators or wind. Raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A before October 7, do the heat and mass balance the topic asks for, and state your operating envelope explicitly.
Why 66 percent methanol specifically?
Because the output must be immediately available for use with direct or reformed fuel cell systems including the Honey-Badger 20/50W PEM Power Generator. Direct methanol fuel cells have specific fuel composition requirements driven by water and methanol crossover behavior, which is exactly what the two cited DTIC reports address.
What is the infrared signature requirement?
Heat emissions from the system should be minimal such that the system remains near ambient to infrared cameras. The topic frames this as the system needing to be invisible to modern uncrewed aircraft mounted sensors. It is a signature requirement on a chemical reactor and it interacts with exothermicity, concentrator optics, and any active cooling.
What does passive operation mean here?
The energy source needs to impart minimal cognitive load on the warfighters, acting passively until put into use, and the system must be operable in remote, austere locations without a direct Soldier interface. That rules out designs requiring monitoring, tuning, or manual catalyst regeneration.
How is the system deployed?
Placed on the ground in a remote austere location, or secured to a light tactical off-road vehicle such as a Flyer 60. Those are different mechanical, thermal, and power-availability situations, and the vehicle case is where onboard power may help close the energy balance.
What does Phase I have to deliver?
Feasibility concepts for the system, with feasibility established by light harvesting toward methanol synthesis, catalytic or otherwise, and kinetics, turnover, and selectivity evaluation, plus analytical modeling including engineering diagrams, heat and mass balance calculations, and computer-aided design models of possible prototype architectures. The final product is a Phase II development plan with performance goals and key technical milestones addressing technical risk reduction.
Why does selectivity matter more than yield?
Because CO2 reduction naturally produces a spectrum of products, from carbon monoxide and formate through methane and methanol. A low-selectivity catalyst produces a mixture no fuel cell can use. The requirement for 66 percent methanol in water usable directly is fundamentally a selectivity requirement, and the cited Navarro-Jaen review names selective reduction as the field's central challenge.
What does Phase II require?
Produce a prototype minimally viable product system for evaluation against the topic's criteria. Demonstration and delivery to a DoW transition partner, for example DEVCOM C5ISR, DEVCOM Soldier Center, or DEVCOM GVSC, is required to establish compatibility with DoW systems. The final products include the prototype, the evaluation with a DoW partner, and a Phase III development plan, and the technology should reach Technology Readiness Level 6.
Do I need a DEVCOM partner?
For Phase II, yes. Demonstration and delivery to a DoW transition partner is required, with three DEVCOM organizations named. Identifying which one you would work with in your Phase I proposal turns an abstract transition claim into a named path.
How much power does one unit provide?
The topic states a single unit should be able to meet the daily power requirements of up to 4 dismounted Soldiers, and that multiple units should be able to link up and provide auxiliary power to a forward operating base.
What is the commercial case?
Methanol as an industrial feedstock for other reactions such as formaldehyde, hydrocarbons, and olefins, supporting applications including polymers, with on-site synthesis near factories at lower temperatures and energy costs than the current state of the art. Also replacing solar panels and batteries in military and commercial cases where methanol fuel cells are prevalent.
Are there inconsistencies in the source text?
Two minor ones. The input cartridge is described as 0.5 liters and 16.9 ounces in the description but as a standard 16.8 ounce bottle in Phase III. And the Phase III section refers to lower temperatures stated as greater than 200 degrees C, which reads as a typographical inversion, since the argument is that photocatalysis operates below conventional syngas temperatures.
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
Do the energy balance and show it. Half a liter of methanol per hour is roughly two kilowatts of chemical energy output, which sets a hard floor on collection area at any plausible solar-to-fuel efficiency. Reconciling that with 90 pounds and half a cubic meter is the central feasibility question, and the topic asks for heat and mass balance calculations precisely so a reviewer can check it. A proposal that presents the arithmetic honestly, states its solar input and collector assumptions, and defines the operating envelope where the rate closes is far stronger than one that restates the target.
Ask about the rate and the power source. The topic notes that achieving the desired production rate while remaining lightweight and utilizing onboard vehicle power will require an innovative approach, and separately says the system can ideally be directly powered by alternative sources. That suggests the intended answer may not be solar-only continuous operation. Raise it in Topic Q&A before October 7 and state your interpretation in the proposal.
Lead with selectivity, not yield. Producing 66 percent methanol in water usable directly in a fuel cell is a selectivity requirement more than a rate requirement, because CO2 reduction naturally yields a product spectrum. The cited Navarro-Jaen review names selective reduction as the challenge in its title. Report selectivity, turnover, and the full product distribution, not just methanol formation rate.
Treat the infrared signature as a design constraint, not a footnote. Heat emissions must keep the system near ambient to IR cameras. That is a signature requirement in a topic about a chemical reactor, and it interacts with everything: exothermicity, concentrator optics, and any active cooling, which itself radiates. Most proposals will mention it once. Working it into the thermal design is a differentiator.
Honor the passive operation requirement. The energy source needs to impart minimal cognitive load, acting passively until put into use, and the system must be operable without a direct Soldier interface. That rules out anything needing monitoring, tuning, or catalyst regeneration by hand. Say what happens across a full day and night cycle with nobody attending it.
Connect your output spec to the fuel cell. The two DTIC references are the Army's own direct methanol fuel cell history, including water and methanol crossover, which is what determines acceptable fuel composition. Naming the Honey-Badger 20/50W PEM Power Generator and showing your output stream meets its input requirement turns a chemistry claim into a system claim.
Name your DEVCOM transition partner. Phase II requires demonstration and delivery to a DoW transition partner, with DEVCOM C5ISR, DEVCOM Soldier Center, and DEVCOM GVSC named. Identifying which one and, ideally, having a contact converts an abstract transition claim into a path. Soldier Center is the natural fit for dismounted power, GVSC for the vehicle-mounted variant.
Design against both deployment modes. The system must work placed on the ground in a remote austere location and secured to a light tactical off-road vehicle such as a Flyer 60. Those are different mechanical, thermal, and power-availability situations, and the vehicle case is where onboard power may resolve the energy balance problem.
Respect the input list. Solar, water, and carbon dioxide are the only chemical inputs. Water may be potable or otherwise and CO2 may be ambient or concentrated, but methane is not on the list even though two of the six references are methane activation papers. If your chemistry needs another feedstock, that is a scope problem to address explicitly.
Be honest about TRL 6 in one Phase II. Phase I is feasibility concepts; Phase II ends at a system demonstrated in a relevant environment with delivery to a DEVCOM partner. That is a large step, and a preliminary Phase II Plan that lays out credible intermediate milestones reads better than one that asserts the endpoint.
Use the linking and commercial stories. Multiple units combining to provide auxiliary power to a forward operating base changes the requirement from a squad accessory to a base capability. And methanol as an industrial feedstock for formaldehyde, hydrocarbons, olefins, and polymers is a genuinely large commercial market where distributed low-temperature production would matter. Both are in the topic and both strengthen a commercialization section that would otherwise be niche.
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.
OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV008: Bio-Inspired Underwater Teams
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $250k
Description: Complete guide to OSW Basic Research STTR Phase I topic OSW26TZ06-NV008, bio-inspired UUV teams exploiting schooling hydrodynamics. Up to $250,000 over 12 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
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.
OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV007: Scalable Processing of Large Area, Oriented 2-Dimensional Polymer Films
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $250k
Description: Complete guide to OSW Basic Research STTR Phase I topic OSW26TZ06-NV007, scalable roll-to-roll processing of large area oriented 2D polymer and COF films. Up to $250,000 over 12 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26TZ06-NV007 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The program moves discoveries out of university laboratories and into small businesses. This topic is about manufacturing: covalent organic frameworks and other two-dimensional polymers have remarkable properties but almost always come out of synthesis as an insoluble powder nobody can use. The ask is a continuous process that makes them into large-area films with the sheets aligned perpendicular to the film plane. The award must not exceed $250,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 15 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The Phase I target is specific and it is a manufacturing number, not a materials number. Develop a continuous process producing 2D polymer ensemble films at a rate of 100 feet per minute, at least 1 foot wide, and 1 to 50 microns thick. That is a roll-to-roll line rate, and stating it that way tells you the government is not asking for a better film in a beaker. It is asking whether this class of material can be made industrially at all.
The problem the topic identifies is orientation and defects. Methods that cast directly from monomer solution can be scaled up in a roll-to-roll process but often result in films that are mechanically weak, because it is difficult to control the size and orientation of the individual sheets and they often lack sufficient intermolecular interactions. That is the gap: scalable processes give you weak films, and processes that give you good films do not scale.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV007
Title: Scalable Processing of Large Area, Oriented 2-Dimensional Polymer Films
Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, administered by the OUSW(R&E) Science and Technology Foundations STTR Program
Solicitation: OSW Basic Research 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Phase I
Award: must not exceed $250,000
Period of performance: 12 months
Technical volume: not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated
Component Technology Priority Area: Advanced Materials
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Contested Logistics Technologies
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the seven topics in this release
Classification: Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level
Material class: 2-dimensional polymers, including covalent organic frameworks
Orientation requirement: individual sheets highly oriented perpendicular to the film plane, for membrane applications
Phase I process target: 100 feet per minute, film at least 1 foot wide, 1 to 50 microns thick
Phase II process target: deposition rate increased by 2 to 5 times, with expanded film width and thickness range
Process requirement: amenable to roll-to-roll processing or a related method to produce continuous films
Named defect categories to control: point and stacking defects within 2D polymer crystals, stacking defects between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination, and crystallite size distribution
Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards, along with a written allocation of rights agreement if selected
Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000
Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I up to $6,500, Phase II up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5
Percentage of Work: deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted
Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: 2-dimensional polymers, covalent organic frameworks, polymer processing, crystallization, roll-to-roll
What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write
The S&T Foundations STTR Program has a purpose distinct from most SBIR and STTR programs, and it is stated plainly.
The program aims to facilitate the transition of basic research to applied research by collaborations between academic researchers and small businesses, as well as stimulating technological innovation, strengthening the role of small business in meeting DoW research and development needs, fostering and encouraging participation by minority and disadvantaged persons in technological innovation, and increasing the commercial application of DoW-supported research or research and development results.
The program focuses on exploiting scientific discoveries from the DoW basic research programs and providing a mechanism to further scientific development, maturation, and commercialization. High-risk with potential for high-reward approaches are sought in addressing the scientific challenges described in the topics. These approaches should be stimulated by early research in academia supported by DoW basic research programs.
The consequence for your technical volume
In addition to the Phase I proposal content specified in the DoW STTR BAA, this program requires a narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity.
The Phase I Technical Proposal must also include a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Both must be included within the 15-page limit.
So the technical volume carries three things a standard Phase I proposal would not: the transition narrative, the preliminary Phase II Plan, and the usual Phase I technical content, all in fifteen pages. Plan the page budget before you draft.
What the Topic Is Actually Asking For
The objective
Develop a reliable, cost-effective method to produce large area films of mechanically robust 2-dimensional polymers where the individual sheets are highly oriented perpendicular to the film plane, for membrane applications.
Every phrase in that sentence is a requirement. Reliable and cost-effective, which is a manufacturing standard rather than a research standard. Large area. Mechanically robust. Sheets oriented perpendicular to the film plane. And membrane applications as the target, which is what makes the orientation matter: a sheet lying flat blocks transport, while a sheet standing perpendicular to the film plane presents its pores as through-channels.
Why 2D polymers matter, and why nobody uses them
2-dimensional polymers such as covalent organic frameworks are an emerging class of materials which have displayed significant potential in applications ranging from catalysis, energy storage, dielectrics, nanofiltration, gas storage, and mechanically robust engineering materials. They are synthesized from geometrically pre-defined building blocks and can accommodate a wide variety of pore shapes, sizes, and functionality.
Most methods used to produce 2D polymers result in an insoluble microporous powder that cannot be processed into a functional form factor, which limits their relevance in commercial or military applications.
That is the whole problem in one sentence. The chemistry works. The material has designed pores. And it comes out as a powder you cannot make into anything.
What has been tried and why each approach falls short
The topic surveys the field with unusual candor, and each named limitation is a design constraint on your answer.
Top-down methods such as exfoliation or solution casting, and bottom-up methods that form films directly from cast monomer solutions, have been used to varying levels of success to access films and membranes. Interfacial polymerization has also been used to form films at the interface of two immiscible solvents.
Exfoliation based approaches are low-yielding.
Solution casting techniques often involve appending solubilizing groups to the pore wall, which can block access to the pore itself.
Methods that cast directly from monomer solution can be scaled up in a roll-to-roll process but often result in films that are mechanically weak, as it is difficult to control the size and orientation of the individual sheets and they often lack sufficient intermolecular interactions.
Read those three together and the design space narrows usefully. Exfoliation does not scale. Solubilizing groups defeat the purpose by blocking the pores you designed. Direct casting scales but gives weak, poorly oriented films. Your process has to scale like direct casting while controlling orientation and intermolecular interaction like the slower methods.
What the topic says is missing scientifically
More work is needed to understand the underlying kinetics and thermodynamics of the film forming processes as it relates to monomer selection, layer alignment, domain size, and formation of defects.
New engineering approaches are also needed to further control film formation, thickness, functionality, and orientation during deposition and post-processing.
Note the two halves. A science gap in kinetics and thermodynamics, and an engineering gap in process control. That pairing is exactly what an STTR partnership is for, and it maps onto the work split naturally.
The defect taxonomy, which is a gift
Special focus should be given to controlling and minimizing defects that could mitigate material performance: point and stacking defects within 2D polymer crystals, stacking defects in between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination within the films, and crystallite size distributions, to name a few.
Five named defect categories at three length scales. Within a crystal, between crystallites, and across the film. Plus contamination and size distribution.
That list is a checklist a reviewer can grade against, and most proposals will address pinholes and stop. A proposal that says, for each of the five, how it forms, how it is measured, and how the process controls it, is doing what the topic asked. Note also that residual solvent and reactant contamination is a chemistry problem in a manufacturing context, and it is exactly what bites a membrane in service.
The process requirements
The objective of this topic is to develop a scalable, cost-effective method to produce large area 2D polymer ensemble films with superb control over structural evolution.
Designed processes must consider monomer composition, long range structural order in lateral and parallel planes, interlayer interactions and flaw tolerance.
The process should be amenable to roll-to-roll processing or a related method to produce continuous films.
Note "flaw tolerance" alongside long range order. Those pull in opposite directions and the topic asks for both. A perfectly ordered film is brittle and a single flaw propagates. A flaw-tolerant film has some mechanism, whether crystallite size distribution, interlayer sliding, or a compliant phase, that arrests propagation. Addressing that tension directly is a strong move.
Note also "ensemble films." The topic uses that term repeatedly, and it signals that the film is understood as an assembly of crystallites rather than a single crystal. Your structural argument should be about the ensemble: crystallite size, orientation distribution, and the interfaces between them.
Phase I Requirements
Develop a continuous process to produce 2D polymer ensemble films from predefined monomer building blocks. The process should achieve a rate of 100 feet per minute of a film that is at least 1 foot wide and 1 to 50 microns thick.
Using computational modeling or experimental studies, identify the role of defects and flaws and quantify needed levels of domain size, layer alignment, and intermolecular interactions to achieve mechanically robust films.
Using insights gained from understanding the underlying film forming mechanism, develop a framework to be implemented in Phase II to achieve required structural ordering.
Reading these numbers
One hundred feet per minute is a real industrial line rate, comparable to commercial coating operations, and it is stated as a Phase I target rather than a Phase III aspiration. That is aggressive, and it tells you the topic is written for a team that already has continuous-processing capability rather than one that will build it.
One foot wide is modest for a roll-to-roll line and appropriate for a pilot. One to fifty microns is a wide thickness window, spanning thin membrane to substantial free-standing film, and it gives you latitude to choose where in that range your chemistry works.
The second task is a quantification task: identify the role of defects and quantify the needed levels of domain size, layer alignment, and intermolecular interactions. Note "needed levels." You are being asked to establish the structure-property relationship, not just to make a film. What domain size do you actually need for mechanical robustness, and what alignment, and what interlayer interaction strength.
The third task is a framework for Phase II. That is a design deliverable, and it connects directly to the required preliminary Phase II Plan.
How to structure a credible Phase I
The topic explicitly permits computational modeling or experimental studies, or both, for the defect and structure-property work, which is a real accommodation at this budget. A sensible plan pairs a modest continuous-coating demonstration with modeling that establishes the targets, rather than trying to fund both a full process development and a full characterization campaign at $250,000.
Be explicit about which monomer chemistry you use and why. The topic says films are made from predefined monomer building blocks and that the process must consider monomer composition, so monomer selection is part of the process design rather than a given.
And say how you measure orientation, because perpendicular sheet orientation is the defining requirement and it is not trivial to characterize in a thin film. Grazing-incidence X-ray scattering, polarized spectroscopy, cross-sectional electron microscopy, and transport measurements through the membrane are all defensible, and naming your method with its resolution is worth more than asserting the orientation.
Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes
Phase II
Further develop the processing approach from Phase I to increase deposition rate by 2 to 5 times while expanding the range of film width and thickness, while achieving domain sizes and orientations needed to form robust films.
The method should be amenable to post-processing including annealing, tensioning, or post-polymerization modification to further increase ordering and alignment.
Proxy measurement techniques may be developed to rapidly assess ordering and alignment.
Three things worth planning for now. A 2 to 5 times rate increase on top of 100 feet per minute puts you at 200 to 500 feet per minute, which is a commercial converting line rate. Three named post-processing routes are given, and annealing, tensioning, and post-polymerization modification are all standard polymer film operations, which suggests the topic wants this to fit existing converting infrastructure. And proxy measurement techniques for rapid ordering assessment is effectively an in-line quality control ask, which is what a manufacturing process needs and which almost no research effort builds.
That last item is a differentiator. If your Phase I includes even a preliminary in-line or rapid proxy metric for orientation, you have addressed a Phase II requirement early and shown you are thinking like a manufacturer.
Phase III
Phase III efforts will further optimize the processing method and scale production to manufacturing-relevant levels and rates to achieve films with large, highly aligned domains with minimal defects.
A variety of dual-use applications would benefit from an efficient production pipeline for 2D polymer films including nanofiltration membranes, battery separators, gas impermeable films, and critical mineral recovery.
Four applications, and they are worth separating by market character. Nanofiltration membranes and battery separators are large existing commercial markets with incumbent materials and known price points. Gas impermeable films is a packaging and barrier market. Critical mineral recovery is the one most aligned with the Contested Logistics Technologies Critical Technology Area, and it is a stated national priority with a supply chain argument behind it.
Because the Critical Technology Area here is Contested Logistics rather than Advanced Materials alone, the critical mineral recovery and water treatment angles are the strongest defense framing. A deployable membrane that recovers lithium or rare earths, or purifies water in an austere setting, connects a polymer processing result to a logistics problem.
The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights
This is an STTR, so a formal partnership with a research institution is a condition of the award rather than a feature of your approach.
If a small business concern is selected for an STTR award, they must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and their selected research institution that allocates intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization. The instructions point to the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.
STTR awards also carry statutory minimum work shares: the small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. The OSW Basic Research instructions direct proposers to follow all general instructions in the DoW STTR Program solicitation, which is where those requirements live. Read that document, not only this one.
What the split looks like on this topic
The natural division follows the topic's own two-part gap statement. The research institution owns the science: the kinetics and thermodynamics of film formation, the relationship between monomer selection and layer alignment, the defect taxonomy and its characterization, and the computational modeling that establishes needed domain size and interlayer interaction levels. The small business owns the engineering: the continuous deposition process, the line rate and web handling, thickness and width control, post-processing operations, and the path to manufacturing-relevant rates.
That split is unusually clean because the topic states both gaps explicitly, saying more work is needed to understand the underlying kinetics and thermodynamics, and that new engineering approaches are also needed to control film formation. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the characterization instruments, and the tasks.
Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.
The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now
This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.
Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.
The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.
This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.
Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.
Why this changes your Phase I plan
The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.
Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.
Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics
The award
The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.
Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.
The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate
The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.
Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.
Percentage of Work
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.
With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.
Technical and Business Assistance
Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.
All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.
The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, manufacturing and process scale-up consulting is the standout use, given that Phase II asks for a 2 to 5 times rate increase toward commercial converting line rates. Intellectual property counsel is a close second, since covalent organic framework chemistries and processing methods emerging from university laboratories carry real IP complexity and an allocation of rights agreement is required upon selection.
The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.
Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance
This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.
Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.
Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.
Notification and debriefings
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.
Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.
The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.
Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.
Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification
If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.
Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.
The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.
Questions
Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.
The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.
The References
Three, and all three are polymer chemistry papers from groups working on covalent organic framework processing. Notably, two of the three include a common author, which points at the research lineage.
Burke, Sun, Castano, Flanders, Evans, Vitaku, McLeod, Lambeth, Chen, Gianneschi, and Dichtel, Angewandte Chemie 132, 5203, 2020. The Dichtel group is among the most prominent in covalent organic framework synthesis and processing, and this paper is the most cited of the three.
Barnes, McLeod, and Lambeth, ACS Applied Polymer Materials 4 (3), 2017 to 2021, 2022.
Senarathna, Li, Perera, Torres-Correas, Diwakara, Boardman, Al-Kharji, Liu, and Smaldone, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 62, e202312617, 2023.
Two observations. McLeod and Lambeth appear on both the 2020 and 2022 papers, and the Army Research Laboratory has a polymer program with people of those names, which suggests this topic emerged from an internal Department research line with academic collaborators rather than purely from outside academia. If your research institution partner connects to that lineage, say so.
And the reference set is entirely chemistry, with nothing on roll-to-roll processing, web handling, coating fluid mechanics, or in-line metrology. That asymmetry mirrors the topic's own statement that new engineering approaches are needed. It also means your Related Work section carries the burden of demonstrating awareness of the manufacturing state of the art, so bring the coating and converting literature yourself. That is where the small business half of an STTR should be visibly strong.
Timeline and What to Do When
The dates
Topic opens: September 23, 2026
DSIP Topic Q&A closes: October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, per the DoW STTR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record
Debriefing request window: within 30 calendar days of notification
Period of performance: 12 months
Phase II submission window: a 30-day window expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, and the only opportunity
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV007?
OSW26TZ06-NV007 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Scalable Processing of Large Area, Oriented 2-Dimensional Polymer Films," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop a reliable, cost-effective method to produce large area films of mechanically robust 2-dimensional polymers where the individual sheets are highly oriented perpendicular to the film plane, for membrane applications.
What are 2-dimensional polymers and why are they hard to use?
2-dimensional polymers such as covalent organic frameworks are synthesized from geometrically pre-defined building blocks and can accommodate a wide variety of pore shapes, sizes, and functionality, with potential in catalysis, energy storage, dielectrics, nanofiltration, gas storage, and mechanically robust engineering materials. The problem is that most methods used to produce them result in an insoluble microporous powder that cannot be processed into a functional form factor, which limits their relevance in commercial or military applications.
What are the Phase I process targets?
A continuous process producing 2D polymer ensemble films from predefined monomer building blocks at a rate of 100 feet per minute, with the film at least 1 foot wide and 1 to 50 microns thick.
Is 100 feet per minute really a Phase I target?
Yes, as written. That is a real industrial line rate comparable to commercial coating operations, and it is stated as a Phase I target rather than a later goal. It suggests the topic is written for a team that already has continuous processing capability.
What else does Phase I require?
Using computational modeling or experimental studies, identify the role of defects and flaws and quantify needed levels of domain size, layer alignment, and intermolecular interactions to achieve mechanically robust films. And using insights from understanding the film forming mechanism, develop a framework to be implemented in Phase II to achieve required structural ordering.
Can I do Phase I with modeling instead of experiments?
The topic permits computational modeling or experimental studies, or both, for the defect and structure-property work. Given the budget, pairing a modest continuous-coating demonstration with modeling that establishes the needed structural targets is a defensible plan.
Why does sheet orientation matter?
Because the application is membranes. A sheet lying flat in the film plane blocks transport, while a sheet oriented perpendicular to the film plane presents its designed pores as through-channels. Perpendicular orientation is the defining requirement in both the title and the objective.
What is wrong with existing processing methods?
The topic names three limitations. Exfoliation based approaches are low-yielding. Solution casting often involves appending solubilizing groups to the pore wall, which can block access to the pore itself. And methods that cast directly from monomer solution can be scaled up in a roll-to-roll process but often result in mechanically weak films, because it is difficult to control the size and orientation of individual sheets and they often lack sufficient intermolecular interactions.
What defects must I control?
Five categories are named: point and stacking defects within 2D polymer crystals, stacking defects between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination within the films, and crystallite size distributions. The topic says special focus should be given to controlling and minimizing them.
What does the topic mean by ensemble films?
The term signals that the film is understood as an assembly of crystallites rather than a single crystal. Your structural argument should address crystallite size, orientation distribution, and the interfaces between crystallites, not just ideal in-crystal order.
What does Phase II require?
Further develop the Phase I processing approach to increase deposition rate by 2 to 5 times while expanding the range of film width and thickness, and while achieving the domain sizes and orientations needed for robust films. The method should be amenable to post-processing including annealing, tensioning, or post-polymerization modification to further increase ordering and alignment. Proxy measurement techniques may be developed to rapidly assess ordering and alignment.
What is the proxy measurement requirement really asking for?
Effectively in-line quality control. Rapid assessment of ordering and alignment is what a manufacturing process needs and what almost no research effort builds. Sketching one in Phase I addresses a Phase II requirement early.
What are the Phase III applications?
Nanofiltration membranes, battery separators, gas impermeable films, and critical mineral recovery. Given that the Critical Technology Area for this topic is Contested Logistics Technologies, critical mineral recovery and water treatment are the strongest defense framing.
Does the process have to be roll-to-roll?
The topic says the process should be amenable to roll-to-roll processing or a related method to produce continuous films. Roll-to-roll is the named example, and the Phase I line rate and film width targets are stated in roll-to-roll terms, but a related continuous method is acceptable.
How much funding is available?
The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5.
When is the proposal deadline?
The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil.
How long can my technical volume be?
Not to exceed 15 pages. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated, which is stricter than simply disregarding the extra pages. The transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both count inside that limit.
What extra content does this program require in the technical volume?
Two things beyond the standard DoW STTR Phase I content. A narrative description of how early research in academic labs will be transitioned to the small business via this opportunity. And a preliminary Phase II Plan specifying the overall vision, approach, and potential product proposed at the end of Phase II. Both must fit inside the 15 pages.
Do I need a research institution partner?
Yes. This is an STTR, which requires a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares of at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the institution per the DoW STTR Program solicitation. If selected, you must negotiate a written agreement between the small business and the research institution allocating intellectual property rights and rights to carry out follow-on research, development, or commercialization, using the Model Agreement for the Allocation of Rights.
How does the Phase II submission window work?
Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and all Phase I awardees are eligible. A 30-day submission window is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period, with details provided by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office. This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics, and proposals received outside the established window will not be evaluated.
What does that mean for how I plan Phase I?
You will be writing the Phase II proposal on partial Phase I results, six to nine months into a twelve-month effort. Front-load the work so your most persuasive results land early. The program also says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, so establish that relationship early in performance.
How is Phase II funded?
A 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.
How are proposals evaluated?
Against the DoW solicitation criteria, in descending order of importance: technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach first, then qualifications of key personnel, then commercialization potential. The evaluation includes an assessment not only of the Phase I feasibility studies but of the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II. Only Government personnel evaluate proposals, except personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in it will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. Deviations from the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program BAA are not permitted. With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, model the arithmetic before finalizing the subaward.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.
Is this work classified?
No. Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level, and no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic or on any of the seven topics in this release.
Can I employ foreign nationals?
If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. The unclassified expectation makes this program more compatible with an open university research environment than several other components in this cycle.
Can I request a debriefing if not selected?
Yes. Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official within 30 days of receipt of the request. Oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If the Corporate Official's contact information has changed, a notice on company letterhead signed by that official must accompany the request.
When will I hear back, and who is notified?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator of record.
Who do I contact with questions?
Technical questions about the topic go through DSIP Topic Q&A, which closes October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Lead with the line rate, because it is the real filter. One hundred feet per minute of a film at least a foot wide is a manufacturing capability, not a laboratory result, and it is a Phase I target rather than an eventual goal. If you have continuous coating capability, name the equipment and the rates you have run. If you do not, explain concretely how you get there in twelve months on $250,000, because a reviewer will ask.
Answer the scale-versus-quality tension directly. The topic says direct casting scales but gives mechanically weak films with poor orientation, and that solubilizing groups block the pores you designed. Your process has to scale like the former while ordering like the latter. State the mechanism by which you get both, because that is the topic's central technical question.
Walk all five defect categories. Point and stacking defects within crystals, stacking defects between crystallites, pinholes, residual solvent and reactant contamination, and crystallite size distribution. For each, say how it forms, how you measure it, and how the process controls it. Most proposals will address pinholes and thickness uniformity and stop.
Say how you measure perpendicular orientation. It is the defining requirement in the title and objective, and it is hard to characterize in a thin film. Grazing-incidence X-ray scattering, polarized spectroscopy, cross-sectional microscopy, or transport measurement through the membrane are all defensible. Name the method and its resolution rather than asserting the result.
Address flaw tolerance alongside long range order. The topic asks for both, and they conflict: a perfectly ordered film propagates a crack, while a flaw-tolerant film has some arresting mechanism. Naming that mechanism, whether crystallite size distribution, interlayer sliding, or a compliant secondary phase, shows you understand the material as an ensemble rather than an ideal crystal.
Bring the manufacturing literature yourself. All three cited references are chemistry, and the topic itself says new engineering approaches are needed. Coating fluid mechanics, web handling, drying and solvent removal, and in-line metrology all belong in your Related Work, and that is where the small business half of the partnership should look strongest.
Propose a proxy metric early. Phase II says proxy measurement techniques may be developed to rapidly assess ordering and alignment, which is an in-line quality control requirement in disguise. Sketching one in Phase I addresses a Phase II need ahead of schedule and signals manufacturing seriousness.
Choose your monomer chemistry deliberately and say why. The topic says films are made from predefined monomer building blocks and that the process must consider monomer composition. Monomer selection is part of your process design, and connecting a specific chemistry to a specific alignment mechanism is stronger than treating the monomer as given.
Lead the commercialization case with critical mineral recovery and water. The Critical Technology Area is Contested Logistics Technologies, not Advanced Materials alone. Nanofiltration membranes and battery separators are bigger markets, but a deployable membrane that recovers critical minerals or purifies water in an austere setting is the framing that connects a polymer film to the stated priority.
Use the permitted modeling latitude. The topic explicitly allows computational modeling or experimental studies for the defect and structure-property work. At this budget, pairing a modest continuous-coating demonstration with modeling that establishes the needed domain size, alignment, and interaction levels is more achievable than funding both a full process build and a full characterization campaign.
Write the transition narrative as a real plan, not a paragraph. This program exists to move academic discoveries into small businesses. Whose discovery, moving how, through what mechanism, with what people, and what does the small business own afterward. That narrative is a program requirement and it is where the S&T Foundations mission lives.
Put key personnel forward. Qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization potential. On a basic research transition topic, naming the people who actually did the underlying science is worth more proposal space than a market sizing exercise.
Take the preliminary Phase II Plan seriously. The evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II, not just the Phase I studies. Fit it to the program's own structure of a base plus option, each 10 to 12 months and each up to $1,000,000, and make the product concrete.
Front-load the Phase I schedule. The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months in and it is the only one. Whatever a Phase II reviewer needs to see must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.
Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated, which is a harsher rule than most components apply, and it applies to a volume that must also contain the transition narrative and the Phase II Plan.
Start the allocation of rights conversation now. A written agreement allocating intellectual property and follow-on rights is required upon selection. On a topic where the core science originates in a university laboratory, that negotiation determines whether you have a commercial product at the end. Do not leave it until award.
Use the debriefing if you lose. A written debrief within 30 days of notification is available on request, and this program recurs. That is cheap, specific feedback most applicants never ask for.
OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV006: Room Temperature THz and Infrared Sensing Using a Non-Toxic, Supply-Chain Secure Material Platform
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $250k
Description: Complete guide to OSW Basic Research STTR Phase I topic OSW26TZ06-NV006, room temperature THz and infrared sensors from oxychalcogenide films. Up to $250,000 over 12 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26TZ06-NV006 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The program moves discoveries out of university laboratories into small businesses, and this topic descends from Department of War Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative investments. The ask is a chip-scale oxychalcogenide film sensor that detects terahertz and infrared radiation at room temperature. 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 one of the sharpest in this release. Infrared sensing sits at an inflection point. The industry-standard mercury cadmium telluride requires bulky cryogenic cooling and is built on toxic, supply-chain-fragile elements, while uncooled microbolometers are limited to millisecond response times. That leaves unaddressed the regime of fast, uncooled, low size-weight-power-and-cost detection from the long-wave infrared through the terahertz, which hypersonic threat warning, proliferated drone platforms, and contested-spectrum operations now demand.
The proposed answer is oxychalcogenide films containing heavy elements, with Bi2O2Se and InBiSe3 named specifically. Two properties make them interesting. The response does not depend on an inter-band transition, so no cryogenic cooling is needed. And the mechanism is hot-electron rectification and photothermoelectrics, with hot electrons thermally decoupled from the lattice, which is what makes it fast. And they are composed of non-toxic, earth-abundant elements, which is where the supply-chain argument comes from.
One thing to flag before drafting: the topic's stated response-speed figures appear internally inconsistent, and that is worth a question to the government. Details are in their own section below.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV006
Title: Design Of Room Temperature THz And Infrared Sensing Devices Using Non-Toxic, Supply-Chain Secure Material Platform
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 Areas: Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Advanced Materials, Microelectronics
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance
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 platform: oxychalcogenide thin films with strong spin-orbit coupling, with Bi2O2Se and InBiSe3 named
Mechanism: hot-electron rectification and photothermoelectrics, thermally decoupled from the lattice of heavy elements, rather than inter-band transition
Phase I benchmarks: responsivity approximately 0.5 A/W, noise-equivalent power approximately 0.1 pW per root hertz, and response speed on the millisecond scale, at room temperature
Phase I demonstrations required: direct absorption in the long-wavelength infrared and antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz frequencies
Phase II array target: approximately 8 by 8, for dual-band imaging at up to kilohertz rates
Incumbents to benchmark against: cooled mercury cadmium telluride and uncooled microbolometers
Prior investment: Department of War Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative funding has already enabled development of high-mobility chalcogenide films and their characterization via optical and terahertz spectroscopy
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: room temperature THz detection, low SWaP-C, supply chain fragility, high speed electronics, THz infrared sensing, long-wavelength infrared, oxychalcogenide films, THz spectroscopy
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
Design a chip-scale oxychalcogenide film based room temperature terahertz and infrared sensor, on a non-toxic, supply-chain-secure material platform.
Three constraints in one sentence: chip-scale, room temperature, and a material platform chosen partly for supply chain reasons. The third is unusual in a basic research topic and it is a real evaluation dimension, not decoration.
The gap in the state of the art
Infrared sensing sits at an inflection point. The industry-standard mercury cadmium telluride requires bulky cryogenic cooling and is built on toxic, supply-chain-fragile elements, while uncooled microbolometers are limited to millisecond response times.
This leaves unaddressed the regime of fast, uncooled, low size-weight-power-and-cost detection from the long-wave infrared through the terahertz, which hypersonic threat warning, proliferated drone platforms, and contested-spectrum operations now demand.
That is a well-drawn gap and you should use its structure. Two incumbents, each failing for a different reason. MCT is fast and sensitive but needs a cryocooler and depends on mercury and cadmium. Microbolometers are uncooled and cheap but slow. The unserved regime is fast plus uncooled plus small, extending past long-wave infrared into terahertz.
The mechanism, and why it avoids cryogenics
Recently, new mechanisms have emerged that can fill this technical gap. Oxychalcogenide films containing heavy elements have characteristic responses in the terahertz range and can enable detection responses in the terahertz and far-infrared spectral regions through hot-electron rectification and photothermoelectrics, thermally decoupled from the lattice of heavy elements.
Notably, these phenomena do not require cryogenic cooling like the mercury cadmium telluride system because the signal is not based on an inter-band transition, and the response is driven by hot electrons decoupled from the lattice.
Moreover, these materials, such as Bi2O2Se and InBiSe3, are composed of non-toxic, earth-abundant elements, and are supply-chain-secure material platforms.
The physical argument is worth understanding because it is the whole basis of the topic. Cryogenic cooling in an MCT detector exists to suppress thermally generated carriers that would swamp a narrow-bandgap inter-band signal. If your signal does not come from an inter-band transition at all, that noise source is not the limiting one, and the cooling requirement goes away. Hot-electron detection instead relies on electrons heated above the lattice temperature, which is both why it works uncooled and why it can be fast: the electron subsystem cools much faster than the lattice.
The response speed inconsistency, which is worth a question
The topic makes three statements about speed that do not fit together cleanly.
Uncooled microbolometers are described as limited to millisecond response times, and this is presented as a limitation to be overcome.
Oxychalcogenide films are said to enable millisecond-scale detection responses in the terahertz and far-infrared.
And the mechanism is said to have a response orders of magnitude faster than that of room-temperature bolometers because it is driven by hot electrons decoupled from the lattice.
Those cannot all be right at once. If the new mechanism is orders of magnitude faster than a millisecond bolometer, its response is in the microsecond or nanosecond range, not the millisecond range. The Phase I benchmark then compounds it by specifying response speed on the millisecond scale, which matches the incumbent the topic says is too slow.
The physics favors the "orders of magnitude faster" claim, since hot-electron relaxation times are typically picoseconds to nanoseconds and the whole point of decoupling electrons from the lattice is to escape the thermal time constant that limits bolometers. The most likely reading is that the millisecond figures are drafting artifacts.
Send this to DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes on October 7. In the meantime, the defensible approach is to state your target response time explicitly with the physics that sets it, report it against both readings, and note that you are doing so because the topic's stated figures are inconsistent. Also address the topic's own later statement that the mechanism is fast enough to detect millisecond transients such as laser pulses and hypersonic signatures that slow uncooled microbolometers wash out, which is the operational requirement underneath the numbers.
Why the Department is funding this now
Department of War investments through the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative have already enabled the development of high-mobility chalcogenide films and their characterization via optical and terahertz spectroscopy.
Building on this, oxychalcogenide films can serve as room-temperature detectors offering uncooled, chip-scale access to the jam-free terahertz and far-infrared bands, a regime current sensor technologies cannot reach without cryogenic cooling, and will directly advance Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance.
Moreover, the hot-electron mechanism is fast, which allows detection of transients such as laser pulses and hypersonic signatures that slow uncooled microbolometers wash out.
Note "jam-free." Terahertz and far-infrared bands are not congested with communications or jamming energy the way the microwave spectrum is, which is a contested-spectrum argument for pushing detection to those wavelengths. That framing connects the material science to the Critical Technology Area, and it is worth carrying into your proposal.
The MURI provenance is again your transition narrative. Identify the MURI, the group, and the people who made those high-mobility films.
Phase I Requirements
Synthesis of oxychalcogenide thin film materials with strong spin-orbit coupling that can detect terahertz and long-wave infrared signals at room temperature.
Demonstration of direct absorption in the long-wavelength infrared and antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz frequencies.
These are to be benchmarked by responsivity of approximately 0.5 A/W, noise-equivalent power of approximately 0.1 pW per root hertz, and response speed on the millisecond scale, at room temperature.
These results should anchor an electromagnetic and thermal design of an integrated dual-band terahertz and long-wave infrared pixel.
Reading this scope
Four deliverables, and unusually for this release, Phase I involves actual material synthesis and measurement rather than design alone.
Synthesis, with a named material property requirement: strong spin-orbit coupling. That is not decoration. Heavy-element oxychalcogenides have strong spin-orbit coupling, and it is connected to the terahertz response and to the topological character several of the cited references explore.
Two distinct detection demonstrations with different physics. Direct absorption in the long-wave infrared, meaning the film itself absorbs. And antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz, meaning an antenna captures the field and the film rectifies it. Those are different device architectures on the same material, and a proposal that treats them as one thing has missed the requirement.
Three quantitative benchmarks. Responsivity around 0.5 amperes per watt and noise-equivalent power around 0.1 picowatts per root hertz are both specific and checkable, and both are respectable for a room-temperature detector. Note the word "approximately" on all three, which gives you some latitude, and note the speed ambiguity discussed above.
An electromagnetic and thermal design of an integrated dual-band pixel. That is the design deliverable the measurements feed, and it is what makes Phase II possible. Dual-band means one pixel serving both terahertz and long-wave infrared, which is a genuinely hard co-design problem: the antenna that couples terahertz efficiently is large compared to a long-wave infrared absorber, and the thermal design has to serve both.
Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes
Phase II
Fabricate and validate the dual-band pixels, while adding quarter-wave cavity enhancement to the long-wave infrared channel and demonstrating simultaneous, low-crosstalk two-band readout.
Refine multilayer architectures and investigate the feasibility of even higher-mobility layers and quantum wells.
Scale to a small-format array of approximately 8 by 8 for as high as kilohertz-rate dual-band imaging of test scenes.
Deliver a size-weight-power-and-cost and manufacturability assessment benchmarked against cooled mercury cadmium telluride and microbolometer incumbents.
Four items, each concrete. Quarter-wave cavity enhancement is a standard infrared absorber technique and its inclusion tells you the topic author knows detector engineering. Low-crosstalk two-band readout is the hard part of dual-band operation and it is called out explicitly. An 8 by 8 array is deliberately modest, which is appropriate for a first array of a novel material. And the SWaP-C and manufacturability assessment against both incumbents is the commercialization argument in measurable form.
Note "kilohertz-rate dual-band imaging." A kilohertz frame rate is far beyond microbolometer capability and is the operational payoff of the fast mechanism. That figure also supports the reading that the intended detector response is much faster than a millisecond.
Phase III
Terahertz and infrared sensing devices operating at room temperature represent a critical dual-use technology. By eliminating the need for bulky, power-intensive cryogenic cooling systems, these sensors enable highly portable, lightweight, and low-cost systems.
The topic names two dual-use features specifically.
A fast uncooled oxychalcogenide focal plane enables short-range terahertz and infrared inspection of packages, vehicles, and surfaces, penetrating clothing, packaging, and dielectric coatings to reveal concealed weapons or contraband while keeping the operator at a safe standoff distance.
The same long-wavelength response allows the sensor to see through smoke, dust, and brownout obscurants, and makes a drone-borne payload effective in degraded visual environments where electro-optical and shortwave infrared imagers fail.
Both are strong commercial stories. Security screening is an existing market with a known terahertz interest and a known cost barrier, and the obscurant penetration case connects directly to rotorcraft brownout and to the proliferated drone platforms named in the problem statement.
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 is clear. The research institution owns the film synthesis, the spin-orbit coupling and transport physics, and the optical and terahertz spectroscopy characterization, since that is where the MURI-funded capability and the instrumentation live. The small business owns the device architecture, the antenna design for terahertz coupling, the quarter-wave cavity and multilayer engineering, the readout electronics, the array packaging, and the SWaP-C and manufacturability assessment against MCT and microbolometer incumbents.
Because the topic explicitly credits MURI investments with enabling the high-mobility chalcogenide films and their spectroscopic characterization, the institution's contribution is central rather than supporting, which makes a 30 percent share straightforward to justify.
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 foundry transition consulting is the standout use, since the Phase II deliverable includes a manufacturability assessment benchmarked against two mature incumbent technologies. Intellectual property counsel is a close second, given MURI-derived material IP and a 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
Six, split cleanly into two groups of three, and the split tells you what the topic expects you to know.
The first three are the topic's own physics lineage, from the terahertz spectroscopy and topological materials side.
Romero III, Ralph, and colleagues, "Planckian scattering and parallel conduction channels in an iron chalcogenide superconductor," Nature Physics, 2026.
Mekonen, Sirak M., and colleagues, "Coupled metamaterial-phonon terahertz range polaritons in a topological insulator," ACS Photonics 11.6, 2242 to 2246, 2024.
Tagay, Zhenisbek, and colleagues, "Electrodynamics of the quantum anomalous Hall state in a magnetically doped topological insulator," Physical Review B 110.24, L241106, 2024.
These are the MURI-derived work the topic refers to when it says Department investments enabled high-mobility chalcogenide films and their characterization via optical and terahertz spectroscopy. Note that all three are spectroscopy and fundamental physics papers, not device papers.
The second three are the device precedents in the specific materials named.
Chen and colleagues, "Broadband Bi2O2Se photodetectors from infrared to terahertz," Advanced Functional Materials 31.14, 2009554, 2021.
Chen, Hang, and colleagues, "Broadband InBiSe3 alloy photoelectric detector from visible to terahertz," AIP Advances 14.3, 035324, 2024.
Ding, Xiang, and colleagues, "Bi2O2Se: A rising star for semiconductor devices," Matter 5.12, 4274 to 4314, 2022.
These are where your device performance baseline comes from. The two Chen papers are the closest published analogues to what you are proposing, and the Ding review is the survey of Bi2O2Se as a device material. Read all three and position your responsivity, noise-equivalent power, and response speed against their reported values, because a reviewer will.
The asymmetry between the two groups is informative. The physics is well developed and Department funded. The device demonstrations exist but are broadband single-pixel detectors, not dual-band pixels in arrays. That gap between spectroscopy and a focal plane is exactly the transition this program funds.
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-NV006?
OSW26TZ06-NV006 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Design Of Room Temperature THz And Infrared Sensing Devices Using Non-Toxic, Supply-Chain Secure Material Platform," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to design a chip-scale oxychalcogenide film based room temperature terahertz and infrared sensor.
What gap in the state of the art does this address?
Mercury cadmium telluride, the industry standard, requires bulky cryogenic cooling and is built on toxic, supply-chain-fragile elements. Uncooled microbolometers are limited to millisecond response times. That leaves unaddressed the regime of fast, uncooled, low size-weight-power-and-cost detection from the long-wave infrared through the terahertz, which the topic says hypersonic threat warning, proliferated drone platforms, and contested-spectrum operations now demand.
Why does this material not need cryogenic cooling?
Because the signal is not based on an inter-band transition. Cryogenic cooling in an MCT detector suppresses thermally generated carriers that would swamp a narrow-bandgap inter-band signal. The oxychalcogenide mechanism is hot-electron rectification and photothermoelectrics, with hot electrons thermally decoupled from the lattice of heavy elements, so that noise source is not limiting.
Which materials are named?
Bi2O2Se and InBiSe3, described as composed of non-toxic, earth-abundant elements and as supply-chain-secure material platforms. Phase I requires oxychalcogenide thin films with strong spin-orbit coupling.
The topic's response-speed numbers seem inconsistent. Are they?
They do not fit together. The topic says microbolometers are limited to millisecond response times and presents that as the limitation, says oxychalcogenide films enable millisecond-scale responses, and says the mechanism is orders of magnitude faster than room-temperature bolometers. The Phase I benchmark then specifies response speed on the millisecond scale. The physics favors the faster claim, since hot-electron relaxation is typically picoseconds to nanoseconds, and Phase II calls for kilohertz-rate imaging. Raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A before October 7, and in the proposal state your target with the physics that sets it while noting the discrepancy.
What are the Phase I benchmarks?
Responsivity of approximately 0.5 amperes per watt, noise-equivalent power of approximately 0.1 picowatts per root hertz, and response speed on the millisecond scale, all at room temperature. Note that all three carry the word approximately.
What must Phase I demonstrate?
Synthesis of oxychalcogenide thin films with strong spin-orbit coupling that can detect terahertz and long-wave infrared at room temperature. Demonstration of direct absorption in the long-wavelength infrared and antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz frequencies, against the stated benchmarks. And these results should anchor an electromagnetic and thermal design of an integrated dual-band terahertz and long-wave infrared pixel.
Are the two detection demonstrations the same thing?
No. Direct absorption in the long-wave infrared means the film itself absorbs. Antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz means an antenna captures the field and the film rectifies it. Those are different device architectures on the same material and both are required.
What does Phase II require?
Fabricate and validate the dual-band pixels, add quarter-wave cavity enhancement to the long-wave infrared channel, and demonstrate simultaneous low-crosstalk two-band readout. Refine multilayer architectures and investigate higher-mobility layers and quantum wells. Scale to an approximately 8 by 8 array for up to kilohertz-rate dual-band imaging of test scenes. And deliver a size-weight-power-and-cost and manufacturability assessment benchmarked against cooled MCT and microbolometer incumbents.
What is the hardest part of the dual-band design?
Putting a terahertz antenna and a long-wave infrared absorber in the same pixel with low crosstalk. The antenna that couples terahertz efficiently is large relative to a long-wave infrared absorber with a quarter-wave cavity, and the thermal design has to serve both. The Phase I deliverable is precisely the electromagnetic and thermal design that resolves it.
What are the Phase III applications?
Short-range terahertz and infrared inspection of packages, vehicles, and surfaces, penetrating clothing, packaging, and dielectric coatings to reveal concealed weapons or contraband at safe standoff. And seeing through smoke, dust, and brownout obscurants, making a drone-borne payload effective in degraded visual environments where electro-optical and shortwave infrared imagers fail.
Is this MURI-derived work?
Yes. The topic states that Department of War investments through the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative have already enabled the development of high-mobility chalcogenide films and their characterization via optical and terahertz spectroscopy.
Why does the topic call the terahertz band jam-free?
Because the terahertz and far-infrared bands are not congested with communications or jamming energy the way the microwave spectrum is. That is a contested-spectrum argument for pushing detection to those wavelengths, and it connects the materials work to the Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance Critical Technology Area.
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
Ask about the response-speed inconsistency, and handle it transparently. The topic says bolometers are limited to milliseconds, says this mechanism is orders of magnitude faster, and then benchmarks Phase I at milliseconds. Raise it in Topic Q&A before October 7. In the proposal, state your target response time with the physics that sets it, address both readings, and note the discrepancy. Silently picking whichever number suits you is riskier than showing you read carefully.
Treat the two detection demonstrations as two devices. Direct absorption in the long-wave infrared and antenna-coupled rectification at terahertz are different architectures. A proposal that describes one film and one measurement has answered half the Phase I requirement.
Design the dual-band pixel co-design problem explicitly. A terahertz antenna is large; a long-wave infrared absorber with a quarter-wave cavity is thin and small. Putting both in one pixel with low crosstalk is the real engineering challenge, and the Phase I deliverable is precisely the electromagnetic and thermal design that solves it. Show the geometry.
Take the supply chain claim seriously as a scored argument. The topic put non-toxic and supply-chain-secure in the title. Name the constituent elements, their crustal abundance and sourcing, and contrast explicitly with mercury, cadmium, and tellurium. That is a real evaluation dimension and it costs you a paragraph.
Benchmark against both incumbents on their own terms. Cooled MCT wins on sensitivity and pays in cryogenics and toxicity. Microbolometers win on cost and pay in speed. Put your numbers next to theirs on responsivity, noise-equivalent power, speed, operating temperature, and cost, and let the unserved regime emerge from the table rather than asserting it.
Use the jam-free spectrum argument. The topic calls the terahertz and far-infrared bands jam-free, which connects a materials result to contested-spectrum operations and to the Critical Technology Area. Most proposals will lead with detector figures of merit and miss the operational framing that the government itself supplied.
Anchor to the two published device papers. The Chen Bi2O2Se and InBiSe3 detector papers are the closest prior art to your device, and the reviewer will know them. State what your responsivity, noise-equivalent power, and speed are relative to theirs, and what you add.
Claim the MURI lineage explicitly. The topic credits Department MURI investment with the high-mobility films and their spectroscopic characterization. Naming that program, that group, and those people is the transition narrative this program exists to fund.
Address spin-orbit coupling as a requirement, not a property. Phase I calls for films with strong spin-orbit coupling specifically. Say why your material has it, how you verify it, and how it connects to the terahertz response you are claiming.
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.
OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV005: Ultrafast Nonvolatile Memory Based on Sliding Ferroelectricity in Moire Polar Homostructures
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $250k
Description: Complete guide to OSW Basic Research STTR Phase I topic OSW26TZ06-NV005, ultrafast nonvolatile memory from sliding ferroelectricity in moire van der Waals homostructures. Up to $250,000 over 12 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26TZ06-NV005 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The program exists to move discoveries out of university laboratories and into small businesses, and this topic is a direct descendant of Department of War Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative investments. The ask is a nonvolatile memory built on sliding ferroelectricity in twisted van der Waals stacks. 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 physics is specific and recent. Twisted stacks of van der Waals crystals can form moire superlattices with polar domains whose dipoles are antiferroelectrically aligned and controllable by applied electric fields. Sliding ferroelectricity arises from nanometer-scale interlayer sliding, coupling in-plane atomic displacement to out-of-plane polarization switching. The mechanism has been demonstrated in bilayer hexagonal boron nitride and in semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenides, where polarization reversal can occur with minimal energy dissipation.
The topic is candid about what it takes to compete. Advancement and prototype development requires combined multidisciplinary expertise in the design, fabrication, measurement, and modeling of lattice dynamics in twisted moire van der Waals structures, as well as charge transport and optoelectronics in van der Waals materials. That is four distinct competencies, and no single-discipline team has them.
Phase I is unusual in one respect worth noting early: it asks you to establish the performance targets rather than hit them. During Phase I, measurable indicators will be quantified to establish appropriate performance targets for Phases II and III and to enable benchmarking against existing nonvolatile memory technologies.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV005
Title: Development of Ultrafast Nonvolatile Memory Based on Sliding Ferroelectricity in Moire Polar Homostructures
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 Areas: Advanced Materials, Microelectronics, Quantum Science
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance
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 systems named: bilayer hexagonal boron nitride and semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenides
Readout platforms named: graphene field-effect transistors and transition-metal-dichalcogenide-based field-effect transistors
Performance indicators to quantify in Phase I: switching speed, switching energy, endurance, retention, readout fidelity, device-to-device reproducibility, and scalability beyond single-device demonstrations
Prior investment: Department of War Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative funding has already demonstrated twisted two-dimensional heterostructures advanced into atomically thin twistronic memory cell prototypes
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: sliding ferroelectricity, moire superlattice, van der Waals materials, nonvolatile memory, twistronics, two-dimensional materials, ferroelectric domains, graphene field-effect transistor, transition metal dichalcogenides, low-power memory, high-endurance memory, polar homostructures
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 ultrafast, high-endurance, nonvolatile memory technology based on sliding ferroelectricity in polar moire van der Waals homostructures.
Note the word homostructures. A homostructure is the same material twisted against itself, as opposed to a heterostructure stacking different materials. That distinction is in the title and the objective, and it matters: twisted bilayer hexagonal boron nitride is a homostructure, and the moire polarity arises from the twist rather than from a chemical interface.
The mechanism
Twisted stacks of van der Waals crystals can form moire superlattices with polar domains whose dipoles are antiferroelectrically aligned and controllable by applied electric fields.
Sliding ferroelectricity arises from nanometer-scale interlayer sliding in van der Waals materials, coupling in-plane atomic displacement to out-of-plane polarization switching.
This mechanism has been demonstrated in bilayer hexagonal boron nitride and semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenides, where polarization reversal can occur with minimal energy dissipation.
That last clause is the whole value proposition. Conventional ferroelectric switching moves ions through a lattice against substantial barriers. Sliding ferroelectricity moves one atomic plane laterally against a van der Waals gap, which is a far weaker restoring force. Minimal energy dissipation per switch, and no chemical bond breaking, is what should give both the speed and the endurance the title promises.
Why the Department is funding this now
Recent Department of War investments through the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative have demonstrated advances in twisted two-dimensional heterostructures into atomically thin twistronic memory cell prototypes with potential advantages in speed, endurance, energy efficiency, and scalability.
That sentence is your transition narrative handed to you. This is MURI-derived science, the program exists to move MURI-derived science into small businesses, and the topic says the prototypes already exist. Identify which MURI, which university group, and which people, and the required narrative on transitioning early academic research writes itself.
The four required competencies
The advancement and prototype development requires a combined multidisciplinary expertise in the design, fabrication, measurement, and modeling of lattice dynamics in twisted moire van der Waals structures, as well as charge transport and optoelectronics in van der Waals materials.
Read that as a staffing requirement. Design and fabrication of twisted stacks, which is a specialized and largely manual craft. Measurement, including the electrical and optical characterization of nanoscale polar domains. Modeling of lattice dynamics, which is where the sliding physics lives. And charge transport and optoelectronics in van der Waals materials, which is what makes a readout work.
Since qualifications of key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, mapping named people onto these four competencies is one of the highest-value things you can do with your fifteen pages.
The technical approach the topic wants
The technical approach should exploit the atomically thin nature, low defect density, and strong in-plane bonding of van der Waals materials to develop sliding ferroelectric nonvolatile memory devices designed to outperform current memory technologies in speed, endurance, and scalability.
Engineered nanoscale polar domains in moire superlattices will serve as nonvolatile memory cells based on local ferroelectricity.
To demonstrate the electrical and optical readouts in the designed nonvolatile memory devices, the proposal should leverage the scalability and controllability features of well-established systems, such as graphene field-effect transistors and transition-metal-dichalcogenide-based field-effect transistors.
Three material properties are named as the levers: atomically thin nature, low defect density, and strong in-plane bonding. Each maps to a memory metric. Atomically thin gives you scaling density. Low defect density gives you endurance and reproducibility. Strong in-plane bonding is what lets a layer slide laterally without the lattice degrading, which is the fatigue-resistance argument.
And note the readout instruction. You are not asked to invent a readout. You are told to use graphene or TMD field-effect transistors because they are well established and scalable. Following that instruction is cheaper and more credible than proposing something novel on the readout side, and it lets your novelty stay concentrated in the memory cell.
Phase I Requirements
Demonstrate the feasibility of optimal moire superlattice design for fast and durable sliding ferroelectric domain reversal, including domain wall pinning strategies and nanostructured polar moire superlattice fabrication.
Evaluate and analyze electrical and optical readout schemes using graphene field-effect transistors or transition-metal-dichalcogenide-based devices integrated with moire polar domain structures.
Perform quantitative analysis of the switching behavior, retention, readout fidelity, speed, energy efficiency, and endurance indicators under optimal device operating conditions.
The success of the project will be evaluated using measurable performance indicators, including switching speed, switching energy, endurance, retention, readout fidelity, device-to-device reproducibility, and scalability beyond single-device demonstrations. During Phase I, these values will be quantified to establish appropriate performance targets for Phases II and III and to enable benchmarking against existing nonvolatile memory technologies.
Reading this scope carefully
Three tasks and one measurement framework. The tasks are superlattice design including domain wall pinning, readout scheme evaluation on established FET platforms, and quantitative characterization.
The measurement framework is the part worth dwelling on, because it is unusual. Seven indicators are named, and Phase I quantifies them in order to establish the targets for Phases II and III. You are not being asked to beat a specification. You are being asked to produce the specification, honestly, and to benchmark it against existing nonvolatile memory.
That is an invitation to be rigorous rather than optimistic, and it changes how you should write. A proposal that promises specific Phase II numbers it cannot yet justify is answering a different question. A proposal that lays out exactly how each of the seven indicators will be measured, with what instruments, on what device geometry, and how the results will be compared against flash, magnetoresistive RAM, resistive RAM, and conventional ferroelectric FETs, is answering this one.
Domain wall pinning, which is the technical crux
Domain wall pinning strategies appear in the Phase I task list and again in Phase II, where the topic says particular attention must be paid to the atomic-scale configuration of the engineered sliding ferroelectric state and the role of domain-wall pinning for controllability.
That repetition is a signal. In a moire superlattice, the polar domains are defined by the twist, and the domain walls between them are where switching happens. If the walls move freely, the state is not stable and retention fails. If they are pinned too strongly, switching costs energy and speed, and the endurance advantage evaporates. The engineering problem is controlled pinning: enough to hold a state, little enough to switch cheaply.
A proposal with a specific, physically grounded pinning strategy, whether through nanostructured local gates, deliberate defect placement, strain engineering, or twist-angle gradients, is addressing the thing the topic names twice.
Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes
Phase II
Develop integrated sliding-ferroelectric memory-device prototypes and array-level architectures for more practical use, focusing on systematic evaluation of memory operation benchmarks including endurance, switching speed, and energy efficiency under realistic operating conditions.
Particular attention must be paid to address the atomic-scale configuration of the engineered sliding ferroelectric state and the role of domain-wall pinning for controllability.
Address scaling and manufacturability beyond single-device demonstrations, aiming at initial demonstration of wafer-scale patterning of local gates, partitioning of van der Waals structures into individual memory cells, and device packaging of memory arrays.
Finally, establish quantitative comparison against competing nonvolatile memory technologies by evaluating switching energy, achievable integration density, and intrinsic fatigue resistance for long-term device operation.
The move from single devices to arrays is the hard part, and the topic names the three specific manufacturing problems: wafer-scale patterning of local gates, partitioning van der Waals structures into individual cells, and packaging. Twisted van der Waals stacks are famously made one at a time by hand, so a credible answer to wafer-scale anything is a substantial differentiator. Address it in the preliminary Phase II Plan even though it is not a Phase I task.
Phase III
Develop a high-speed memory device with low-power device operation, emphasizing energy-efficient memory for edge computing, high-density embedded memory, and robust architectures for defense-relevant electronics.
Identify use cases where atomically thin, rapid, durable and low power switching will provide a demonstrable advantage over existing technology, and describe approaches to industrial adoption and system level integration. Relatively low-power and moderate-speed operation offered by the developed technology can provide added value to general purpose edge-computing applications.
As performance metrics are established during Phases I and II, broader applications will be evaluated, including high-density embedded memory, neuromorphic and in-memory computing, reconfigurable logic, radiation-tolerant electronics, cryogenic control electronics, and memory components integrated with two-dimensional semiconductor platforms.
Note the phrase "relatively low-power and moderate-speed operation." That is a notably honest hedge against the title's promise of ultrafast, and it tells you the government will accept a device that wins on energy rather than raw speed. Six broader applications are listed, and two of them, radiation-tolerant electronics and cryogenic control electronics, are defense-specific niches where an atomically thin ferroelectric could be genuinely differentiated rather than competing head-on with commercial memory.
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 four named competencies. The research institution owns the twisted stack design and fabrication, the lattice dynamics modeling, and the nanoscale characterization of polar domains, since that is where twistronics expertise and the requisite instrumentation live. The small business owns the device integration onto graphene or TMD field-effect transistors, the electrical and optical readout engineering, the quantitative benchmarking against commercial memory, and the path toward wafer-scale processing.
Because this topic descends directly from Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative work, the institution's contribution is substantive rather than nominal, which makes a 30 percent share easy to justify. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, the specific instruments, and the tasks.
Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects, biological agents, and similar elements, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before a contract is awarded.
The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now
This program mechanic catches first-time applicants and it deserves its own section.
Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. All Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II selections are based, in large part, on the success of the Phase I effort, so it is vital for small business concerns to discuss the Phase I project results with their Technical Point of Contact.
The 30-day window to submit a Phase II proposal is expected to commence 6 to 9 months into the Phase I period. The details on the due date, content, and submission requirements will be provided to Phase I awardees by the S&T Foundations STTR Program Management Office via subsequent notification.
This will be the only opportunity to submit a Phase II proposal for the Basic Research topics. The S&T Foundations STTR Program cannot accept proposals outside the established Phase II submission dates, and proposals received at any other time will not be evaluated.
Phase II proposals are expected to be structured as a 10 to 12 month base period not to exceed $1,000,000 plus a 10 to 12 month option period not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire Phase II effort not exceeding $2,000,000.
Why this changes your Phase I plan
The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. You will be writing your Phase II proposal while the Phase I effort is still running, arguing Phase II merit on partial results.
Structure the Phase I schedule so your most persuasive results land in the first six months, and say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then. Establish the Technical Point of Contact relationship early in performance, because the program says discussing Phase I results with the TPOC is vital and the missed window is unrecoverable.
Funding, Cost Structure, and Program Mechanics
The award
The Phase I amount must not exceed $250,000 over a period of 12 months. The Government anticipates making multiple Phase I awards under this topic, subject to the availability of funds and the receipt of meritorious proposals.
Note also that due to limited funding, S&T Foundations reserves the right to limit awards under any topic.
The 15-page limit is a hard compliance gate
The technical volume is not to exceed 15 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Technical volumes exceeding 15 pages will be deemed non-compliant and will not be evaluated.
Note the phrasing. Not "pages in excess will not be considered," which is what several other components say. Non-compliant and not evaluated. An over-length technical volume loses the whole proposal, not the extra pages. Count the pages before you submit, and remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside the limit.
Percentage of Work
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program BAA. Deviations from the POW requirements are not permitted.
With a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, your POW arithmetic needs to be right before you finalize the subaward. Model it first.
Technical and Business Assistance
Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA funding. Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase I and Phase II cost ceilings and is not subject to profit or fee.
All requests for TABA must be completed using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, and the completed form must be included in Volume 5 of the proposal submission in DSIP. OSW will not accept requests for TABA that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.
The form requirement is absolute. For this topic, intellectual property counsel is the standout use, because twisted van der Waals device architectures emerging from MURI-funded university work carry real IP complexity, and a required allocation of rights agreement makes getting the structure right early valuable. Semiconductor manufacturing and foundry transition consulting is a close second, given the wafer-scale patterning challenge in Phase II.
The Company Commercialization Report is not evaluated
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by S&T Foundations during proposal evaluations. Complete it because it is required, and put your commercialization effort into the technical volume instead, where it is scored.
Evaluation criteria, in stated order of importance
This is one of the most useful things in the OSW Basic Research instructions.
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation. The criteria will be in descending order of importance with technical merit, soundness, and innovation of the proposed approach being the most important, followed by qualifications of key personnel, and then followed by commercialization potential.
Evaluation of the Phase I proposal will include an assessment of not only the feasibility studies planned for Phase I but the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Awards will be made on the basis of technical evaluations using the criteria described in the DoW Solicitation and availability of S&T Foundations STTR funds.
Three things follow. Technical merit dominates, so that is where your pages belong. Key personnel ranks second, ahead of commercialization, which means naming the right people matters more than the market analysis. And the preliminary Phase II Plan is not a formality, because the evaluation explicitly assesses the overall approach and product proposed at the end of Phase II.
Only Government personnel will evaluate proposals, with the exception of personnel from Strategic Analysis, Inc who provide programmatic and administrative assistance for all topics.
Notification and debriefings
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status for a Phase I award within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the firm's Corporate Official and Principal Investigator of record. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.
Non-selected proposers may request a written debriefing within 30 calendar days of the select or non-select notification, as specified in that notification. Debriefs are typically provided in writing via email to the Corporate Official identified in the firm proposal within 30 days of receipt of the request. Requests for oral debriefs may not be accommodated. If contact information for the Corporate Official has changed since proposal submission, a notice of the change on company letterhead signed by the Corporate Official must accompany the debrief request.
The debriefing provision is genuinely valuable and underused. If you are not selected, a written debrief tells you what to fix, and this program recurs.
Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. As prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.sbir-sttr-protest@mail.mil.
Foreign nationals, privacy, and classification
If the offeror proposes to employ a foreign national, refer to the DoW Solicitation for definitions and reporting requirements. Ensure no Privacy Act information is included in the submittal.
Phase I and Phase II efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified level.
The unclassified expectation matters, because university research groups are typically open-research environments with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike several other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears anywhere in this release. Follow the DoW Solicitation reporting requirements for any foreign nationals you propose.
Questions
Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.
The instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW STTR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.
The References
Three, and they are the primary literature of this field rather than reviews. Read all three.
Yasuda, Wang, Watanabe, Taniguchi, and Jarillo-Herrero, Science 372, 1458 to 1462, 2021. This is the stacking-order ferroelectricity result in twisted boron nitride and the foundation of the field.
Ko, Yuk, Engelke, Carr, Kim, Park, Heo, Kim, Kim, Kim, Taniguchi, Watanabe, Park, Kaxiras, Yang, Kim, and Yoo, Nature Materials 22, 992 to 998, 2023. The twenty-author list is itself informative: this is the multidisciplinary collaboration the topic describes when it says advancement requires combined expertise across design, fabrication, measurement, and modeling.
Yasuda, Zalys-Geller, Wang, Bennett, Cheema, Watanabe, Taniguchi, Kaxiras, Jarillo-Herrero, and Ashoori, Science 385, 53 to 56, 2024. The most recent of the three and the closest to a memory device demonstration.
The pattern is worth noticing. Three high-impact papers from 2021, 2023, and 2024, with substantial author overlap, from the groups the Department has been funding. If your research institution partner is one of those groups, say so plainly. If it is not, you need a clear account of why your team can compete with them, because a reviewer will be comparing you to the authors of these papers.
Bring your own literature on the memory engineering side. The topic gives you no citations for endurance testing methodology, array architecture, or benchmarking against commercial nonvolatile memory, and the DoW STTR Phase I content requirements expect you to demonstrate awareness of the state of the art.
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-NV005?
OSW26TZ06-NV005 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Development of Ultrafast Nonvolatile Memory Based on Sliding Ferroelectricity in Moire Polar Homostructures," released under the OSW Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop ultrafast, high-endurance, nonvolatile memory technology based on sliding ferroelectricity in polar moire van der Waals homostructures.
What is sliding ferroelectricity?
Sliding ferroelectricity arises from nanometer-scale interlayer sliding in van der Waals materials, coupling in-plane atomic displacement to out-of-plane polarization switching. Twisted stacks of van der Waals crystals form moire superlattices with polar domains whose dipoles are antiferroelectrically aligned and controllable by applied electric fields. The topic notes that polarization reversal can occur with minimal energy dissipation, which is the core value proposition.
Which materials has this been demonstrated in?
The topic states the mechanism has been demonstrated in bilayer hexagonal boron nitride and semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenides.
What expertise does the topic say I need?
Combined multidisciplinary expertise in the design, fabrication, measurement, and modeling of lattice dynamics in twisted moire van der Waals structures, as well as charge transport and optoelectronics in van der Waals materials. That is four competencies, and since key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, mapping named people onto all four matters.
What does Phase I have to accomplish?
Demonstrate feasibility of optimal moire superlattice design for fast and durable sliding ferroelectric domain reversal, including domain wall pinning strategies and nanostructured polar moire superlattice fabrication. Evaluate and analyze electrical and optical readout schemes using graphene or TMD field-effect transistors integrated with moire polar domain structures. And perform quantitative analysis of switching behavior, retention, readout fidelity, speed, energy efficiency, and endurance indicators under optimal device operating conditions.
What performance targets must I hit in Phase I?
None are specified, and that is deliberate. Seven measurable indicators are named, switching speed, switching energy, endurance, retention, readout fidelity, device-to-device reproducibility, and scalability beyond single-device demonstrations, and Phase I quantifies these values to establish appropriate performance targets for Phases II and III and to enable benchmarking against existing nonvolatile memory technologies. You are producing the specification, not meeting one.
What readout should I use?
The topic instructs proposers to leverage the scalability and controllability features of well-established systems such as graphene field-effect transistors and transition-metal-dichalcogenide-based field-effect transistors. Following that guidance keeps your novelty in the memory cell rather than adding risk on the readout side.
Why does domain wall pinning matter so much?
It appears in both the Phase I and Phase II task lists, and Phase II says particular attention must be paid to the atomic-scale configuration of the engineered sliding ferroelectric state and the role of domain-wall pinning for controllability. Physically, freely moving walls mean poor retention, while strongly pinned walls mean expensive slow switching. Controlled pinning is the engineering crux.
What does Phase II require?
Integrated sliding-ferroelectric memory-device prototypes and array-level architectures, with systematic evaluation of endurance, switching speed, and energy efficiency under realistic operating conditions. It must address the atomic-scale configuration and domain-wall pinning, address scaling and manufacturability including initial demonstration of wafer-scale patterning of local gates, partitioning of van der Waals structures into individual memory cells, and device packaging of memory arrays, and establish quantitative comparison against competing nonvolatile memory technologies on switching energy, integration density, and intrinsic fatigue resistance.
What are the Phase III applications?
Energy-efficient memory for edge computing, high-density embedded memory, and robust architectures for defense-relevant electronics. As metrics are established, broader applications include neuromorphic and in-memory computing, reconfigurable logic, radiation-tolerant electronics, cryogenic control electronics, and memory integrated with two-dimensional semiconductor platforms. The topic notes the technology may offer relatively low-power and moderate-speed operation, which is a candid hedge worth reading.
Is this MURI-derived work?
Yes. The topic states that recent Department of War investments through the Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative have demonstrated advances in twisted two-dimensional heterostructures into atomically thin twistronic memory cell prototypes with potential advantages in speed, endurance, energy efficiency, and scalability. That provenance is the transition narrative this program exists to fund.
What is a homostructure, and why does the title use that word?
A homostructure stacks the same material against itself, with the moire polarity arising from the twist rather than from a chemical interface between different materials. Twisted bilayer hexagonal boron nitride is the canonical example.
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
Map named people onto the four required competencies. The topic states that advancement requires combined expertise in design, fabrication, measurement, and modeling of lattice dynamics in twisted moire structures, plus charge transport and optoelectronics in van der Waals materials. That is a staffing test, key personnel is the second-ranked criterion, and a proposal that leaves one of the four uncovered has a visible hole.
Give a specific domain wall pinning strategy. Pinning appears in both the Phase I and Phase II task lists, and it is the real engineering tension: enough pinning for retention, little enough for cheap fast switching. Nanostructured local gates, deliberate defect placement, strain engineering, or twist-angle gradients are all defensible answers. Hand-waving is not.
Do not over-promise performance numbers. Phase I is explicitly about quantifying the seven indicators to establish the targets for Phases II and III. A proposal that asserts Phase II specifications it cannot yet justify is answering a different question than the one asked. Rigor about how you will measure beats optimism about what you will find.
Use the readout platforms the topic names. Graphene and TMD field-effect transistors are specified because they are well established and scalable. Following that guidance keeps your novelty concentrated in the memory cell where it belongs, and inventing a new readout adds risk the topic did not ask you to take.
Benchmark against real incumbents by name. The topic asks for quantitative comparison against competing nonvolatile memory technologies on switching energy, integration density, and intrinsic fatigue resistance. Name flash, magnetoresistive RAM, resistive RAM, and ferroelectric FETs, and put your projected numbers next to theirs.
Say something credible about wafer scale. Twisted van der Waals stacks are made one at a time by hand, and Phase II asks for wafer-scale patterning of local gates, cell partitioning, and array packaging. Even a partial answer in the preliminary Phase II Plan differentiates you, because this is the barrier between a beautiful physics result and a memory product.
Consider the niche applications, not just the mainstream. The Phase III list includes radiation-tolerant electronics and cryogenic control electronics alongside edge computing and embedded memory. Those niches are where an atomically thin ferroelectric can win without beating commercial memory on cost per bit, and the topic itself concedes the technology may deliver relatively low-power, moderate-speed operation rather than record speed.
Claim the MURI lineage explicitly. The topic says Department of War MURI investments already produced atomically thin twistronic memory cell prototypes. Naming that program, that group, and those people is exactly the transition narrative this program was built to fund.
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.
OSW Basic Research STTR OSW26TZ06-NV004: Telecom Band Geometric Amplifier
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $250k
Description: Complete guide to OSW Basic Research STTR Phase I topic OSW26TZ06-NV004, telecom band geometric amplifier using Berry phase. Up to $250,000 over 12 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26TZ06-NV004 is a Phase I STTR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Basic Research, 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The program exists to move discoveries out of university laboratories and into small businesses. This topic asks for a device that amplifies telecom-band laser light using geometric phase, also called Berry phase, rather than by pumping a gain medium. 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 novelty here is genuine and the topic says so. Geometric amplification is a gain mechanism that has only been recently proposed, and to date it has only been demonstrated in the acoustic domain. Nobody has built one for light. The physics says you can: it can be realized using coupled resonators consisting only of linear, lossy components, so long as they can be modulated at a frequency comparable to the resonators' decay rate.
In the telecom domain the proposed realization is concrete. A pair of fiber loops including electrically tunable phase shifters modulated at roughly 1 MHz. The adiabatic evolution associated with that relatively slow modulation, together with the components' intrinsic loss, results in the accumulation of a geometric Berry phase whose complex part can be engineered to provide gain.
Phase I is a design study, not a build. Produce a complete design for a prototype based entirely on commercial off-the-shelf components, grounded in quantitative simulations that incorporate those components' specifications into the mathematical model of geometric amplification. That is an unusually clean and well-scoped 12-month effort.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26TZ06-NV004
Title: Telecom Band Geometric Amplifier
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 Areas: FutureG, Quantum Science
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance
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
Wavelength: telecom band, approximately 1,550 nanometers
Modulation frequency: approximately 1 MHz
Phase II performance floor: greater than 10 dB gain with bandwidth greater than 100 kHz
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: telecom laser, optical amplification, geometric amplifier, Berry phase
What the Program Is For, Which Shapes How You Write
This is worth understanding before drafting, because 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 accordingly.
This topic is unusually well suited to that framing, because the foundational work is a 2025 arXiv preprint on complex Berry phase and steady-state geometric amplification in non-Hermitian systems. If your research institution partner includes an author of that work or a group working directly on it, the transition narrative writes itself. If not, say clearly whose early research you are transitioning and how.
What the Topic Is Actually Asking For
The objective
The primary goal of this initiative is to design, build, and test a device that uses geometric phase, also known as Berry phase, to amplify laser light in the telecom band at a wavelength of approximately 1,550 nanometers. The device will use radio-frequency modulation of linear, lossy elements to produce optical amplification that outperforms existing technologies in parameter regimes of interest to the Department of War.
Note the phrase "in parameter regimes of interest." The topic does not claim geometric amplification will beat erbium-doped fiber amplifiers or Raman amplifiers everywhere. It asks you to identify the regimes where it wins. That framing is an invitation, and answering it specifically is one of the strongest things you can do in this proposal.
The state of the art, as the topic describes it
Present-day devices for amplifying telecom laser light mostly produce gain by incoherently pumping a medium, optically or electrically, or by coherently pumping a nonlinear medium with a laser. Both approaches are technologically mature, and offer a range of performance tradeoffs.
In contrast, geometric amplification is a gain mechanism that has only been recently proposed, and to date it has only been demonstrated in the acoustic domain. However, the principle of geometric amplification can be applied to any domain. It can be realized using coupled resonators consisting only of linear, lossy components, so long as they can be modulated at a frequency comparable to the resonators' decay rate.
Two things in that paragraph matter. The mechanism has never been demonstrated optically, which is what makes this high-risk high-reward basic research rather than engineering. And the enabling condition is specific: modulation at a frequency comparable to the resonator decay rate. That condition is what makes fiber loops with roughly 1 MHz modulation the natural implementation, and it is the constraint your design has to satisfy.
The proposed physical realization
In the telecom domain, this can be accomplished using a pair of fiber loops that include electrically tunable phase shifters that can be modulated at approximately 1 MHz. The adiabatic evolution associated with this relatively slow modulation, together with the components' intrinsic loss, results in the accumulation of a geometric Berry phase whose complex part can be engineered to provide gain.
The word "adiabatic" is doing real work. Adiabatic evolution means the modulation is slow compared to the system's internal dynamics, which is what allows the Berry phase description to hold. Getting that hierarchy of timescales right, modulation rate versus resonator decay rate versus optical round-trip time, is the design problem, and it is where a quantitative simulation earns its keep.
Why the Department cares
Geometric gain differs from existing forms of amplification in several respects, including that it achieves photon-number gain through radio-frequency modulation. This may offer practical advantages in terms of reduced device complexity, size, and power consumption.
Read that as the value proposition. You are not pumping with a second laser and you are not doping a medium. You are modulating a phase shifter with an RF signal. If that works, the amplifier becomes simpler, smaller, and lower power, which are exactly the properties that matter for deployable photonic systems.
The Component Technology Priority Areas of FutureG and Quantum Science, and the Critical Technology Area of Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance, tell you the intended application space: optical communications infrastructure and quantum-adjacent photonics. Added noise, which appears in the Phase II metric list, is the property that determines whether a quantum application is possible, so treat it as important even in Phase I.
Phase I Requirements
Produce a complete design for a prototype telecom-band geometric amplifier based entirely on commercial off-the-shelf components. The design should be based on quantitative simulations that incorporate the components' specifications into the mathematical model of geometric amplification.
Reading this scope precisely
Three constraints, and each one is a gift as much as a limitation.
A complete design. Not a concept study, not a feasibility argument. A design a reviewer could hand to an engineer.
Based entirely on commercial off-the-shelf components. This is the most consequential constraint and the most helpful one. It means you are not developing custom photonics in Phase I, and it means your design is verifiable: a reviewer can look up the datasheets. It also means the design space is bounded by what you can actually buy, which is where the real engineering judgment lies. Fiber loop length, coupler ratios, phase shifter modulation bandwidth and insertion loss, detector noise floor.
Quantitative simulations that incorporate the components' specifications into the mathematical model of geometric amplification. Not an abstract model with idealized parameters. Real datasheet numbers fed into the theory. That is the specific deliverable, and it is what separates a strong proposal from a literature review with a block diagram.
What a strong Phase I plan looks like
Build the mathematical model from the cited literature, specifically the non-Hermitian complex Berry phase framework, and state it explicitly rather than by reference.
Identify the component set with named parts and datasheet specifications: fiber, couplers, electrically tunable phase shifters with their modulation bandwidth and insertion loss, circulators or isolators, and detection.
Map the parameter space and show where gain exists. The condition is modulation at a frequency comparable to the resonator decay rate, so sweep that ratio and show the gain surface.
Predict the Phase II metrics from the simulation: gain, bandwidth, power consumption, added noise, and harmonic distortion. Phase II requires greater than 10 dB gain with bandwidth greater than 100 kHz, so your Phase I simulation should show whether the COTS design reaches that and, if not, what would need to change.
Quantify the added noise. Every amplifier adds noise, and a novel gain mechanism's noise properties are not obvious. This is the question a physicist reviewer will ask first, and the one most likely to be underdeveloped in competing proposals.
Identify the parameter regimes where geometric amplification beats the incumbents, since the objective explicitly frames the goal that way.
One caution on scope discipline
The topic says design, and $250,000 over 12 months does not fund a build. A proposal that promises a working demonstration in Phase I is not more competitive, it is less credible against a topic that asked for a design. Where you have existing hardware or prior experimental results to cite as supporting evidence, cite them, but do not restructure Phase I around building.
Phase II and Phase III, For Planning Purposes
Phase II
Optimize the geometric amplifier prototype of Phase I with respect to the following performance metrics: gain, bandwidth, power consumption, added noise, and harmonic distortion. At minimum, the device should exhibit greater than 10 dB gain with bandwidth greater than 100 kHz.
Five metrics, two with hard floors. Note that Phase II says "optimize the prototype of Phase I," which implies the build happens in Phase II, consistent with Phase I being a design effort.
Ten decibels of gain and 100 kilohertz of bandwidth are modest against a commercial erbium-doped fiber amplifier, which is the point. The topic is not asking you to beat EDFAs on gain-bandwidth product. It is asking you to demonstrate that the mechanism works optically at a useful level, and then to find the regimes where its other properties, complexity, size, and power, make it preferable.
The bandwidth figure is worth thinking about now. Modulation at roughly 1 MHz and an amplification bandwidth greater than 100 kHz are related quantities in this architecture, so your Phase I simulation should make the relationship explicit and show what sets the bandwidth ceiling.
Note also the program's Phase II structure: a 10 to 12 month base not to exceed $1,000,000 and a 10 to 12 month option not to exceed $1,000,000, with the entire effort not exceeding $2,000,000. Your preliminary Phase II Plan, which is a required part of the Phase I technical volume, should fit that structure.
Phase III
Collaborate with industrial or DoW lab partners to incorporate the lessons learned from Phase II into a commercial on-chip geometric amplifier that is superior to existing optical amplifier technologies in parameter regimes of importance to the Department of War.
Note "on-chip." The fiber loop implementation is the demonstration vehicle. The commercial end state is integrated photonics. If your team has a path to a photonic integrated circuit implementation, whether a foundry relationship or experience with silicon photonics or thin-film lithium niobate, saying so in the preliminary Phase II Plan strengthens the transition story considerably.
The Phase II Submission Window, Which You Must Plan For Now
This is a program mechanic that 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.
Why this changes your Phase I plan
The Phase II window opens 6 to 9 months into a 12-month Phase I. That means you will be writing your Phase II proposal while your Phase I effort is still running, and you will be arguing Phase II merit on partial Phase I results.
Structure the Phase I schedule so that your most persuasive results land in the first six months. For this topic, that means getting the model built and the parameter space mapped early, so that by month six you can say the design closes and here is the predicted gain, rather than still being in component selection.
Note also the TPOC relationship. The program says it is vital to discuss Phase I results with your Technical Point of Contact, and the missed window is unrecoverable. Establish that contact early in performance.
The STTR Partnership and Allocation of Rights
This is an STTR, which means 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 is clean here. The research institution owns the theory: the non-Hermitian complex Berry phase framework, the mathematical model of geometric amplification, and the parameter space analysis. The small business owns the engineering: component selection against datasheets, the practical fiber loop and phase shifter design, the noise and distortion analysis, and the path to an on-chip product.
Because the underlying physics is very recent, the institution's contribution is likely to be substantive rather than nominal, which makes a 30 percent share credible. Name the institution, the faculty principal investigator, and the specific tasks, and remember that the allocation of rights agreement has to be negotiated after selection, so the sooner you have the conversation about IP the smoother that goes.
Note that the program instructions ask you to plan carefully for research involving animal or human subjects or biological agents, and warn that the short duration of a Phase I effort may preclude such plans unless coordinated before award. That is not relevant to this topic, but it is worth knowing the program says it.
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.
Two hundred fifty thousand dollars over twelve months is a comfortable budget for a design and simulation effort with a university theory partner, which is exactly what this topic asks for.
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. Check the page count before you submit.
Remember that the transition narrative and the preliminary Phase II Plan both sit inside those fifteen pages.
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, intellectual property counsel is the standout use, because a brand-new gain mechanism with a university partner and a required allocation of rights agreement is exactly the situation where getting the IP structure right early pays for itself.
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 and it is worth quoting precisely.
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 the model and the simulation are where your pages should go. Key personnel is second and ahead of commercialization, which for a topic resting on a 2025 theoretical result means naming the people who understand that theory matters a great deal. 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 within 30 days tells you what to fix, and this program runs annually.
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 for this topic, because a university photonics group working on Berry phase physics is typically an open-research environment with international students and postdocs. This program is compatible with that, unlike some other components in this cycle, and no topic-level ITAR restriction appears here. 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, and they form a clean intellectual lineage from 1984 to 2025. Read all of them; there are only five and they are short.
Lane and colleagues, "Complex Berry phase and steady-state geometric amplification in non-Hermitian systems," arXiv:2503.23197, 2025. This is the enabling result and the reason the topic exists. It is also the acoustic-domain demonstration the topic refers to. Your proposal should engage it directly.
Berry, "Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 392, 45, 1984. The original Berry phase paper.
Simon, "Holonomy, the Quantum Adiabatic Theorem, and Berry's Phase," Physical Review Letters 51, 2167, 1984. The geometric formulation of the same result.
Garrison and Wright, "Complex geometrical phases for dissipative systems," Physics Letters A 128, 177, 1988. This is where the complex extension enters, and the complex part of the geometric phase is precisely what provides gain in this scheme. Load-bearing.
Bliokh, "The appearance of a geometric-type instability in dynamic systems with adiabatically varying parameters," Journal of Physics A 32, 2551, 1991. Geometric instability, which is the same physics viewed as growth rather than gain.
The set tells you something useful about how to write. Two 1984 foundational papers, two papers from 1988 and 1991 extending the idea to dissipative and unstable systems, and one 2025 paper closing the loop with a demonstration. A proposal that traces that arc and then says clearly what remains to be done in the optical domain speaks the reviewer's language. A proposal that cites only the 2025 preprint looks like it read one paper.
Note that the 1991 Bliokh citation as printed lists a 1991 year with a Journal of Physics A volume 32; 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
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Commit your research institution partner, ideally one with direct connection to the non-Hermitian geometric amplification work, and start the subaward paperwork, since university contracting offices are slow in October. Model your Percentage of Work against the STTR minimums before finalizing the subaward. Read all five references. Build a preliminary version of the mathematical model so your proposal can show you have it, not just plan to build it. Identify candidate commercial off-the-shelf components with real datasheets, especially electrically tunable phase shifters with modulation bandwidth near 1 MHz and known insertion loss. Sketch the parameter regimes where geometric amplification would beat incumbent amplifiers. Begin the intellectual property conversation with the institution, since an allocation of rights agreement is required upon selection. Confirm SAM registration and your CMMC Level 1 posture.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 15-page technical volume. Allocate deliberately: the mathematical model and simulation approach, the COTS component design, the predicted performance against the Phase II floors of greater than 10 dB gain and greater than 100 kHz bandwidth, added noise analysis, the parameter regimes where the mechanism wins, key personnel with the theory credentials foregrounded, the academic-to-small-business transition narrative, and the preliminary Phase II Plan with the overall vision, approach, and potential product. Remember technical merit is the top criterion and key personnel is second.
October 6 through October 7. Submit any technical questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes. Administrative questions go to Jason Day at jason.o.day.civ@mail.mil.
October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume against the $250,000 and 12-month ceiling. Price the simulation and modeling labor, the university subaward, computing, and any component procurement for validation. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form if you want the $6,500 and place it in Volume 5.
October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, which is required though not evaluated. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering it must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded there. Run compliance, and count the technical volume pages carefully, because exceeding 15 pages makes the proposal non-compliant and unevaluated.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW Basic Research STTR topic OSW26TZ06-NV004?
OSW26TZ06-NV004 is a Phase I STTR topic titled "Telecom Band Geometric Amplifier," released under the Office of the Secretary of War Basic Research 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The goal is to design, build, and test a device that uses geometric phase, also known as Berry phase, to amplify laser light in the telecom band at approximately 1,550 nanometers, using radio-frequency modulation of linear, lossy elements.
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.
What exactly does Phase I have to deliver?
A complete design for a prototype telecom-band geometric amplifier based entirely on commercial off-the-shelf components, with the design based on quantitative simulations that incorporate the components' specifications into the mathematical model of geometric amplification. It is a design and simulation effort, not a build.
Has this ever been demonstrated?
Not optically. The topic states that geometric amplification is a gain mechanism that has only been recently proposed and to date has only been demonstrated in the acoustic domain, citing the 2025 arXiv paper by Lane and colleagues. The principle can be applied to any domain, which is what makes this a high-risk, high-reward basic research topic.
How is the optical version supposed to work?
Using a pair of fiber loops that include electrically tunable phase shifters modulated at approximately 1 MHz. The adiabatic evolution associated with that relatively slow modulation, together with the components' intrinsic loss, results in accumulation of a geometric Berry phase whose complex part can be engineered to provide gain. The enabling condition is that the resonators be modulated at a frequency comparable to their decay rate.
Why would anyone prefer this to an erbium-doped fiber amplifier?
The topic's answer is that geometric gain achieves photon-number gain through radio-frequency modulation rather than by pumping a medium, which may offer practical advantages in reduced device complexity, size, and power consumption. The objective asks for amplification that outperforms existing technologies in parameter regimes of interest to the Department, which is an invitation to identify those regimes specifically rather than to claim across-the-board superiority.
What are the Phase II performance targets?
Optimize with respect to gain, bandwidth, power consumption, added noise, and harmonic distortion. At minimum the device should exhibit greater than 10 dB gain with bandwidth greater than 100 kHz.
What does Phase III look like?
Collaborate with industrial or DoW lab partners to incorporate lessons learned from Phase II into a commercial on-chip geometric amplifier superior to existing optical amplifier technologies in parameter regimes of importance to the Department. Note "on-chip," which means the fiber loop is the demonstration vehicle and integrated photonics is the product.
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
Bring the theory partner, and put them forward. Key personnel is the second-ranked evaluation criterion, ahead of commercialization, and this topic rests on a mechanism first proposed in a 2025 paper. If your research institution partner includes an author of that work or a group actively working on non-Hermitian geometric phase, that is your single strongest asset. Name them prominently and describe their specific contribution.
Show the model, do not promise it. The Phase I deliverable is a design based on quantitative simulations incorporating component specifications into the mathematical model. A proposal that already presents a preliminary version of that model, even a simplified one, demonstrates you can do the work. A proposal that describes the model it will build does not.
Name real parts with real datasheets. "Based entirely on commercial off-the-shelf components" is a verifiable constraint, and it is the constraint that makes the design credible. Named phase shifters with stated modulation bandwidth and insertion loss, named couplers with stated ratios, named fiber. A reviewer can check them, and that is a feature.
Get the timescale hierarchy right and show it. Modulation frequency comparable to resonator decay rate is the enabling condition for the whole scheme, and the optical round-trip time is a third timescale in a fiber loop. Show the hierarchy explicitly and show where in that parameter space gain exists.
Lead your analysis with added noise. Every reviewer with a photonics background will ask what a geometric amplifier does to the noise figure, and the answer is not obvious for a mechanism that gets gain from loss plus modulation. It is one of the five Phase II metrics, it determines whether quantum applications are possible, and most competing proposals will treat it as an afterthought.
Answer the "parameter regimes" question specifically. The objective asks for amplification that outperforms existing technologies in parameter regimes of interest to the Department. That is a direct invitation. Name the regime: low power budget, small form factor, a wavelength or bandwidth where doped-fiber gain is awkward, an environment where a pump laser is a liability. A specific answer here distinguishes you.
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.
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 Phase II 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 you need to show a Phase II reviewer must exist by month six. Say in your Phase I plan what will be complete by then.
Point at the on-chip endgame. Phase III is a commercial on-chip geometric amplifier. If you have any credible path to integrated photonics, a foundry relationship, silicon photonics or thin-film lithium niobate experience, mention it. It converts a physics demonstration into a product story.
Count your pages. Exceeding 15 pages makes the technical volume non-compliant and unevaluated. That 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 IP originates in a university theoretical result, 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.
NGA SBIR OSW26BZ06-DV034: Vision Language Model for SAR Target Search and Classification from SICD
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $1.5m
Description: Complete guide to NGA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic OSW26BZ06-DV034, vision language models for SAR target search and classification from SICD. Up to $1.5M over 24 months. TS/SCI required. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26BZ06-DV034 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency under the 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. Phase I proposals are not accepted. NGA wants a vision language model that reads synthetic aperture radar imagery in Sensor Independent Complex Data format, finds the targets in it, and classifies them. The award must not exceed $1,500,000 for up to a 24-month period of performance, and the technical volume runs to 40 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The feasibility gate here is unusual and worth reading twice, because it has two halves and one of them is about people rather than technology. You must demonstrate successful classification with greater than 95 percent accuracy of single SAR image chips in SICD format. And you must demonstrate that the performer is very well qualified, with PhD or research level given as the example, and has demonstrated experience classifying complex SAR imagery. NGA spells out what qualification means: a scientist's extensive knowledge of SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning understanding and implementation.
That is a credentialing requirement embedded in a technical gate. A team of excellent machine learning engineers without deep SAR phenomenology expertise does not satisfy it, and neither does a SAR expert without deep learning implementation experience. NGA is asking for both in the same organization.
Then there is the security environment, which governs every NGA SBIR. This work is classified. All contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret personnel security clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for Sensitive Compartmented Information access. Contractors are subject to counterintelligence-scope polygraph. Your Key Personnel section must list each person's clearance level. And NGA scores your ability to perform controlled work as part of the technical evaluation.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26BZ06-DV034
Title: Vision Language Model (VLM) for Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) target search and classification from Sensor Independent Complex Data (SICD)
Agency: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), a Department of War combat support agency and a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community
Solicitation: NGA 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Direct to Phase II only. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only
Award: must not exceed $1,500,000
Period of performance: up to 24 months
Options: the offeror shall not propose option periods
Technical volume: 40 pages maximum, consisting of Part 1 Phase I Justification at 20 pages maximum and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal at 20 pages maximum. Pages in excess will not be considered. Number all pages consecutively
Component Technology Priority Areas: Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Trusted AI and Autonomy, Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic. Note that the work itself is classified, which imposes far stricter personnel and facility requirements than an ITAR notice would
Feasibility accuracy bar: greater than 95 percent classification accuracy on single SAR image chips in SICD format
Feasibility qualification bar: the performer must be very well qualified, PhD or research level, with demonstrated experience classifying complex SAR imagery, requiring extensive knowledge of SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning understanding and implementation
Phase II scope: input is SAR imagery with multiple targets, output is location and classification of the targets. Government-provided SAR SICD data or your own or commercial data may be used
Clearance environment: all contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret personnel security clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for SCI access. Contractors are subject to counterintelligence-scope polygraph as requested
Added evaluation criterion: NGA will evaluate a vendor's ability to perform controlled work, meaning CUI and classified, as part of the technical evaluation score
Section 508: the Commercialization Strategy shall address Section 508 compliance per NGA Instruction 8400.4 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, with an outline of how compliance will be achieved
Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by NGA during proposal evaluations
Percentage of Work: NGA will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements
Technical and Business Assistance: up to $50,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5
Contract type: NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract within 180 days of the proposal due date, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: synthetic aperture radar, Sensor Independent Complex Data, metadata, single look complex
The Feasibility Bar, Which Has Two Halves
This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only. To qualify for a Phase II award, proposers must submit Feasibility Documentation demonstrating two things. The purpose of this documentation, in NGA's words, is to prove that the underlying technology is mature and ready to transition immediately into Phase II requirements.
Half one: the accuracy result
Successful classification, greater than 95 percent accuracy, of single SAR image chips in SICD format.
Three parts of that sentence matter. Greater than 95 percent accuracy is a specific, measurable number. Single SAR image chips means one target per chip, which is a classification problem rather than a detection or search problem. And in SICD format means complex data, not detected magnitude imagery.
That last point is the one most likely to trip up an otherwise strong applicant. SICD is the NGA standard for sensor independent complex data, meaning the imagery retains phase as well as amplitude, in single look complex form. Most publicly available SAR classification work, and most benchmark results, use detected magnitude chips. If your 95 percent result is on magnitude imagery, it does not literally satisfy the stated gate, and the honest move is to reproduce the result on SICD data or to state plainly what you have and what the gap is.
Report the accuracy properly: the class set, the number of classes, the number of chips, the train and test split, whether the split is by scene or by chip, and the confusion matrix. A 95 percent number on a small closed class set with a chip-level random split is a much weaker claim than the same number on a scene-disjoint split, and a reviewer who works in this field knows the difference.
Half two: the qualification of the performer
The performer must be very well qualified, with PhD and research level given as examples, and must have demonstrated experience classifying complex SAR imagery.
NGA then defines what qualification requires: a scientist's extensive knowledge of SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning, meaning machine learning, understanding and implementation.
This is a personnel requirement inside the feasibility gate, and it is unusual. Three distinct competencies are named and they rarely coexist in one person or one small team.
SAR signal and image processing means the phenomenology: how the image is formed, what phase carries, speckle, sidelobes, layover and shadow, polarimetry, the difference between slant plane and ground plane, and why a SAR image of a target looks nothing like an optical image of it.
SAR operations from space means the collection side: orbital geometry, look angles, incidence angles, revisit, squint, the collection modes and their resolution and swath tradeoffs, and the metadata that describes all of it. The SICD keyword list includes metadata for a reason.
Deep learning understanding and implementation means you build and train models, not just apply them.
Address all three explicitly in your Key Personnel and Related Work sections, with named individuals, degrees, publications, and specific prior work on complex SAR. If one of the three is weaker in your team, say how you cover it, whether through a named consultant, a subcontract, or a hire, and remember that the Percentage of Work rules and the security requirements both apply to anyone you bring in.
The restriction that applies to both halves
NGA's Direct to Phase II guidelines state that feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the principal investigator. If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property, the proposer must either own the IP or must have obtained license rights to such technology prior to proposal submission.
Audit the provenance of your 95 percent result. SAR automatic target recognition work in the United States has been substantially funded through SBIR and STTR programs, so this is a live risk for exactly the companies best positioned to bid. Internally funded work, privately funded work, non-SBIR government contract work, and your own published academic work under other funding are cleaner ground.
If the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the associated topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.
Twenty pages of feasibility is a lot, so use it
NGA allows twenty pages for feasibility documentation, four times what most components in this cycle allow. That is room for the full experimental description, the confusion matrix, the data provenance discussion, example chips with your model's outputs, the SICD handling detail, and complete personnel qualification evidence including publication lists. A five-page feasibility section submitted into a twenty-page allowance reads as thin evidence.
What NGA Is Actually Looking For
The objective
Develop VLM based SAR imagery search and classification from sensor independent complex data.
Note "search" in the title and objective. That is a broader task than classification, and it is where Phase II goes.
The concept, in NGA's words
Vision language models combine multimodal data and imagery, with video, SAR, and infrared imagery named, and generative AI models to understand and process video, image, and text. A VLM integrates large language models with a vision encoder that allows the LLM to explain contents of an imagery.
The goal of this research is to analyze, meaning detect and classify, synthetic aperture radar imagery from sensor independent complex data.
Why a VLM rather than a classifier, which your proposal should answer
The topic does not explain why the model has to be a vision language model rather than a conventional detector and classifier, and that is arguably the central intellectual question of the proposal. Notice the phrase NGA chose: a vision encoder that allows the LLM to explain contents of an imagery.
Explanation is the plausible answer, and it aligns with the Trusted AI and Autonomy Component Technology Priority Area. A GEOINT analyst does not only want a bounding box and a label. They want to know what in the image supports that label, in language, so they can accept or reject it and write it into a product. A VLM can produce that. A classifier producing a softmax score cannot.
Language also enables open-vocabulary and query-driven search, which is what "target search" implies. Instead of a fixed class list baked in at training time, an analyst can ask for something described in words. That is a genuine capability change for GEOINT tasking and it is worth arguing for explicitly.
If you make that case well, you have answered the question the topic left implicit, and you have distinguished yourself from proposals that treat "VLM" as a fashionable label on a conventional detector.
The hard part, which is SAR-specific
Vision language models are trained on natural imagery and text. SAR imagery is not natural imagery. It is complex-valued, speckled, geometrically distorted by layover and shadow, radiometrically counterintuitive, and sensitive to look angle in ways that change a target's appearance completely. A vision encoder pretrained on photographs has learned features that do not transfer cleanly.
Your proposal should confront this directly. How do you adapt or replace the vision encoder for complex SAR input. Do you feed complex data to the encoder, or magnitude and phase as separate channels, or a learned representation. How do you handle the SICD metadata, which carries the collection geometry that determines what the image means. Where does your text supervision come from, given there is no large corpus of SAR imagery paired with expert descriptions.
That last question is the practical bottleneck and most proposals will gloss over it. Say where the language side of your training data comes from: synthetic captions generated from metadata and annotations, expert-written descriptions, a curriculum that bootstraps from labels, or something else.
The GEOINT context
NGA describes GEOINT as the exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial information to describe, assess, and visually depict physical features and geographically referenced activities on the Earth, consisting of imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information. NGA manages the National System for Geospatial-Intelligence.
NGA Research supports the National System for Geospatial-Intelligence and the National Security Strategy in three broad areas: Foundational GEOINT, Advanced Phenomenologies, and Analytic Technologies. This topic sits in Analytic Technologies.
Framing matters. The customer is an imagery analyst producing intelligence, working under time pressure, accountable for what goes into a product. Speak to that workflow rather than to a benchmark leaderboard.
Phase II Scope
Develop a VLM based SAR SICD imagery classification system, where input contains SAR imagery with multiple targets and output should be location and classification of the targets. Use SAR SICD data provided by government or your own, or commercial, data.
The shift from feasibility to Phase II
This is the most important structural feature of the topic and it is easy to miss. Feasibility is single chips, one target each, classified with greater than 95 percent accuracy. Phase II is full imagery with multiple targets, and the output is both location and classification.
That is a jump from classification to detection plus classification, which in SAR is a substantially harder problem. A chip classifier operates on a pre-localized target. A search system has to find candidate targets across a large scene, in clutter, with false alarms as the dominant failure mode, at whatever resolution and geometry the collection provides. The class imbalance is severe: a scene is mostly not-target.
Your Phase II plan should be explicit about how you bridge that gap. Sliding window, region proposal, a detection head on the shared encoder, an attention mechanism over the full scene, or a two-stage architecture. And your performance metrics should shift accordingly, from classification accuracy to detection and classification metrics that account for false alarms, whether precision and recall, mean average precision, or a false-alarm-rate-versus-probability-of-detection curve.
State those metrics yourself, because the topic states only the feasibility accuracy number and does not specify Phase II performance targets. Proposing your own targets, justified against the scene sizes and target classes you address, is expected and it is a place to show judgment.
The data question
You may use SAR SICD data provided by the government or your own or commercial data. That flexibility is genuinely useful and it is worth planning around deliberately.
Government-provided data is likely to be the most mission-representative and the most likely to be controlled, which brings the classified environment and the security requirements into your data handling plan. Commercial SAR data is more accessible and there is now a meaningful commercial constellation supply, but you should confirm it can be delivered in or converted to SICD. Your own data, if you have it, has the cleanest provenance for the feasibility restriction discussed earlier.
Say which you will use, in what proportion, and how you handle the domain gap between them. If you train on commercial data and test on government data, that shift is a technical risk and naming it is a strength.
Note also the practical toolchain. The topic cites the sarpy package, NGA's own open-source Python library for reading and processing SICD and related NGA formats, and the Schwartzkopf paper on generic processing of SAR complex data using the SICD standard. Using sarpy, or explaining why you use something else, signals familiarity with the actual format rather than the abstraction.
What Phase III is
Transition the VLM based SAR SICD classification tool for government utilities. That is a short statement, and it means the Phase II deliverable should be a tool an NGA organization can adopt, not a research prototype. Interface, documentation, deployment model, and the Section 508 accessibility requirement all follow from that.
The Security Requirements, Which Govern Everything
This is the longest part of the NGA instructions and it substantially determines who can win. NGA has made it a scored evaluation factor, so treat it as technical content rather than a compliance appendix.
The added evaluation criterion
In addition to the DoW Program evaluation criteria, NGA will evaluate a vendor's ability to perform controlled work, meaning CUI and classified, as part of their technical evaluation score.
NGA may use Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance support to assist with the programmatics of executing the evaluation process, but will not use SETA support to evaluate proposals.
Personnel security
All Contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret Personnel Security Clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for SCI access. The government will verify security clearances and SCI eligibility in accordance with SEAD 7 on reciprocity of background investigations and national security adjudications. If needed, NGA will sponsor SCI accesses at its sole discretion.
Contractor personnel performing Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information work are required to have active TS/SCI clearances for access to TS/SCI facilities, when performing duties within TS/SCI environments, and for access to TS/SCI computer systems.
Contractors are subject to a counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination as requested by NGA. As a condition of employment and assignment, contractors who have not successfully completed polygraph testing within the last five years must immediately schedule a polygraph examination and must complete the process, in no more than three test sessions, within 90 days.
Cleared Contractor personnel will be enrolled into the Director of National Intelligence Continuous Evaluation System throughout the lifecycle of the contract while at NGA, per SEAD 6, and must self-report security issues, foreign contacts, and other applicable information per SEAD 3 and NGA Instruction 5205.3. Cleared contractors must also submit electronic fingerprints and enroll in NGA's Report of Arrest and Prosecution Background program.
Personnel designated as Tier 3 Privileged Users, or holding enhanced access through a Special Access Program or Controlled Access Program, will participate in NGA's annual Security Financial Disclosure Program.
Some personnel may need access to Special Access Program, Controlled Access Program, or Alternate Compensatory Control Measures information as required for NGA's sensitive program missions, and access will not be granted without written permission from the Contracting Officer's Representative.
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency remains the Cognizant Security Agency for individuals with collateral Secret or Top Secret clearances, with SEAD 3 reporting through the contractor's Facility Security Officer to DCSA via the Defense Information Security System.
What this means for a machine learning team
This is the provision most likely to reshape a strong AI company's plan for this topic. Deep learning talent is highly mobile and internationally sourced, and a Top Secret clearance with SCI eligibility plus a counterintelligence-scope polygraph is a substantial filter. Anyone not polygraphed in the last five years must complete the process in no more than three sessions within 90 days.
Your Key Personnel section must list the clearance level held by each of the personnel, because, as the instructions put it, we will be operating in a classified environment. On a topic whose feasibility gate already demands PhD-level SAR and deep learning expertise, the intersection of that expertise with TS/SCI eligibility is the real scarcity.
Foreign nationals
Foreign nationals are not permitted to perform unclassified work under the terms of this contract without prior written approval from the Contracting Officer or the COR. Should NGA identify the use of unauthorized personnel, the CO may direct the contractor, at its own expense, to remove and replace any unauthorized contractors, subcontractors, or other personnel, at NGA's discretion and without prejudice to other rights including termination for default.
Note the scope: the prohibition covers unclassified work, which is stricter than the case-by-case disclosure approach used on ITAR-restricted topics elsewhere in this cycle. For a deep learning team this is often the binding constraint, and it must be resolved before you propose rather than after award.
The unclassified path
If applicable, and after discussion with the COR and with written COR approval, uncleared Contractor personnel are authorized to work on this contract at the unclassified level, with access up to DoD Controlled Unclassified Information at the contractor site without the requirement of a security clearance.
Any Contractor personnel working with CUI must receive a favorable HSPD-12 adjudication for access of 60 days or less, or a favorable HSPD-12 Tier 1 adjudication for access longer than 60 days, prior to accessing CUI. NGA will sponsor the HSPD-12 and HSPD-12 Tier 1 background investigations as needed.
Uncleared personnel visiting NGA facilities may receive a visitor badge and be escorted as appropriate, returning the badge at the end of each visit day.
This is what makes a mixed team feasible: model development on commercial or your own data at the unclassified level with uncleared but HSPD-12 adjudicated staff, and cleared staff for anything touching government-provided controlled data or classified environments. Structure your data plan and your staffing plan together, because they determine each other.
Physical security and facilities
All classified work performed at a non-NGA facility must be approved by the COR. Any classified work at contractor sites must be performed in an NGA accredited Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, an Other Government Agency SCIF, or an approved secure collateral space with a Memorandum of Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, Joint Use Agreement, or Co-Use Agreement with NGA for this contract. Accreditation shall be at least commensurate with the safeguarding level required by the DD Form 254.
Accreditation follows the IC Technical Specifications for Construction and Management of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities Version 1.5.1, the IC Tech Specs for ICD and ICS 705. NGA conducts periodic inspections based on threat, facility modifications, program sensitivity, past security performance, or at least every five years. Technical Surveillance Countermeasures activities in NGA accredited SCIFs are conducted only by NGA TSCM teams.
Contractor personnel are forbidden from bringing prohibited or unauthorized items into any NGA installation or secure facility, including weapons, cell phones, cameras, two-way pagers, laptops, recording devices of any kind, flash drives, or any other removable media. Exceptions may be granted by NGA Security upon request with documentation shown prior to entry. Violations may subject the contractor and personnel to civil or criminal liability.
Your Facilities and Equipment section must identify how Controlled Unclassified Information will be protected in accordance with NIST SP 800-171 and provide your Supplier Performance Risk System score, and must identify your Facility Clearance Level, the safeguarding level for each facility, the CAGE code for each facility, and the associated physical addresses.
The SPRS score is a specific number a reviewer can check immediately, and it takes time to improve. Verify yours before you submit.
There is also a practical wrinkle worth noting for a machine learning program: the prohibition on laptops and removable media in secure facilities means your development workflow inside a SCIF looks nothing like your workflow outside one. Address how model development, training, and evaluation happen on the controlled side if your plan requires it.
Information security and cybersecurity
NGA has sole authority to determine whether and to what extent protected information is provided. Access to classified information is pursuant to the DD254. The contractor shall not access, download, print, or further disseminate classified information outside the execution of defined contract requirements without written COR permission.
The contractor will comply with all applicable NGA, DoD, and IC information security policies, including the Consolidated NGA Security Classification Guide, for marking, handling, processing, storing, and safeguarding classified and unclassified material, giving markings the lowest possible classification to maximize dissemination while maintaining confidentiality and integrity.
Access to CUI is pursuant to DFARS clause 252.204-7012, which the prime shall include, including paragraph (m), in subcontracts for operationally critical support or involving covered defense information, without alteration except to identify the parties. FAR clause 52.204-21 must similarly flow down.
Contractor personnel shall not release any unclassified information, in any medium, pertaining to any part of this contract or any related program unless the COR has given prior written approval or in performance of a project scoped and negotiated by NGA. For a company whose commercial strategy depends on publishing results or demonstrating capability publicly, that is a material constraint.
At minimum the contractor must implement 10 U.S.C. Sections 391 and 393 along with NIST SP 800-171. If using an external cloud service provider to store, process, or transmit covered defense information, the contractor shall ensure the provider meets security requirements equivalent to the FedRAMP Moderate baseline.
On discovering a cyber incident affecting a covered contractor information system or covered defense information, the contractor shall notify the DoD Cyber Crime Center and the COR in writing within 72 hours of discovery and conduct a compromise review. Isolated malicious software goes to DC3 per COR instructions and shall not be sent to the COR.
The FedRAMP Moderate cloud equivalence requirement deserves emphasis on this topic more than most. Training a vision language model is compute-intensive and the default answer is a commercial cloud with GPU capacity. If that environment will hold covered defense information, confirm the equivalence before you build a budget around it.
Insider threat
The contractor will establish and maintain an insider threat program to gather, integrate, and report information indicative of a potential or actual insider threat, consistent with Executive Order 13587 and the Presidential Memorandum on National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs. The contractor shall report to the COR events affecting clearance eligibility, events indicating an insider threat, events affecting safeguarding, and events indicating classified information has been or is suspected to be lost or compromised.
Contract clauses to be aware of
FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management, requiring registration at offer and continuously through final payment. FAR 52.204-27 Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application, meaning TikTok and successor applications.
NGA-specific clauses include 5X52.209-9003 Protection of Information and Nondisclosure Agreements, 5X52.227-9000 Unauthorized Use of NGA Name, Seal and Initials, 5X52.237-9001 Contractor Identification, 5X52.37-9000 Contractor Employee Data for Access to NGA Facilities or Sensitive Systems, which requires initial and timely updates to NGA's Human Capital Management System for all personnel with facility or sensitive system access and requires attendance at in-processing and out-processing briefings, and 5X52.246-9000 Contractor Compliance with all applicable NGA and U.S. Government installation regulations, directives, instructions, rules, policies and procedures.
An Inspector General cooperation requirement applies. The contractor must report to the NGA Inspector General, DoD IG, or Intelligence Community IG any and all possible violations of federal law or illegal intelligence activities related to the contract by individuals charging directly or indirectly to it, and the IG has access to those individuals and direct access to all related records. Failure to cooperate is grounds for administrative action. Contractors must make employees aware of the NGA IG Hotline. The requirement is supported by FAR 52.203-13 and NGA Instruction 7410.1.
Badging is also governed. NGA IC badges are issued only to contractors providing direct charge support on an active TS/SCI NGA contract, even when seated at corporate locations outside NGA facilities. Badges must be used at least once during a one-month period at an NGA government facility or may be suspended or terminated for inactivity, and they expire at the end of the supported contract. On departure, all NGA badges, Common Access Cards, hangtags, and other government furnished property must be returned no later than four business days from the date of departure.
Section 508 Compliance, Which Is a Proposal Requirement
This sits inside the Commercialization Strategy instruction and is easy to miss, and it applies more directly to this topic than to most.
The contractor shall ensure that all systems, hardware, software, software engineering, and information technology associated with this effort is made in a manner that is accessible for people with disabilities as directed in NGA Instruction 8400.4 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended in 1998.
All Information and Communications Technology associated with this contract may use the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 to comply with Section 508, or use alternative designs or technologies which result in substantially equivalent or greater access to and use of the product for people with disabilities.
Furthermore, the contractor shall pursue human centered design and usability guidelines to ensure that all services associated with this topic area are accessible by as many users as possible and to drive modernization, innovation, and enhance mission support.
As part of the proposal, the offeror should include an outline of specifically how Section 508 compliance will be achieved in the design of the ICT product. The Phase II proposal should provide an explicit, detailed description of the approach, indicate what is planned, how and where the work will be carried out, a schedule of major events, how the solution will be Section 508 compliant, and the final product to be delivered. If a determination is made that a Section 508 exception request is justified, the rationale for the exception request must be made and submitted as part of the proposal.
Why this matters more here
This topic delivers an analyst-facing tool. The Phase II output is location and classification of targets, and Phase III transitions the tool for government utilities. That means a user interface, which is squarely Information and Communications Technology.
There is also a natural alignment worth exploiting. A vision language model produces text. Text descriptions of imagery content are inherently more accessible than imagery alone, and screen reader compatibility for a natural-language explanation of a SAR scene is a genuine accessibility advantage rather than a compliance burden. Making that argument turns a checkbox into a strength, and it connects the 508 requirement to the reason a VLM is the right architecture in the first place.
Concretely: name WCAG 2.1, describe keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, contrast, and non-color-dependent status indication for your interface, and put accessibility review in the schedule. Use the exception path with stated rationale if some component genuinely cannot comply. Silence is the failure mode, and it is exactly what a proposal reused from another agency will produce.
Funding, Cost Structure, and NGA Mechanics
The award
The Phase II amount must not exceed $1,500,000 for up to a 24-month period of performance. Costs must be separated and clearly identified on the Proposal Cover Sheet in Volume 1 and in Volume 3.
Unless otherwise stated in the individual topic announcement, NGA Phase II awards are capped at $1,500,000 each over a maximum 24-month period of performance, and Phase I awards are capped at $150,000 each over a maximum six-month period of performance.
NGA caps sequential Phase II contracts, meaning those proposed near the completion of the initial Phase II or Direct to Phase II contract, at the then-current Small Business Administration "without seeking SBA approval" ceiling over a maximum 24-month period of performance.
No option periods
The offeror shall not propose option periods. That is flat, and it distinguishes NGA from components in this cycle that structure awards as a base plus options. Build a single 24-month effort.
Contract type and timing
NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract for its awards within 180 days of the proposal due date, with type at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. One hundred eighty days from October 21, 2026 is roughly mid-April 2027.
Firm fixed price on a machine learning program means your estimate must absorb training compute uncertainty and data acquisition uncertainty. Both are real on this topic. Carry margin.
Percentage of Work, with no exceptions
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program. NGA will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements.
The temptation on this topic is to subcontract the SAR phenomenology expertise or the model training. Model your POW before assembling the team, and remember every subcontractor inherits the security requirements and the DFARS 252.204-7012 and FAR 52.204-21 flow-downs.
Technical and Business Assistance
Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling and 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 that do not utilize the form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.
For this topic, security and facility clearance consulting is the standout use if you are building that posture, followed by accessibility and Section 508 consulting, which is a stated proposal and performance requirement.
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 NGA during proposal evaluations. That differs from several other components in this cycle. Complete it because it is required, and put your transition thinking into the Commercialization Strategy inside the technical volume, which is also where the Section 508 requirement lives.
The technical volume structure
The technical volume consists of two parts, described in one place as Part A Feasibility Documentation and Part B Technical Proposal and in the volume list as Part 1 Phase I Justification and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal. Each part is not to exceed twenty pages, for a maximum of 40 pages. The Government will not consider pages in excess of these limitations. Number all pages consecutively and follow the DoW SBIR Program formatting requirements.
Content follows the Technical Proposal Template provided in the DoW Program, with NGA's additions: Section 508 compliance in the Commercialization Strategy, clearance levels in Key Personnel, and CUI protection with SPRS score plus facility clearance level, safeguarding level, CAGE code, and addresses in Facilities and Equipment.
Evaluation, selection, and protests
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW Program Solicitation, plus the controlled-work criterion described above.
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, via email. The NGA text says "for a Phase I award," which appears to be residual language given that this topic issues no Phase I award. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.
Refer to the DoW Program 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 Patricia Hill at Patricia.D.Hill@nga.mil.
Questions
Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the NGA SBIR/STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to sbir@nga.mil.
The NGA instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW SBIR Program BAA process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026. Worth asking: what government SAR SICD data will be made available, in what quantity, with what annotations, and at what classification level, because that answer materially shapes both your technical plan and your security plan.
The References
Three, and they are practical rather than academic, which tells you something about what NGA expects.
The NVIDIA vision language models glossary page. This is a vendor explainer, not a research citation, and its inclusion suggests the topic author wanted a plain definition of the architecture class rather than to point at a specific technique. Do not read it as an endorsement of any particular model family.
The sarpy package on PyPI, version 1.1.7. This is NGA's own open-source Python library for reading, writing, and processing SICD and other NGA sensor formats. It is the most actionable reference in the set. Using sarpy in your pipeline, or explaining why you use something else, demonstrates you have actually handled SICD files rather than treating the format as an abstraction.
Schwartzkopf, Cox, Koehler, and Fiedler, "Generic Processing Of SAR Complex Data Using the SICD Standard in Matlab," IGARSS 2019. This is the SICD standard paper and it explains why the standard exists: to let processing algorithms operate on complex SAR data independently of which sensor collected it. That sensor independence is the whole point of the format and the reason NGA specified it in the topic title. Read it and use its vocabulary.
The reference set is notably light on the AI side and notably specific on the SAR data format side. That asymmetry is a hint about where NGA thinks the risk lies: they assume you can build a model, and they want to know you can handle their data. Bring your own literature on the model side, on vision language models, on SAR automatic target recognition, and on adapting pretrained vision encoders to non-natural imagery, because the DoW Technical Proposal Template requires you to demonstrate awareness of the state of the art.
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 SBIR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, via email
Contract award: NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract within 180 days of the proposal due date, approximately mid-April 2027
Period of performance: up to 24 months
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Confirm you can satisfy both halves of the feasibility gate. On the accuracy side, verify your greater than 95 percent result is on SICD-format complex data and not on detected magnitude chips, and assemble the full experimental description including class set, chip counts, split methodology, and confusion matrix. On the qualification side, map your team against the three named competencies of SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning implementation, and identify how you cover any gap. Audit the funding provenance of your results, since work based upon or logically extending from prior federally funded SBIR or STTR work is excluded. Resolve intellectual property ownership or license rights. Confirm your security posture: Facility Clearance Level, safeguarding levels, CAGE codes, addresses, SPRS score, and NIST SP 800-171 status. Identify who holds current Top Secret clearances and who has been polygraphed within five years. Resolve foreign national participation, remembering the prohibition extends to unclassified work. Confirm your training compute environment meets FedRAMP Moderate equivalence if it will hold covered defense information. Decide your data strategy across government, commercial, and internal sources. Get familiar with sarpy and read the SICD standard paper. Model your Percentage of Work. Send your data availability question to Topic Q&A early.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 20-page feasibility documentation. Use the space for the full accuracy experiment, the SICD handling detail, example chips with model outputs, the data provenance discussion, and complete personnel qualification evidence with degrees, publications, and specific prior complex SAR work. Draft the 20-page Phase II technical proposal against the DoW Technical Proposal Template. Make the case for why a VLM rather than a classifier, addressing explanation and open-vocabulary search. Address the SAR-specific encoder adaptation problem and where your language supervision comes from. Explain how you bridge from single-chip classification to multi-target search, and propose your own detection and classification metrics with justification. Cover the data plan and the domain gap. Include the Section 508 outline in the Commercialization Strategy, clearance levels in Key Personnel, and full facility and CUI detail in Facilities and Equipment. Do not propose option periods.
October 6 through October 7. Submit remaining questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes. The most valuable is what government SAR SICD data will be available, in what quantity, with what annotations, at what classification. Administrative questions go to sbir@nga.mil.
October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume, with costs separated and clearly identified on the Proposal Cover Sheet and in Volume 3, against the $1,500,000 and 24-month ceiling with no options. Price training compute realistically, data acquisition or licensing, annotation effort including any language supervision generation, secure compute or facility access if needed, security administration, accessibility work, and the productization effort for a tool that transitions. Firm fixed price is typical, so carry margin on compute and data. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form and place it in Volume 5.
October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, which is required though not evaluated by NGA. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form and supporting documentation. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering it must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded there. Run compliance: 20 plus 20 pages, consecutively numbered, no option periods, clearance levels listed, SPRS score and facility details provided, Section 508 outline present.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is NGA SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-DV034?
OSW26BZ06-DV034 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic titled "Vision Language Model (VLM) for Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) target search and classification from Sensor Independent Complex Data (SICD)," released under the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop VLM based SAR imagery search and classification from sensor independent complex data.
How much funding is available?
The Phase II amount must not exceed $1,500,000 for up to a 24-month period of performance. Phase II awardees may also request up to $50,000 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.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal?
No. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only.
Can I propose option periods?
No. The NGA instructions state that the offeror shall not propose option periods.
How long can my technical volume be?
Forty pages total, consisting of a feasibility documentation part at 20 pages maximum and a technical proposal part at 20 pages maximum. Pages in excess will not be considered. Number all pages consecutively.
What must my feasibility documentation demonstrate?
Two things. Successful classification with greater than 95 percent accuracy of single SAR image chips in SICD format. And that the performer is very well qualified, with PhD or research level given as examples, and has demonstrated experience classifying complex SAR imagery. NGA states that qualification requires a scientist's extensive knowledge of SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning understanding and implementation.
Does my 95 percent result have to be on SICD data?
That is what the topic says: classification of single SAR image chips in SICD format. Most publicly available SAR classification work uses detected magnitude imagery rather than complex data. If your result is on magnitude chips, reproduce it on SICD data if you can, and if you cannot, state plainly what you have and what the gap is rather than letting a reviewer discover it.
How should I report the accuracy?
With the full experimental description: the class set and number of classes, the number of chips, the train and test split, whether the split is by scene or by chip, and the confusion matrix. A 95 percent figure on a small closed class set with a chip-level random split is a much weaker claim than the same figure on a scene-disjoint split, and a reviewer in this field will know.
What does the qualification requirement actually mean?
Three named competencies. SAR signal and image processing, meaning the phenomenology of how the image forms and what phase carries. SAR operations from space, meaning collection geometry, look and incidence angles, collection modes, and the metadata that describes them. And deep learning understanding and implementation, meaning you build and train models. Address all three with named individuals, degrees, publications, and specific prior complex SAR work.
Can my feasibility evidence come from a prior SBIR award?
No. NGA's Direct to Phase II guidelines state that feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and that the work must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. SAR automatic target recognition work in the United States has been substantially SBIR and STTR funded, so audit your provenance.
What happens if my feasibility documentation is inadequate?
If the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the associated topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.
What does Phase II have to deliver?
A VLM based SAR SICD imagery classification system where input contains SAR imagery with multiple targets and output is location and classification of the targets. You may use SAR SICD data provided by the government or your own or commercial data.
How does Phase II differ from the feasibility requirement?
Substantially, and this is the key structural feature of the topic. Feasibility is single chips with one target each, classified. Phase II is full imagery with multiple targets, and the output includes location as well as classification. That is a jump from classification to detection plus classification, where false alarms across large scenes become the dominant failure mode. Your Phase II plan should explain how you bridge that gap and should propose detection metrics rather than only classification accuracy.
Does NGA specify Phase II performance targets?
No. The only stated number is the greater than 95 percent feasibility accuracy on single chips. Propose your own Phase II metrics, justified against the scene sizes and target classes you address, using measures that account for false alarms such as precision and recall, mean average precision, or a probability-of-detection versus false-alarm-rate curve.
What data will I use?
SAR SICD data provided by the government, or your own or commercial data. Say which, in what proportion, and how you handle the domain gap between them. Government data is likely the most mission-representative and the most likely to be controlled, which brings the security requirements into your data handling plan. It is worth asking through Topic Q&A what government data will be available, in what quantity, with what annotations, and at what classification level.
What is SICD, and why does it matter?
Sensor Independent Complex Data is NGA's standard format for complex SAR data, retaining phase as well as amplitude in single look complex form. The point of the standard, as the cited Schwartzkopf paper explains, is to let processing algorithms operate on complex SAR data independently of which sensor collected it. NGA's own open-source sarpy Python library reads and processes it, and using sarpy signals that you have handled real SICD files.
Why does the model have to be a vision language model?
The topic does not say directly, which makes it the central question your proposal should answer. The plausible reasons are explanation, since NGA describes a vision encoder that allows the language model to explain contents of an imagery, which serves an analyst who must accept or reject a call; and open-vocabulary query-driven search, which is what target search implies and which a fixed-class classifier cannot do. Making that argument well distinguishes you from proposals treating VLM as a label on a conventional detector.
What makes SAR hard for a vision language model?
Vision language models are pretrained on natural imagery and text. SAR is complex-valued, speckled, geometrically distorted by layover and shadow, radiometrically counterintuitive, and highly sensitive to look angle. A vision encoder trained on photographs has learned features that do not transfer cleanly. Your proposal should address how you adapt or replace the encoder for complex input, how you use SICD metadata, and where your text supervision comes from, since there is no large corpus of SAR imagery paired with expert descriptions.
Do I need a security clearance?
Yes. The instructions state that all Contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret Personnel Security Clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for SCI access. Personnel performing TS/SCI work require active TS/SCI clearances for access to TS/SCI facilities, environments, and computer systems. NGA will sponsor SCI accesses at its sole discretion if needed.
Is a polygraph required?
Contractors are subject to a counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination as requested by NGA. Contractors who have not successfully completed polygraph testing within the last five years must immediately schedule an examination and complete the process, in no more than three test sessions, within 90 days, as a condition of employment and assignment.
Can uncleared machine learning staff work on this?
In a limited way. After discussion with the COR and with written COR approval, uncleared contractor personnel are authorized to work at the unclassified level with access up to DoD Controlled Unclassified Information at the contractor site without a security clearance. Personnel working with CUI must receive favorable HSPD-12 adjudication for 60 days or less of access, or HSPD-12 Tier 1 adjudication for more than 60 days. NGA will sponsor those investigations as needed. Structure your data plan and staffing plan together, since they determine each other.
Can foreign nationals work on this contract?
Not without prior written approval from the Contracting Officer or the COR, and that prohibition applies to unclassified work. If NGA identifies unauthorized personnel, the CO may direct removal and replacement at the contractor's expense, without prejudice to other remedies including termination for default. For a deep learning team this is often the binding constraint.
What must my Key Personnel section include?
In addition to the standard content, list the clearance level held by each of the personnel, because, as NGA puts it, we will be operating in a classified environment. On this topic that section is doing double duty, since the feasibility gate also requires demonstrating the performer's SAR and deep learning qualifications.
What must my Facilities and Equipment section include?
How Controlled Unclassified Information will be protected in accordance with NIST SP 800-171, your Supplier Performance Risk System score, and your Facility Clearance Level, the safeguarding level for each facility, the CAGE code for each facility, and the associated physical addresses.
Is my security posture actually scored?
Yes. In addition to the DoW Program evaluation criteria, NGA will evaluate a vendor's ability to perform controlled work, meaning CUI and classified, as part of their technical evaluation score. NGA may use SETA support for the programmatics of executing the evaluation but will not use SETA support to evaluate proposals.
What are the cybersecurity requirements?
At minimum, implement 10 U.S.C. Sections 391 and 393 along with NIST SP 800-171. If using an external cloud service provider to store, process, or transmit covered defense information, ensure it meets security requirements equivalent to the FedRAMP Moderate baseline. On discovering a cyber incident, notify the DoD Cyber Crime Center and the COR in writing within 72 hours and conduct a compromise review. Isolated malicious software goes to DC3 per COR instructions, not to the COR. For a model training program on commercial GPU cloud, the FedRAMP equivalence point is the one to check early.
What is the Section 508 requirement?
The Commercialization Strategy must address Section 508 compliance per NGA Instruction 8400.4 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended in 1998. Information and Communications Technology may use WCAG 2.1 to comply, or alternative designs achieving substantially equivalent or greater access. The proposal should include an outline of specifically how compliance will be achieved, and if an exception is justified the rationale must be submitted as part of the proposal. It applies here because the deliverable is an analyst-facing tool, and a natural-language description of imagery is inherently more accessible than imagery alone, which is an argument worth making.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2 with self-assessment. Separately, the classified nature of the work imposes personnel and facility requirements well beyond CMMC.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
No topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on OSW26BZ06-DV034. The classified environment and the foreign national prohibition impose stricter constraints than an ITAR notice would.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by NGA during proposal evaluations. Put your effort into the Commercialization Strategy inside the technical volume instead.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. NGA will not accept any deviation to the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program. Note that subcontractors also inherit the security requirements and the DFARS 252.204-7012 and FAR 52.204-21 flow-downs.
What contract type should I expect, and when?
NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract within 180 days of the proposal due date, roughly mid-April 2027 for this cycle, with type at the discretion of the Contracting Officer. Firm fixed price on a machine learning program means carrying margin for training compute and data acquisition uncertainty.
Can I publish or publicize this work?
Only with permission. Contractor personnel shall not release any unclassified information, in any medium, pertaining to any part of the contract or any related program unless the COR has given prior written approval or in performance of a project scoped and negotiated by NGA. The NGA clause on unauthorized use of the NGA name, seal, and initials also applies. For an AI company that publishes as part of its recruiting and commercial strategy, this is a real constraint worth planning around.
When will I hear back?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, via email. Note that the NGA text says notification "for a Phase I award," which appears to be residual language given that this topic issues no Phase I award.
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 NGA SBIR/STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to sbir@nga.mil. Protests after award go to Patricia Hill at Patricia.D.Hill@nga.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Check both halves of the feasibility gate before you invest. The accuracy half is a number. The qualification half is a credential requirement, and it names three competencies that rarely coexist: SAR signal and image processing, SAR operations from space, and deep learning implementation. If you are a strong AI company without deep SAR phenomenology expertise, or a SAR house without model-building depth, you have a gap that NGA has explicitly told you it will look for.
Verify your 95 percent result is on complex data. SICD is complex, and most published SAR classification results are on detected magnitude chips. If yours are magnitude, reproduce on SICD or say clearly what you have. A reviewer who works this problem will spot the substitution immediately, and being straightforward about a gap costs less than being caught glossing over one.
Report the accuracy like a scientist. Class set, chip counts, split methodology, scene-disjoint or not, confusion matrix. On a topic that explicitly requires research-level qualification, how you report results is itself evidence of qualification.
Answer the "why a VLM" question that the topic leaves implicit. Explanation for the analyst, and open-vocabulary query-driven search, are the two defensible answers, and both connect to the Trusted AI and Autonomy priority area. A proposal that uses a language model without arguing why language is the right interface for GEOINT looks like it followed a trend rather than a requirement.
Confront the encoder problem head on. Pretrained vision encoders learned photographs. SAR is complex-valued, speckled, geometrically distorted, and look-angle dependent. Say what you do about it: complex input handling, magnitude and phase channels, learned representations, metadata conditioning. This is the deepest technical question in the topic and where a serious team separates from a capable one.
Say where your language supervision comes from. There is no large corpus of SAR imagery paired with expert text. Synthetic captions from metadata and annotations, expert-written descriptions, label bootstrapping, or something else. Most proposals will skip this and it is the practical bottleneck of the whole approach.
Plan the bridge from chips to scenes explicitly. Feasibility is one target per chip. Phase II is many targets per scene with localization. False alarm rate across a large scene, not classification accuracy, is the metric that will determine whether the tool is usable. Propose those metrics yourself, since NGA states none for Phase II.
Use sarpy, or explain why not. It is NGA's own library, it is one of only three references, and it is the most actionable signal in the topic that they care whether you can handle their format. Reading the SICD standard paper and using its vocabulary reinforces the same point.
Resolve the clearance and foreign national questions before you write. Top Secret with SCI eligibility for all personnel, counterintelligence-scope polygraph, and foreign nationals barred from even unclassified work without prior written approval. For a modern machine learning team this is usually the binding constraint, not the technology.
Check your SPRS score today. NGA asks for the number, a reviewer can look at it immediately, it feeds a scored criterion, and it takes weeks to improve.
Structure the team around the two security tiers. Uncleared but HSPD-12 adjudicated staff can do unclassified model development on commercial or internal data with written COR approval. Cleared staff handle government-provided controlled data and anything in a classified environment. Design your data plan and staffing plan together, and note that laptops and removable media are barred from secure facilities, so development inside a SCIF looks nothing like development outside one.
Confirm FedRAMP Moderate equivalence for your training environment. Training a vision language model means significant GPU capacity, and the default answer is commercial cloud. If covered defense information will touch it, the equivalence requirement applies, and discovering that after award is expensive.
Write the Section 508 outline, and make it an argument rather than a checkbox. This topic delivers an analyst-facing tool, so accessibility applies. And a model that describes imagery in language is genuinely more accessible than one that outputs bounding boxes. Naming WCAG 2.1, describing conformance for your interface, and connecting accessibility to the reason a VLM is the right architecture turns a requirement into a strength.
Use all twenty feasibility pages. Four times the allowance most components give. Full experimental detail, data provenance, example outputs, SICD handling specifics, and complete personnel credentials all fit, and the qualification half of the gate practically demands the space.
Do not propose options, and price for firm fixed price. NGA prohibits option periods outright, and typically awards FFP within 180 days. Carry margin on compute and data, which are the two least predictable costs here.
Plan your commercialization story around the publication constraints. No release of unclassified contract information without written COR approval, and the NGA name and seal are protected. An AI company that publishes to recruit and to build credibility needs a strategy that works within that, and saying so honestly reads better than a plan that ignores it.
Ask about the government data. What SICD data will be available, how much, with what annotations, at what classification level. That single answer shapes your architecture, your annotation budget, your staffing tiers, and your facility needs. Topic Q&A closes October 7.
NGA SBIR OSW26BZ06-DV033: Agentic AI Based Cognitive Radar for GEOINT Mission
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $1.5m
Description: Complete guide to NGA SBIR Direct to Phase II topic OSW26BZ06-DV033, agentic AI based cognitive radar for GEOINT. Up to $1.5M over 24 months. TS/SCI required. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26BZ06-DV033 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic from the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency under the 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. Phase I proposals are not accepted. NGA wants a radar that senses its own operating environment and decides, without a human in the loop, what waveform to transmit: which frequency, which bandwidth, which pulse repetition frequency. The point is resilience, keeping GEOINT collection working when an adversary is actively trying to deny it. The award must not exceed $1,500,000 for up to a 24-month period of performance, and the technical volume runs to 40 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
Before anything technical, understand what makes an NGA SBIR different from every other component in this cycle. NGA is a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community, and this work is classified. The instructions state that all contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret personnel security clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for Sensitive Compartmented Information access. Contractors are subject to counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination. Your Key Personnel section must list the clearance level held by each person. Your Facilities section must state your Facility Clearance Level, safeguarding level, CAGE code, and physical addresses. And NGA adds an evaluation criterion beyond the standard ones: your ability to perform controlled work, meaning CUI and classified, is part of your technical evaluation score.
If your company does not hold a facility clearance and cleared staff, or does not have a credible plan and a sponsor for getting them, this topic is not accessible to you regardless of how good your radar work is. That is the honest first filter.
Two other structural notes. The offeror shall not propose option periods. And the technical volume is 40 pages, twenty for feasibility and twenty for the Phase II proposal, which is by far the most generous page allowance in the 2026 cycle and the largest feasibility allowance of any component.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26BZ06-DV033
Title: Agentic AI Based Cognitive Radar for GEOINT Mission
Agency: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), a Department of War combat support agency and a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community
Solicitation: NGA 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Direct to Phase II only. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only
Award: must not exceed $1,500,000
Period of performance: up to 24 months
Options: the offeror shall not propose option periods
Technical volume: 40 pages maximum, consisting of Part 1 Phase I Justification at 20 pages maximum and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal at 20 pages maximum. Pages in excess will not be considered. Number all pages consecutively
Component Technology Priority Areas: Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Trusted AI and Autonomy, Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic. Note that the work itself is classified, which imposes far stricter personnel and facility requirements than an ITAR notice would
Clearance environment: all contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret personnel security clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for SCI access. Contractors are subject to counterintelligence-scope polygraph as requested
Added evaluation criterion: NGA will evaluate a vendor's ability to perform controlled work, meaning CUI and classified, as part of the technical evaluation score
Section 508: the Commercialization Strategy shall address Section 508 compliance per NGA Instruction 8400.4 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, with an outline of how compliance will be achieved
Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will not be considered by NGA during proposal evaluations
Percentage of Work: NGA will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements
Technical and Business Assistance: up to $50,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5
Contract type: NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract within 180 days of the proposal due date, at the discretion of the Contracting Officer
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: agentic AI, cognitive radar, synthetic aperture radar
The Feasibility Bar, Which Is the First Thing to Check
This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only. To qualify for a Phase II award, proposers must submit Feasibility Documentation showing a developed concept for agentic AI based cognitive radar systems, and provide details on the components of the systems and subsystems.
The performer must demonstrate capability of the agentic AI based radar system with the detection of interference signals and mitigating these by transmitting a different signal.
Two quantitative improvements are stated. The signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio should improve from below 70 percent to 95 percent. And after mitigation, image quality and resolution should improve from below 70 percent detection and classification to 95 percent detection and classification.
Reading the stated metrics carefully
The second metric is unambiguous and it is the one to build your evidence around. Detection and classification performance rising from below 70 percent to 95 percent after interference mitigation is a clean, measurable claim: run your system against an interference scenario without mitigation, measure detection and classification rates, then run it with the agentic mitigation loop engaged and measure again.
The first metric is worded in a way that deserves a question. Signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio is conventionally expressed in decibels, not as a percentage, and "SINR below 70 percent to 95 percent" does not map onto standard usage. It may be intended as a normalized or relative improvement figure, or as a percentage of some reference SINR, or the percentage may be a drafting artifact carried from the detection and classification metric that follows it.
Send that question to DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes on October 7, and in the meantime report your SINR results in decibels with the interference conditions fully specified, alongside whatever normalized figure best corresponds to the stated 70 to 95 range. Stating both, and saying plainly why, is the defensible approach. Do not silently reinterpret the requirement.
The three things your feasibility documentation must establish
A developed concept for an agentic AI based cognitive radar system. Not a research proposal, a concept that exists.
Details on the components of the systems and subsystems. This is a request for architecture: what senses the environment, what performs the cognition, what synthesizes and transmits the waveform, and how they connect.
Demonstrated capability detecting interference and mitigating it by transmitting a different signal. This is the closed loop, and it is the part that separates cognitive radar from adaptive signal processing. Sense, decide, change what you transmit, measure the improvement.
The restriction that will disqualify some proposers
NGA applies the same hard constraint several other components use in this cycle, and it is stated in the Direct to Phase II guidelines rather than in the topic.
Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the principal investigator. If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property, the proposer must either own the IP or must have obtained license rights to such technology prior to proposal submission, to enable it and its subcontractors to legally carry out the proposed work.
This is a real risk on a cognitive radar topic, because much of the U.S. work in this area has been funded through SBIR and STTR programs across the services. Audit the provenance of every result you intend to cite. Internally funded work, privately funded work, non-SBIR government contract work, and your own published academic work under other funding are cleaner ground.
If the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the associated topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.
Twenty pages is a lot of room, so use it
Most components in this cycle allow five pages of feasibility justification. NGA allows twenty. That changes the nature of the document: you can present measured data with full experimental conditions, architecture diagrams at the subsystem level, the interference scenarios you tested against, the decision logic of your cognition layer, and the before-and-after performance comparisons in detail. A five-page summary submitted into a twenty-page allowance reads as though you did not have the material.
What NGA Is Actually Looking For
The objective
Develop an agentic AI based cognitive radar system for automatic selection of radar parameters, waveforms, and exploitation for resilient GEOINT applications.
Note the third item. Parameters and waveforms are the transmit side. Exploitation is the processing side. The topic is asking for automatic selection across both, which means the cognition loop extends past waveform choice into how the returns are processed.
The concept, in NGA's words
Agentic AI enables autonomous control of expert systems for desired information gathering or completing a task. Compared to general AI systems, an agentic AI system can make its decision by sensing the environment autonomously without relying on human input. Hence agentic AI is desired for many expert systems such as self-driving cars and many other systems.
In this research, NGA is seeking development of an agentic AI based cognitive radar system for a next generation, resilient radar system.
Once initiated, an agentic AI enabled radar will sense the environment for operating conditions such as interference, clutter, and signal-to-noise ratio. Based on this information, the system will learn, meaning the cognition process, to transmit optimum waveforms with desired frequency, bandwidth, pulse repetition frequency, and other critical parameters.
This will enable future GEOINT capabilities to be resilient in the presence of asymmetric operating environments that adversaries may impose to significantly reduce our GEOINT mission.
What the description tells you to address
Three environmental conditions are named explicitly: interference, clutter, and signal-to-noise ratio. Your sensing layer should address all three, not just interference, even though interference is what the feasibility metric measures.
Four transmit parameters are named: frequency, bandwidth, pulse repetition frequency, and other critical parameters. Say which parameters your system controls and which it does not, and why.
The phrase "once initiated" is worth noticing. It implies human initiation followed by autonomous operation, which is a specific autonomy boundary. Define it: what does a human set up, what does the system decide thereafter, and what does the system do when conditions exceed its competence.
"Asymmetric operating environments that adversaries may impose" is the threat framing. This is a contested-spectrum problem, not a general radar optimization problem. An adversary observes what you transmit and responds. That adversarial dynamic is what makes a learning system valuable and it is also what makes it exploitable, so address the counter-adaptation question: what happens when the adversary learns your adaptation policy.
The GEOINT context, which shapes the application
NGA describes GEOINT as the exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial information to describe, assess, and visually depict physical features and geographically referenced activities on the Earth, consisting of imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information. NGA manages the National System for Geospatial-Intelligence.
NGA Research supports the NSG and the National Security Strategy in three broad areas: Foundational GEOINT, Advanced Phenomenologies, and Analytic Technologies. A cognitive radar topic sits naturally in Advanced Phenomenologies.
The keyword list for this topic includes synthetic aperture radar, and the feasibility metric refers to image quality and resolution, so the imaging application is where NGA's interest lies. Frame your work in imaging terms, meaning resolution, image quality, and detection and classification performance on imagery, rather than purely in tracking or detection-range terms.
Phase II Scope
Prototype the agentic AI based cognitive radar system in a modeling and simulation environment. Develop software systems to select various parameters of the radar systems and operating environment. Analyze performance of the system in a testing environment.
What this scope does and does not include
Phase II is modeling, simulation, and software. There is no hardware build, no field demonstration, and no over-the-air requirement. Phase III is where the hardware happens: develop and build the hardware for the agentic AI based cognitive radar system for technology transition.
That is an unusually software-focused Phase II for a radar topic and it has consequences worth understanding.
It lowers the capital cost substantially. No radio frequency front end, no antenna, no anechoic chamber or range time. Your $1,500,000 goes almost entirely to labor, computing, and software.
It raises the burden on fidelity. If your only evidence is simulation, the credibility of your results rests entirely on whether the simulation environment is believable. What clutter model, what interference model, what channel model, what platform geometry, what validation of the simulation against measured data. A reviewer at NGA Research will probe this, and a proposal that presents impressive numbers from an unvalidated simulator is weaker than one presenting modest numbers from a simulator anchored to real measurements.
It makes the "testing environment" of the third sentence important. The topic distinguishes the modeling and simulation environment where you prototype from the testing environment where you analyze performance. Say what each is and how they differ, because that distinction is where independent evaluation of your system happens.
Three things worth proposing beyond the literal scope
The software system that selects parameters is named as a deliverable, and it is the artifact that transitions. Treat it as a product with an interface, a configuration model, and documentation, not as research code.
Explainability is not mentioned in the topic but is implied by the Trusted AI and Autonomy Component Technology Priority Area. An autonomous system choosing transmit parameters in a contested environment needs to be able to say why it chose them, both for operator trust and for post-mission analysis. Addressing it is a differentiator.
Competence boundaries and failure behavior. Define what the system does when the environment is outside its training distribution, when its own performance estimate degrades, or when its adaptation makes things worse. In an intelligence collection context, a system that recognizes it is failing and says so is more valuable than one that confidently continues.
The Security Requirements, Which Govern Everything
This is the longest section of the NGA instructions and it is the part that most determines who can actually win. Treat it as a scoped, costed part of your proposal rather than a compliance appendix, because NGA has made it a scored evaluation factor.
The added evaluation criterion
In addition to the DoW Program evaluation criteria, NGA will evaluate a vendor's ability to perform controlled work, meaning CUI and classified, as part of their technical evaluation score.
Read that plainly. Your security posture is scored technical content. Two proposals with identical radar approaches will separate on this.
Note also that NGA may use Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance support to assist with the programmatics of executing the evaluation process, but will not use SETA support to evaluate proposals.
Personnel security
All Contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret Personnel Security Clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for SCI access. The government will be responsible for verifying security clearances and SCI eligibility in accordance with SEAD 7 on reciprocity of background investigations and national security adjudications. If needed, NGA will sponsor SCI accesses at its sole discretion.
Contractor personnel performing Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information work on the contract are required to have active TS/SCI clearances for access to TS/SCI facilities, when performing duties within TS/SCI environments, and for access to TS/SCI computer systems.
Contractors are subject to a counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination as requested by NGA. As a condition of employment and assignment, contractors who have not successfully completed polygraph testing within the last five years must immediately schedule a polygraph examination and must complete the process, in no more than three test sessions, within 90 days.
Cleared Contractor personnel will be enrolled into the Director of National Intelligence Continuous Evaluation System throughout the lifecycle of the contract while at NGA, in accordance with SEAD 6. They must self-report security issues, foreign contacts, and other applicable information in accordance with SEAD 3 and NGA Instruction 5205.3. Cleared contractors will also be required to submit electronic fingerprints and be enrolled into NGA's Report of Arrest and Prosecution Background program, which supports continuous evaluation.
Cleared Contractor personnel designated as Tier 3 Privileged Users, or holding enhanced access through a Special Access Program or Controlled Access Program, will be required to participate in NGA's annual Security Financial Disclosure Program.
Some personnel may need to obtain access to Special Access Program, Controlled Access Program, or Alternate Compensatory Control Measures information as required for the execution of NGA's sensitive program missions. Access will not be granted without written permission from the Contracting Officer's Representative.
Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency remains the Cognizant Security Agency for individuals performing work with collateral Secret or Top Secret clearances, and SEAD 3 reporting continues through the contractor's Facility Security Officer to DCSA via the Defense Information Security System.
What that means practically for a small business
The polygraph provision is the one most likely to surprise a first-time NGA bidder. Anyone not polygraphed in the last five years must schedule immediately and complete within 90 days, in no more than three sessions. That is a real constraint on staffing a project team, and it applies to people you may currently consider cleared.
The Top Secret requirement applies to "all Contractor personnel," which is broader than "personnel accessing classified material." Read together with the unclassified provisions below, there is a path for uncleared staff on the unclassified portion of the work, but it requires written COR approval.
Your Key Personnel section must list the clearance level held by each person, because, as the instructions put it, we will be operating in a classified environment. Do not omit this. A Key Personnel section without clearance levels is a visible gap on a scored criterion.
Physical security and facilities
All classified work performed at a non-NGA facility must be approved by the COR. Any classified work performed at contractor sites must be performed in either an NGA accredited Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, an Other Government Agency SCIF, or an approved secure collateral space that has a Memorandum of Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, Joint Use Agreement, or Co-Use Agreement with NGA for this contract. SCIF or secure facility accreditation shall be at least the level commensurate with the level of safeguarding required by the contract DD Form 254.
Accreditation follows the IC Technical Specifications for Construction and Management of Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities Version 1.5.1, the IC Tech Specs for ICD and ICS 705. The NGA accrediting official or designee conducts periodic security inspections and reviews based on threat, facility modifications, sensitivity of programs, past security performance, or at least every five years. Technical Surveillance Countermeasures activities in NGA accredited SCIFs will only be conducted by NGA TSCM teams.
Contractor personnel are forbidden from bringing prohibited or unauthorized items into any NGA installation or other secure facility covered under this contract. These items include weapons, cell phones, cameras, two-way pagers, laptops, recording devices of any kind, flash drives, or any other removable media. Exceptions may be granted by NGA Security upon request, and personnel must bring documentation showing approval prior to entering with the items. Violations may subject the contractor and its personnel to civil or criminal liability.
Your Facilities and Equipment section must identify your Facility Clearance Level, the safeguarding level for each facility, the CAGE code for each facility, and the associated physical addresses. It must also identify how Controlled Unclassified Information will be protected in accordance with NIST SP 800-171 and provide your Supplier Performance Risk System score.
That SPRS score requirement is worth flagging. It is a number a reviewer can look at immediately, and a low or absent score is a visible weakness on the scored controlled-work criterion. Check your SPRS entry before you submit.
The unclassified path, which matters for team building
If applicable, and after discussion with the COR and written COR approval, uncleared Contractor personnel are authorized to work on this contract at the unclassified level, with access up to DoD Controlled Unclassified Information at the contractor site without the requirement of a security clearance.
Any Contractor personnel working with CUI information must receive a favorable HSPD-12 or HSPD-12 Tier 1 adjudication prior to accessing CUI. Personnel requiring access to CUI for 60 days or less must receive a favorable HSPD-12 adjudication. Personnel requiring CUI access for more than 60 days must receive a favorable HSPD-12 Tier 1 adjudication. NGA will sponsor the HSPD-12 and HSPD-12 Tier 1 background investigation for contractor personnel as needed.
Uncleared Contractor personnel visiting NGA facilities or other sites may receive an appropriate visitor badge and be escorted as appropriate, returning the badge at the end of each visit day.
This is the provision that makes a mixed team possible. Your machine learning engineers may be able to work the unclassified algorithm development while cleared staff handle anything requiring access to classified data or environments. But note the gating: written COR approval, and HSPD-12 adjudication before CUI access.
Foreign nationals
Foreign nationals are not permitted to perform unclassified work under the terms of this contract without prior written approval from the Contracting Officer or the COR. Should NGA identify the use of unauthorized personnel, the CO may direct the contractor, at its own expense, to remove and replace any unauthorized contractors, subcontractors, or other personnel performing on the contract, at NGA's discretion and without prejudice to its rights under any other contract provision, including termination for default.
Note the scope. This prohibition applies to unclassified work, which is stricter than most ITAR-restricted topics, where foreign national participation is disclosed and evaluated case by case. Here the default is not permitted, and approval must be obtained in writing in advance. If your machine learning team includes foreign nationals, resolve this before you propose.
Information security and cybersecurity
NGA has sole authority to determine whether and to what extent protected information will be provided. Access to classified information will be pursuant to the security requirements in the DD254. The contractor shall not access, download, print, or further disseminate any classified information outside the execution of defined contract requirements without written COR permission.
The contractor will comply with all applicable NGA, DoD, and IC information security policies, including the Consolidated NGA Security Classification Guide, for marking, handling, processing, storing, and safeguarding classified and unclassified material, and will give document markings the lowest possible security classification to maximize dissemination while maintaining confidentiality and integrity.
Access to CUI will be pursuant to DFARS clause 252.204-7012, which the prime shall include, including paragraph (m), in subcontracts for operationally critical support or involving covered defense information, without alteration except to identify the parties. FAR clause 52.204-21 must similarly flow down.
Contractor personnel shall not release any unclassified information pertaining to any part of this contract or any related program, in any medium, unless the COR has given prior written approval or in performance of a project scoped and negotiated by NGA. That constrains publication and marketing, and it is worth understanding before you plan a commercialization campaign around this work.
At minimum the contractor must implement 10 U.S.C. Sections 391 and 393 along with NIST SP 800-171. If using an external cloud service provider to store, process, or transmit covered defense information, the contractor shall require and ensure the provider meets security requirements equivalent to the FedRAMP Moderate baseline.
On discovering a cyber incident affecting a covered contractor information system or covered defense information, the contractor shall notify the DoD Cyber Crime Center and the COR in writing within 72 hours of incident discovery, and conduct a review for evidence of compromise. If malicious software is discovered and isolated, the contractor shall submit it to DC3 per COR instructions, and shall not send it to the COR.
For a machine learning program, the FedRAMP Moderate cloud requirement is the provision most likely to affect your technical plan and your budget. If your training pipeline assumes a commercial cloud environment, confirm that environment meets the equivalence standard, because retrofitting compute infrastructure mid-program is expensive.
Insider threat
The contractor will establish and maintain an insider threat program to gather, integrate, and report relevant and available information indicative of a potential or actual insider threat, consistent with Executive Order 13587 and the Presidential Memorandum on National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs.
As soon as practicable, the contractor shall report to the COR events that may affect the eligibility of the entity or an employee for access to classified information, events indicating an insider threat, events affecting proper safeguarding, and events indicating classified information has been or is suspected to be lost or compromised.
Contract clauses to be aware of
The instructions reproduce or reference a set of clauses that will apply. FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management, requiring registration at offer and continuously through final payment. FAR 52.204-27 Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application, meaning TikTok and successor applications.
NGA-specific clauses include 5X52.209-9003 Protection of Information and Nondisclosure Agreements, 5X52.227-9000 Unauthorized Use of NGA Name, Seal and Initials, 5X52.237-9001 Contractor Identification, 5X52.37-9000 Contractor Employee Data for Access to NGA Facilities or Sensitive Systems, which requires initial and timely updates to NGA's Human Capital Management System for all personnel with access to NGA facilities or sensitive systems and requires all employees to attend in-processing and out-processing briefings, and 5X52.246-9000 Contractor Compliance with all applicable NGA and U.S. Government installation regulations, directives, instructions, rules, policies and procedures.
The Unauthorized Use of NGA Name, Seal and Initials clause is worth reading before you plan any marketing around an award. So is the prohibition on releasing unclassified information about the contract without written COR approval. Together they substantially constrain how you can talk publicly about this work, which is a real consideration for a company whose commercialization strategy depends on visibility.
There is also an Inspector General cooperation requirement. The contractor must report to the NGA Inspector General, DoD IG, or Intelligence Community IG any and all possible violations of federal law or illegal intelligence activities related to the contract by individuals charging directly or indirectly to it. The IG has access to any such individual whose testimony is needed and direct access to all related records. Failure to cooperate is grounds for administrative action. Contractors must make employees aware of the NGA IG Hotline, and the requirement is supported by FAR 52.203-13 and NGA Instruction 7410.1.
Badging is governed too. NGA IC badges will only be issued to contractors providing direct charge support on an active TS/SCI NGA contract, even when seated at corporate locations outside NGA facilities. Badges must be used at least once during a one-month period at an NGA government facility or may be suspended or terminated for lack of activity, and they expire at the end of the supported contract. Badges will not be issued to contractors who do not need facility access. On departure, the contractor must return all NGA badges, Common Access Cards, hangtags, and other government furnished property no later than four business days from the date of departure.
Section 508 Compliance, Which Is a Proposal Requirement
This requirement is easy to miss because it sits inside the Commercialization Strategy instruction, and it is unusual among the components in this cycle.
The contractor shall ensure that all systems, hardware, software, software engineering, and information technology associated with this effort is made in a manner that is accessible for people with disabilities as directed in NGA Instruction 8400.4 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended in 1998.
Specifically, all Information and Communications Technology associated with this contract may use the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 to comply with Section 508, or use alternative designs or technologies which result in substantially equivalent or greater access to and use of the product for people with disabilities.
Furthermore, the contractor shall pursue human centered design and usability guidelines to ensure that all services associated with this topic area are accessible by as many users as possible and to drive modernization, innovation, and enhance mission support.
As part of the proposal, the offeror should include an outline of specifically how Section 508 compliance will be achieved in the design of the ICT product. The Phase II proposal should provide an explicit, detailed description of the approach, indicate what is planned, how and where the work will be carried out, a schedule of major events, how the solution will be Section 508 compliant, and the final product to be delivered. If a determination is made that a Section 508 exception request is justified, the rationale for the exception request must be made and submitted as part of the proposal.
How to handle it on this topic
A cognitive radar control system is mostly autonomous software, but the Phase II deliverable includes software systems to select radar parameters and to analyze performance, which implies an operator or analyst interface. Any interface is Information and Communications Technology and falls within scope.
The practical answer is short and specific: name WCAG 2.1 as your standard, describe how your interface elements will conform, whether keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, contrast, and non-color-dependent status indication, and say when in the schedule accessibility review happens. If some component genuinely cannot comply, the instructions give you an exception path but require the rationale in the proposal, so use it deliberately rather than staying silent.
Silence is the failure mode here. The instructions say the offeror should include an outline of specifically how compliance will be achieved, and this is a requirement other components in this cycle do not impose, so it is exactly the kind of thing a proposal reused from another agency will omit.
Funding, Cost Structure, and NGA Mechanics
The award
The Phase II amount must not exceed $1,500,000 for up to a 24-month period of performance. Costs must be separated and clearly identified on the Proposal Cover Sheet in Volume 1 and in Volume 3.
Unless otherwise stated in the individual topic announcement, NGA Phase II awards are capped at $1,500,000 each over a maximum 24-month period of performance, and Phase I awards are capped at $150,000 each over a maximum six-month period of performance.
NGA caps sequential Phase II contracts, meaning those proposed near the completion of the initial Phase II or Direct to Phase II contract, at the then-current Small Business Administration "without seeking SBA approval" ceiling over a maximum 24-month period of performance.
No option periods
The offeror shall not propose option periods.
That is a flat prohibition and it distinguishes NGA from most components in this cycle, several of which structure awards as a base plus options. Build a single 24-month effort. Do not carry an option structure over from another agency's proposal.
Contract type and timing
NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract for its awards within 180 days of the proposal due date. The type of contract is at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.
One hundred eighty days from October 21, 2026 is roughly mid-April 2027. Plan your cash flow and staffing accordingly, and note that firm fixed price on a research effort means your cost estimate needs margin for the simulation fidelity work, which is the least predictable part of this scope.
Percentage of Work, with no exceptions
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW Program. NGA will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements.
On this topic the temptation is to subcontract the radar modeling to a specialist firm or the machine learning to a university. Model your POW before you assemble the team, and remember that every subcontractor also inherits the security requirements and the DFARS 252.204-7012 and FAR 52.204-21 flow-downs.
Technical and Business Assistance
Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase II cost ceiling 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.
For an NGA topic, security and facility clearance consulting is the standout use if you are building that posture, followed by accessibility and Section 508 consulting, which is a stated proposal and performance requirement here and not one most small businesses staff internally.
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 NGA during proposal evaluations.
That differs from several other components in this cycle, where the CCR is explicitly scored. Complete it because it is required, but your effort belongs in the Commercialization Strategy inside the technical volume, which is where NGA actually reads your transition thinking and where the Section 508 requirement lives.
The technical volume structure
The technical volume consists of two parts, described in one place as Part A Feasibility Documentation and Part B Technical Proposal and in the volume list as Part 1 Phase I Justification and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal. Either way the structure is the same: each part is not to exceed twenty pages, for a technical volume maximum page count of 40 pages. The Government will not consider pages in excess of these limitations. Number all pages consecutively and follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW SBIR Program.
The content of the technical volume follows the Technical Proposal Template provided in the DoW Program, with the additional items NGA specifies: Section 508 compliance in the Commercialization Strategy, clearance levels in Key Personnel, and CUI protection with SPRS score plus facility clearance level, safeguarding level, CAGE code, and addresses in Facilities and Equipment.
Evaluation, selection, and protests
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW Program Solicitation, plus the controlled-work criterion described above.
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, via email. Note that the NGA text says "for a Phase I award," which appears to be residual language given that this topic issues no Phase I award. Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.
Refer to the DoW Program 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 Patricia Hill at Patricia.D.Hill@nga.mil.
Questions
Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the NGA SBIR/STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to sbir@nga.mil.
The NGA instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW SBIR Program BAA Topic Q&A process applies and Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026. Use it for the SINR metric question above all.
The References
Three, and unlike several components in this cycle they are substantive and well chosen. Together they define the intellectual lineage NGA expects you to know.
Haykin, "New generation of radar systems enabled with cognition," IEEE International Radar Conference, Arlington, 2010. This is the foundational cognitive radar paper. Haykin framed cognitive radar as a closed perception-action cycle with memory and attention, and if your architecture does not map onto that framing you should explain why.
Guerci, "Cognitive Radar: The Knowledge-Aided Fully Adaptive Approach," Artech House, 2010. This is the book, and its central idea, knowledge-aided fully adaptive processing, is the practical engineering realization of the concept. It is also the reference most directly relevant to the "exploitation" half of the objective, since knowledge-aided processing operates on the receive side.
Bell, Johnson, Smith, Baker, and Rangaswamy, "Cognitive radar for target tracking using a software defined radar system," 2015 IEEE Radar Conference. This is the experimental demonstration, on software defined radar hardware, and it is the closest of the three to what a Phase III hardware effort would look like.
The set tells you something. NGA cited the concept, the engineering framework, and the hardware demonstration, all from the pre-deep-learning era of cognitive radar. Your contribution is the agentic AI layer on top of that lineage, so position it explicitly: what does an agentic AI decision layer do that knowledge-aided fully adaptive processing did not, and why is that the right addition now. A proposal that reinvents cognitive radar without engaging Haykin and Guerci will look uninformed to a reviewer who chose those references.
Bring your own literature too, on the agentic side. The topic gives you no citations for agentic AI, reinforcement learning for waveform selection, or adversarial machine learning in contested spectrum, and the DoW Technical Proposal Template requires you to demonstrate awareness of the state of the art.
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 SBIR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027, via email
Contract award: NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract within 180 days of the proposal due date, approximately mid-April 2027
Period of performance: up to 24 months
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Confirm your security posture honestly, because it is a scored criterion and a gating one. Facility Clearance Level, safeguarding level for each facility, CAGE codes, physical addresses, SPRS score, and NIST SP 800-171 status. Identify which personnel hold current Top Secret clearances and who has been polygraphed within five years, since anyone who has not must complete a polygraph in no more than three sessions within 90 days. Resolve any foreign national participation, remembering the prohibition extends to unclassified work absent prior written approval. Audit the funding provenance of every feasibility result, since work based upon or logically extending from prior federally funded SBIR or STTR work is excluded. Resolve intellectual property ownership or license rights. Confirm your compute environment meets FedRAMP Moderate equivalence if you will use a cloud provider for covered defense information. Read Haykin, Guerci, and Bell. Model your Percentage of Work before assembling a team. Send your SINR metric question to Topic Q&A early.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 20-page feasibility documentation. Use the space: measured interference detection and mitigation results with full experimental conditions, the before-and-after detection and classification figures against the 70 to 95 percent target, SINR reported in decibels alongside any normalized figure, subsystem-level architecture, and the decision logic of your cognition layer. Draft the 20-page Phase II technical proposal against the DoW Technical Proposal Template, covering the modeling and simulation environment and its fidelity basis, the parameter selection software as a product, the testing environment and how it differs from the simulation environment, explainability, and competence boundaries. Include the Section 508 outline in the Commercialization Strategy, clearance levels in Key Personnel, and the full facility and CUI detail in Facilities and Equipment. Do not propose option periods.
October 6 through October 7. Submit remaining questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes. The essential one is the SINR percentage metric. Administrative questions go to sbir@nga.mil.
October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume, with costs separated and clearly identified on the Proposal Cover Sheet and in Volume 3, against the $1,500,000 and 24-month ceiling with no options. Price the simulation environment development and validation, the machine learning development and compute, any secure compute or facility costs, security administration including HSPD-12 sponsorship coordination and insider threat program maintenance, accessibility work, and the software productization effort. Remember firm fixed price is typical, so carry margin on the simulation fidelity work. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form and place it in Volume 5.
October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, which is required though not evaluated by NGA. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form and any supporting documentation. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering it must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded there. Run compliance: 20 plus 20 pages, consecutively numbered, no option periods proposed, clearance levels listed, SPRS score and facility details provided, Section 508 outline present.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is NGA SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-DV033?
OSW26BZ06-DV033 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic titled "Agentic AI Based Cognitive Radar for GEOINT Mission," released under the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop an agentic AI based cognitive radar system for automatic selection of radar parameters, waveforms, and exploitation for resilient GEOINT applications.
How much funding is available?
The Phase II amount must not exceed $1,500,000 for up to a 24-month period of performance. Phase II awardees may also request up to $50,000 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.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal?
No. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only.
Can I propose option periods?
No. The NGA instructions state that the offeror shall not propose option periods. Build a single effort within the 24-month ceiling.
How long can my technical volume be?
Forty pages total, consisting of a feasibility documentation part at 20 pages maximum and a technical proposal part at 20 pages maximum. Pages in excess will not be considered. Number all pages consecutively and follow the DoW SBIR Program formatting requirements. This is the most generous page allowance among the components in this cycle.
What must my feasibility documentation show?
A developed concept for an agentic AI based cognitive radar system, with details on the components of the systems and subsystems, and demonstrated capability detecting interference signals and mitigating them by transmitting a different signal. Two quantitative improvements are stated: signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio improving from below 70 percent to 95 percent, and image quality and resolution improving from below 70 percent detection and classification to 95 percent detection and classification after mitigation.
The SINR metric is expressed as a percentage. Is that right?
It is what the topic says, but signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio is conventionally expressed in decibels rather than as a percentage, so the stated "below 70 percent to 95 percent" does not map onto standard usage. Raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes on October 7. In the meantime report SINR in decibels with interference conditions fully specified, alongside whatever normalized figure corresponds to the stated range, and say why you are presenting both.
Can my feasibility evidence come from a prior SBIR award?
No. The NGA Direct to Phase II guidelines state that feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and that the work must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. This is a real risk on a cognitive radar topic, since much U.S. work in the area has been SBIR and STTR funded.
What happens if my feasibility documentation is inadequate?
If the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the associated topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.
Do I need a security clearance?
Yes. The instructions state that all Contractor personnel shall possess a current Top Secret Personnel Security Clearance and be eligible for favorable NGA adjudication for SCI access. Personnel performing TS/SCI work require active TS/SCI clearances for access to TS/SCI facilities, environments, and computer systems. NGA will sponsor SCI accesses at its sole discretion if needed.
Is a polygraph required?
Contractors are subject to a counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination as requested by NGA. As a condition of employment and assignment, contractors who have not successfully completed polygraph testing within the last five years must immediately schedule an examination and complete the process, in no more than three test sessions, within 90 days.
Can uncleared people work on this contract?
Yes, in a limited way. After discussion with the COR and with written COR approval, uncleared contractor personnel are authorized to work at the unclassified level with access up to DoD Controlled Unclassified Information at the contractor site without a security clearance. Personnel working with CUI must receive favorable HSPD-12 adjudication for access of 60 days or less, or HSPD-12 Tier 1 adjudication for more than 60 days. NGA will sponsor those investigations as needed.
Can foreign nationals work on this contract?
Not without prior written approval from the Contracting Officer or the COR, and that prohibition applies to unclassified work. If NGA identifies unauthorized personnel, the CO may direct the contractor at its own expense to remove and replace them, without prejudice to other remedies including termination for default. This is stricter than the case-by-case disclosure approach used on ITAR-restricted topics elsewhere in this cycle.
Do I need a facility clearance and a SCIF?
Any classified work performed at contractor sites must be performed in an NGA accredited SCIF, an Other Government Agency SCIF, or an approved secure collateral space with a Memorandum of Agreement, Memorandum of Understanding, Joint Use Agreement, or Co-Use Agreement with NGA for this contract, and all classified work at a non-NGA facility must be COR approved. Accreditation must be at least commensurate with the safeguarding level required by the DD254.
What must my Key Personnel section include?
In addition to the standard content, list the clearance level held by each of the personnel, because, as NGA puts it, we will be operating in a classified environment.
What must my Facilities and Equipment section include?
How Controlled Unclassified Information will be protected in accordance with NIST SP 800-171, your Supplier Performance Risk System score, and, since the work requires a classified environment, your Facility Clearance Level, the safeguarding level for each facility, the CAGE code for each facility, and the associated physical addresses.
Is my security posture actually scored?
Yes. In addition to the DoW Program evaluation criteria, NGA will evaluate a vendor's ability to perform controlled work, meaning CUI and classified, as part of their technical evaluation score. Note also that NGA may use SETA support for the programmatics of executing the evaluation but will not use SETA support to evaluate proposals.
What is the Section 508 requirement?
The Commercialization Strategy must address Section 508 compliance. All systems, hardware, software, software engineering, and information technology associated with the effort must be accessible for people with disabilities per NGA Instruction 8400.4 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended in 1998. Information and Communications Technology may use WCAG 2.1 to comply, or alternative designs achieving substantially equivalent or greater access. The proposal should include an outline of specifically how compliance will be achieved, and if an exception is justified the rationale must be submitted as part of the proposal.
What are the cybersecurity requirements?
At minimum, implement 10 U.S.C. Sections 391 and 393 along with NIST SP 800-171. If using an external cloud service provider to store, process, or transmit covered defense information, ensure the provider meets security requirements equivalent to the FedRAMP Moderate baseline. On discovering a cyber incident, notify the DoD Cyber Crime Center and the COR in writing within 72 hours and conduct a compromise review. Isolated malicious software goes to DC3 per COR instructions, not to the COR.
Do I need an insider threat program?
Yes. The contractor will establish and maintain an insider threat program consistent with Executive Order 13587 and the Presidential Memorandum on National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards, and report to the COR events affecting clearance eligibility, indicating insider threat, affecting safeguarding, or indicating classified information has been or is suspected lost or compromised.
What does Phase II actually build?
Software, not hardware. Prototype the agentic AI based cognitive radar system in a modeling and simulation environment, develop software systems to select various parameters of the radar systems and operating environment, and analyze performance of the system in a testing environment. Hardware is Phase III: develop and build the hardware for technology transition.
If Phase II is simulation only, what does credibility rest on?
The fidelity of your simulation environment. With no over-the-air evidence, a reviewer will scrutinize your clutter model, interference model, channel model, platform geometry, and any validation of the simulator against measured data. Modest results from a simulator anchored to real measurements are more persuasive than impressive results from an unvalidated one.
What environmental conditions must the system sense?
The topic names three: interference, clutter, and signal-to-noise ratio. Address all three even though the feasibility metric measures interference.
What transmit parameters must the system control?
The topic names frequency, bandwidth, pulse repetition frequency, and other critical parameters. Say which your system controls and which it does not, and why.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2 with self-assessment. Note separately that the classified nature of the work imposes personnel and facility requirements well beyond CMMC.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
No topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on OSW26BZ06-DV033. The classified environment and the foreign national prohibition impose stricter constraints than an ITAR notice would.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
No. Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but information contained in the CCR will not be considered by NGA during proposal evaluations. That differs from several other components in this cycle. Put your effort into the Commercialization Strategy inside the technical volume instead.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. NGA will not accept any deviation to the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW Program. Note also that subcontractors inherit the security requirements and the DFARS 252.204-7012 and FAR 52.204-21 flow-downs.
What contract type should I expect, and when?
NGA typically provides a firm fixed price contract within 180 days of the proposal due date, roughly mid-April 2027 for this cycle, with contract type at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.
Can I publicize an award?
Only carefully. Contractor personnel shall not release any unclassified information, in any medium, pertaining to any part of the contract or any related program unless the COR has given prior written approval or in performance of a project scoped and negotiated by NGA. The NGA clause on unauthorized use of the NGA name, seal, and initials also applies. Plan your commercialization narrative with those constraints in mind.
When will I hear back?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, via email. Note that the NGA text says notification "for a Phase I award," which appears to be residual language given that this topic issues no Phase I award.
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 NGA SBIR/STTR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to sbir@nga.mil. Protests after award go to Patricia Hill at Patricia.D.Hill@nga.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Answer the security question before the radar question. Your ability to perform controlled work is a scored technical criterion, all personnel must hold Top Secret clearances with SCI eligibility, and classified work needs an accredited SCIF or an approved arrangement with NGA. If you cannot state a Facility Clearance Level, safeguarding level, CAGE codes, addresses, and an SPRS score, that gap is visible on page one of your Facilities section. Fix it, partner for it, or choose a different topic.
Check your SPRS score today. It is a specific number NGA asks for, a reviewer can look at it immediately, and it takes weeks to improve. An absent or low score on a scored controlled-work criterion is an unforced error.
Deal with the polygraph timeline now. Anyone not polygraphed in five years must schedule immediately and complete within 90 days in no more than three sessions. That constrains who you can actually put on a project team starting in spring 2027, and it is worth mapping before you name Key Personnel.
Use all twenty feasibility pages. NGA gives four times the feasibility allowance most components allow. Full experimental conditions, subsystem architecture, the interference scenarios, the decision logic, and complete before-and-after data all fit. A five-page feasibility section in a twenty-page allowance reads as thin evidence rather than efficient writing.
Ask about the SINR percentage, and report decibels regardless. A percentage SINR is not standard, and how NGA intends it changes what you must show. Ask in Topic Q&A, then report in decibels with conditions specified plus a normalized figure covering the stated range, and explain the choice. Silently reinterpreting a stated requirement is riskier than transparently addressing an ambiguity.
Make the simulation environment a first-class part of the proposal. Phase II is modeling, simulation, and software, so your simulator is your evidence base. Describe the clutter, interference, and channel models, the platform geometry, the validation against any measured data you have, and the separation between the environment where you develop and the testing environment where you evaluate. This is where a strong proposal separates from a plausible one.
Engage Haykin and Guerci explicitly. NGA cited the founding concept paper, the knowledge-aided fully adaptive book, and a software defined radar demonstration. Position your agentic AI layer against that lineage: what does an agentic decision layer add over knowledge-aided fully adaptive processing, and why now. Reinventing cognitive radar without naming that work signals you have not read the references.
Do not skip exploitation. The objective names parameters, waveforms, and exploitation. Most proposals will focus on transmit-side adaptation and treat processing as fixed. A system that adapts both what it sends and how it processes what comes back answers the objective as written, and Guerci's knowledge-aided approach is the reference that supports it.
Address the adversary's adaptation. The threat framing is asymmetric operating environments that adversaries impose. An adversary observing your adaptation policy can exploit it. Saying how your system avoids becoming predictable, and what happens when it is countered, is a differentiator on a resilience topic and most proposals will not raise it.
Define the autonomy boundary and the failure behavior. "Once initiated" implies a human starts it and the system runs. Say exactly what a human sets, what the system decides, what it does outside its training distribution, and how it signals degraded confidence. In an intelligence collection context, a system that knows it is failing is worth more than one that confidently continues.
Write the Section 508 outline. It is a stated proposal requirement, it sits inside the Commercialization Strategy, and it is precisely the item a proposal reused from another agency will omit. Name WCAG 2.1, describe the conformance approach for your operator interface, put accessibility review in the schedule, and use the exception path with rationale if something genuinely cannot comply.
Do not propose options. NGA prohibits it flatly, and an option structure carried over from another component's proposal is an immediate signal that you did not read the instructions.
Price for firm fixed price. NGA typically awards FFP within 180 days. Simulation fidelity work is the least predictable part of this scope, so carry margin there rather than discovering the gap after award.
Confirm your compute environment meets FedRAMP Moderate equivalence. A machine learning program on a commercial cloud that does not meet the standard for covered defense information is an expensive mid-program discovery.
Plan your commercialization story around the publication constraints. You cannot release unclassified information about the contract without written COR approval, and the NGA name and seal are protected. A commercialization strategy that depends on public visibility needs to account for that, and the honest version is more persuasive than one that ignores it.
Budget security administration as real work. HSPD-12 sponsorship coordination, insider threat program maintenance, HCMS data updates, badging and in-processing and out-processing, continuous evaluation enrollment, and departure property returns within four business days are all recurring administrative obligations. Companies new to IC work routinely underprice them.
OSW-FutureG SBIR OSW26BZ06-DV032: Smart Manufacturing, Open-Source Private 5G
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $2m
Description: Complete guide to OSW-FutureG SBIR Direct to Phase II topic OSW26BZ06-DV032, open-source private 5G for smart manufacturing. Up to $2,153,927 over 18 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26BZ06-DV032 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic under the OSW FutureG Office, FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. No Phase I award will be issued. The government wants a private 5G network for factories built entirely from open-source software, with no proprietary core, RAN Intelligent Controller, or Service Management and Orchestration component anywhere in the stack, demonstrated in a real metal-heavy industrial environment with at least three cells. The award must not exceed $2,153,927 over 18 months, with a 20-page technical volume. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The stack is named and mandatory: OCUDU for the Centralized Unit and Distributed Unit, SD-Core for the 5G core, SD-RAN for the Near-Real-Time RIC, and the OSC stack for the Non-Real-Time RIC and SMO. A commercial core or a vendor RIC does not meet the topic.
The performance targets are specific and, unusually, so is the price point. The dominant performance classes are ultra-reliable low-latency communication and high-mobility reliability: sustained sub-30 millisecond threshold to sub-15 millisecond objective latency for machine-vision backhaul, at least 99.5 percent handover success at operational automated guided vehicle and autonomous mobile robot speeds, and at least five-nines availability for safety-critical services, all in dense, metal-heavy RF environments. And the target commercial packaging is a CBRS-based as-a-service offer at $100,000 to $250,000, which is the number that decides whether the business case closes.
The topic is also refreshingly honest about what it is not claiming. On Wi-Fi roaming it says modern standards substantially mitigate fixed-access-point handoff behavior when properly deployed, and that the real advantages sought are deterministic network-scheduled access on interference-managed spectrum, standardized network-controlled mobility management, and quality-of-service guarantees enforceable under load. A proposal that argues Wi-Fi cannot roam is arguing against the topic's own text.
One thing to know before drafting. The topic repeatedly directs proposers to key performance metric tables and to "Section 3.0." No such tables and no numbered Section 3.0 appear in the published document. That gap has its own section below and it is the most important question to ask before the topic closes.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26BZ06-DV032
Title: Smart Manufacturing
Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, FutureG Office, under OUSW(R&E)
Solicitation: OSW FutureG Office, FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Direct to Phase II only. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only, and a formal Phase I award will not be issued
Award: must not exceed $2,153,927
Period of performance: 18 months
Technical volume limit: 20 pages maximum, structured as Part 1 Phase I Justification at 5 pages maximum and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal at 15 pages maximum, with the Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy at no more than 2 pages counting toward the 15
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Areas: Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI), Contested Logistics Technologies (LOG)
Component Technology Priority Areas: FutureG, Advanced Infrastructure and Advanced Manufacturing, Sustainment and Logistics
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2. Note that this topic states Level 2 without the parenthetical self-assessment qualifier that appears on the other two topics in this release
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic
Mandatory stack: OCUDU plus SD-Core plus SD-RAN plus OSC, with no proprietary core, RIC, or SMO component anywhere
Dominant performance classes: ultra-reliable low-latency communication and high-mobility reliability
Stated performance targets: sub-30 ms threshold and sub-15 ms objective latency for machine-vision backhaul, at least 99.5 percent handover success at operational AGV and AMR speeds, and at least five-nines availability for safety-critical services
Stated commercial price point: a CBRS-based as-a-service offer at $100,000 to $250,000
Market: roughly 50,000 U.S. manufacturing firms in the 20 to 99 employee band alone, with several thousand more in the 100 to 250 range
Use cases: proposers must address at least two of four, and must identify which their reference architecture and pilot deployment are designed to validate
Mandatory common work package: OCUDU baseline benchmarking and upstream enhancement, Tasks A, B, and C, required regardless of use cases selected
Additional mandatory task: representative facility-specific RF network planning and site engineering
Upstream requirement: all modifications to OCUDU shall be contributed upstream through the project's standard contribution and review process
Demonstration site: must be representative of the target deployment class in RF character, meaning metal-heavy and multipath-rich industrial construction, and in scale, meaning a footprint and cell count of at minimum three cells sufficient to exercise inter-cell handover at operational AGV and AMR speeds
Out of scope for Phase II: hard-real-time machine motion control, meaning isochronous traffic with cycle times of approximately 0.5 to 2 milliseconds per 3GPP TS 22.104
Technical and Business Assistance: up to $50,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5
Percentage of Work: the FutureG Office will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements
Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will be considered during proposal evaluations
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: smart manufacturing, AI, robotics, smart factories, Industry 4.0, 5G connected warehouse
The Feasibility Bar, Which Is the First Thing to Check
This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only, so a formal Phase I award will not be issued.
To qualify for a Phase II award, proposers must submit Feasibility Documentation as part of their proposal package demonstrating that they have already completed Phase I-type research and development. The purpose of this documentation is to prove that the underlying technology is mature, scientifically sound, and ready to transition immediately into the Phase II prototyping and testing environment.
What the government will accept
The Government will accept a wide variety of documentation styles. Proposers do not need to have a perfect, finished product, but they must show that their core ideas have been successfully tested. One or more of the following items should be included to prove technology readiness.
Test data and metrics: real-world measurements, performance charts, or network test data from previous lab environments or early field trials.
Technical reports and white papers: written summaries explaining your previous research, system designs, or software integration efforts.
Prototype designs and simulation models: diagrams, architectural blueprints, or computer simulation results showing how your proposed software and hardware components interact.
Previous project outcomes: success criteria, milestone reports, or commercialization results from prior private, academic, or non-SBIR federally funded work.
This is among the most accommodating feasibility framings in the 2026 cycle. One or more of the four suffices, simulation models are explicitly acceptable, and the government states you do not need a finished product.
The restriction that still applies
The FutureG Direct to Phase II guidelines impose a hard constraint the topic-level text does not repeat.
Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the principal investigator. If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property, the proposer must either own the IP or must have obtained license rights to such technology prior to proposal submission, to enable it and its subcontractors to legally carry out the proposed work.
The Volume 2 instruction phrases it as "must not be solely based on" prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, which is weaker. Plan against the stricter formulation.
Notice that the topic's own fourth evidence category names "prior private, academic, or non-SBIR federally funded work," which is consistent with the restriction and tells you where to look. Private, academic, and non-SBIR federal work are all fine. Prior SBIR and STTR work is the problem, and open-source 5G integration work in the United States has been substantially SBIR funded, so audit the provenance of every result you intend to cite.
If the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.
The Missing KPM Tables, and What the Topic Does Tell You
The topic refers to KPM tables repeatedly. It says other suggested KPMs for the various use cases and system requirements are given below for reference. It says each use case is defined in terms of the operational scenario, the connectivity requirement, and "the corresponding KPM table." Task A requires a baseline against the Phase II KPMs "including the General System and Architectural Requirements." The deliverables require Key Performance Metrics "see Section 3," MVP documentation reporting "the KPI results achieved against Section 3.0 thresholds," and a baseline benchmark report with "measured baseline results against Section 3.0 KPMs." A scope note refers to "the latency-class scope note in Section 3.0."
No KPM tables appear in the published document, and there is no numbered Section 3.0 or General System and Architectural Requirements section.
The governing principle is stated, even though the tables are not
This topic, unlike its companion DV031, spells out how the KPMs are meant to work, and that paragraph is what lets you proceed.
The KPM values in the tables are suggested reference values, not pass or fail contract requirements. Proposers shall propose specific, justified KPM targets in the Technical Volume, calibrated to their selected use cases, demonstration environment, spectrum plan, and channel bandwidth. Deviations from the suggested values must be technically justified. Threshold values represent the intended standard of Phase II demonstration success, and objective values are stretch goals, some of which are expected to mature during Phase III or along the FutureG evolution path. Final KPM targets will be agreed with the Government at kickoff and confirmed at the Critical Design Review. Consistent with the key milestones, partial achievement within a defined and documented scope may be considered successful.
So the practical approach is to propose your own KPM set with threshold and objective values, calibrated to your use cases, demonstration environment, spectrum plan, and channel bandwidth, justify each, and note that final targets are agreed at kickoff and confirmed at CDR. State plainly that you are doing so because the referenced tables do not appear in the published instructions.
Ask anyway. DSIP Topic Q&A closes October 7, 2026, and requesting the tables or a pointer to them is the single highest-value question on this topic.
The numbers the topic does state in its text
Four performance figures appear in the body and you should treat them as the anchors.
Sustained sub-30 millisecond threshold to sub-15 millisecond objective latency for machine-vision backhaul.
At least 99.5 percent handover success at operational AGV and AMR speeds.
At least five-nines availability for safety-critical services.
And a worked example: "The platform must sustain a session success rate greater than 99.5% for AGV/AMR connections while handing over between at least 3 small cells at speeds up to 10 mph."
The topic also names the KPM categories to address: session success rate, handover success rate, latency, jitter, and service availability.
The latency measurement definition, which is unusually precise
Latency KPMs in this document denote round-trip application-layer latency measured between the user equipment application interface and the local edge application endpoint served behind the on-site or edge User Plane Function, meaning device to edge through the RAN and core user plane, excluding external wide-area network transport.
Handover time denotes user-plane interruption time at the RAN, per 3GPP definitions.
For each latency KPM adopted, proposers shall specify the measurement reference points, the traffic type and packet size, and the measurement methodology, for example key performance indicator definitions per 3GPP TS 28.554, and shall include in the Critical Design Document a latency budget decomposition across the air interface, DU and CU processing, fronthaul and F1 transport, core user plane, and application processing.
That latency budget decomposition is a specific, named CDR deliverable across five segments. It is also a genuinely useful engineering discipline and one of the more concrete requirements in the topic. Do not treat it as boilerplate.
The latency scope note, which limits what you must demonstrate
Hard-real-time machine motion control, meaning isochronous traffic with cycle times of approximately 0.5 to 2 milliseconds per 3GPP TS 22.104, is outside the Phase II demonstration scope.
The latency KPMs in this topic target AGV and AMR supervision and control-plane traffic, machine-vision backhaul, and safety alerting.
Proposers shall, however, address in their FutureG evolution path the OCUDU enhancements required to approach the 1 millisecond latency class over time, including deterministic and priority scheduling, Time-Sensitive Communication support, and mini-slot and preemption features.
This is the government being realistic, and it matters. You are not being asked to close a motion-control loop over 5G in 18 months. You are being asked to hit sub-30 to sub-15 milliseconds for supervision, vision backhaul, and alerting, and to document the roadmap toward the 1 millisecond class. A proposal that promises isochronous motion control in Phase II is not more ambitious, it is out of scope.
What the Government Is Actually Buying
The objective
The objective of this Phase II effort is to design, validate, and demonstrate a fully open-source, private 5G network platform for smart manufacturing that integrates OCUDU, SD-Core, SD-RAN, and OSC components into a secure, vendor-neutral architecture.
This platform will deliver highly reliable, low-latency connectivity to support autonomous robotics, machine vision, and connected-worker safety, providing a cost-effective, FutureG-ready solution for both commercial manufacturers and dual-use defense logistics facilities.
The market, as the government describes it
The realistic near-to-mid-term serviceable addressable market for private 5G among U.S. small and medium-sized manufacturers is not all manufacturers. It is the subset with real mobility, reliability, coverage, or security pain: plants using automated guided vehicles, autonomous mobile robots, machine vision, connected workers, outdoor yards, large indoor spaces, or metal-heavy RF environments.
Manufacturing is already among the leading sectors for private mobile network deployments worldwide, and published case studies show double-digit productivity gains and lower infrastructure capital expenditure versus Wi-Fi deployments.
Based on data compiled by the National Association of Manufacturers, roughly 50,000 U.S. manufacturing firms fall in the 20 to 99 employee band alone, with several thousand more in the 100 to 250 range.
Note the qualification. The market is not 50,000 plants, it is the subset of them with one of six named pain characteristics. Your commercialization strategy should segment on those characteristics rather than quoting the headline firm count, because the topic already told you the count is not the addressable market.
How this segment buys, and what stops it
This segment buys on simplicity, speed, fit, and economics, not on global platform standardization.
Its stated barriers to adoption are consistent and compounding: return-on-investment ambiguity, legacy equipment and retrofit costs, spectrum and regulatory fragmentation, uneven device ecosystems, information technology and operational technology integration complexity, in-house skills shortages, and tight capital budgets.
A proprietary platform from a tier-one vendor addresses almost none of these barriers directly. It is priced and supported for large campuses and multi-site accounts, not a single plant with one connectivity problem to solve.
Seven named barriers. That list is effectively a scoring rubric for your commercialization strategy, and addressing each one explicitly is cheap differentiation.
The open-source argument and its honest cost
An all-open-source stack removes the structural cost and lock-in that makes proprietary platforms a poor fit for this segment. Because OCUDU's O-CU and O-DU communicate with the rest of the network over open, standardized interfaces, especially the O-RAN 7.2x split to the O-RU, the network can be assembled from whichever radio unit vendor best fits a given plant's bands, form factor, and budget, rather than a single bundled radio line.
Together, OCUDU, SD-Core, SD-RAN, and OSC form one integrated, fully open-source 5G stack that a smaller solution provider or systems integrator can deploy, support, and price as a right-sized, as-a-service offer for a single plant, instead of selling a broad, vendor-locked platform.
That directly answers this market's stated preference for outcome-first, economically flexible offers, and it supports a Wi-Fi-coexistence posture, meaning private 5G for the hard problem zones and Wi-Fi where it already works, rather than a rip-and-replace sale.
The trade-off is that the burden of proving interoperability, stability, and security shifts from a single vendor's warranty to the integrator and the open-source community itself. Small and medium manufacturer buyers, who by their own account lack in-house cellular and associated cybersecurity expertise, have little tolerance for integration failures discovered after deployment.
This is exactly the gap the ongoing OCUDU Testing and Validation Plan, and its RTEC-centered extensions, are designed to close: independently witnessed, multi-vendor testing of device diversity, RU diversity, outdoor RF performance, Core, RIC, and SMO integration, and security. The proposal should leverage the current, ongoing testing and evaluation activities in RTECs and associated results.
Take the Wi-Fi-coexistence framing seriously. The topic explicitly rejects a rip-and-replace posture, and a proposal that positions private 5G as replacing plant Wi-Fi is arguing against the solicitation's own commercial logic. Private 5G for the hard zones, Wi-Fi where it works, is the stated sale.
The generalization requirement
Although this topic is anchored in a specific vertical to ensure a concrete deployment environment, real users, and a defensible commercialization path, proposers should recognize and are required to present the technical work in terms of the generic network performance classes it advances.
Improvements made to the OCUDU O-CU and O-DU under this effort, meaning scheduler behavior, mobility management, uplink capacity, stability under sustained load, and security features, are expected to generalize across verticals and to benefit the broader community of RAN developers building on OCUDU.
The Technical Volume shall include a mapping of each selected use case, and its associated KPMs, to the performance class or classes it exercises, and shall identify which anticipated OCUDU code or feature enhancements correspond to each class.
This is a required Technical Volume element stated with "shall." It is easy to omit while writing about factories. Reserve space for it.
The Three Research Questions
Research and development for this effort should address, at minimum, the following three questions. Note that this topic asks three where its venue companion asks four; the ISAC evolution question is absent here.
All-open-source economics
What is the fully loaded cost, covering integration, support, spectrum, and hardware, of an OCUDU plus SD-Core plus SD-RAN plus OSC deployment relative to a proprietary platform at small and medium manufacturer scale, and how should that be packaged as a CBRS-based, as-a-service offer within the price point buyers require, stated as $100,000 to $250,000?
The stated price band is the most actionable number in the topic. It bounds the whole design: how many radio units, what class of hardware, how much integration labor, and what recurring service margin. Build a cost model against it and show that it closes, because a technically excellent platform that lands at $600,000 per plant does not answer the question that was asked.
Use-case-first automation
Which of the use cases defined below deliver the fastest, most measurable return on investment on the open-source stack, and what RTEC-executed interoperability tests across Device, RU, Core, RIC and SMO, and Infrastructure dimensions are needed to validate each one end-to-end?
Trust in open source
How does RTEC-executed testing of the full open-source stack, not just OCUDU, reduce the integration risk and skills-shortage barrier that small and medium manufacturer buyers most often cite, and what evidence package best converts community-maintained, no-license-fee software into a procurement-ready proof point for a buyer with no in-house cellular expertise?
That third question is the commercial crux and the one most proposals will answer weakly. The implied deliverable is an evidence package: what does a plant manager with no RF staff need to see, in what form, to sign a contract for a network with no vendor warranty behind it? Treat it as a document design problem, not a testing plan.
Solutions leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning for predictive maintenance, network optimization, or automated fault resolution are encouraged but not required. The government will consider any novel concept that increases the reliability, economics, and trustworthiness of an all-open-source private 5G and FutureG platform for the manufacturing vertical. Dual-use opportunities are expected across both commercial small and medium manufacturers and DoW facility networks.
Phase II Scope
This Phase II effort will design, validate, and demonstrate a fully open-source private 5G network platform purpose-built for manufacturing facilities, integrating OCUDU, SD-Core, SD-RAN, and the OSC stack with no proprietary core, RIC, or SMO components.
The platform addresses four manufacturing-specific needs: high-mobility connectivity for automated guided vehicles and mobile plant equipment; low-latency video and camera backhaul for quality inspection and process monitoring; worker and plant safety communications; and outdoor yard and logistics coverage extending beyond the factory floor.
Phase II work will produce a validated reference architecture, RTEC-executed interoperability testing across RU, Core, RIC and SMO, and infrastructure dimensions, and a working minimum viable product demonstrated at a representative manufacturing site, along with a documented technical bridge path toward FutureG capability.
Anticipated benefits include a lower-cost, vendor-neutral alternative to proprietary industrial wireless systems, improved reliability for mobile robotics and safety-critical communications in dense industrial RF environments, and a reusable open-source deployment model.
The Four Use Cases, Of Which You Must Address Two
Proposers must address at least two of the following four use cases in their Phase II Statement of Work, and must identify which use cases their reference architecture and pilot deployment are designed to validate.
Device-class diversity and RedCap, which applies across all use cases
Each use-case set spans device classes from full-capability user equipment, meaning equipment modems, cameras, and broadcast and production units, to reduced-capability Internet of Things endpoints, meaning sensors, wearables, tags, and trackers.
Proposers shall address how the platform serves reduced-capability device classes, including 3GPP Release 17 Reduced Capability, RedCap, and Release 18 eRedCap user equipment, and shall identify any OCUDU scheduler or feature enhancements required to support RedCap operation. Such enhancements are strongly encouraged as upstream contributions under the common OCUDU benchmarking and enhancement work package.
Where RedCap-certified devices are not commercially available for a given endpoint type at demonstration time, proposers may demonstrate with available device classes or emulated RedCap user equipment profiles, and shall document the RedCap migration path.
That final allowance is worth using, since RedCap device availability in CBRS bands remains limited.
Industrial IoT service characteristics, which are specific to this topic
For the manufacturing vertical specifically, proposers shall additionally address Industrial IoT service characteristics as framed by 3GPP TS 22.104 on service requirements for cyber-physical control applications, including four things.
The mapping of selected use cases to TS 22.104 communication service classes.
Support for private-network, meaning Non-Public Network, operation.
Awareness of Time-Sensitive Communication and IEEE Time-Sensitive Networking integration concepts in the platform architecture.
And secure information technology and operational technology segmentation for IIoT traffic, for example via network slicing or 5G-LAN group management.
This requirement has no counterpart in the venue topic and it is a genuine technical scope addition. The TS 22.104 service class mapping in particular is a concrete artifact a reviewer can check, and IT and OT segmentation is the requirement that plant IT departments will care about most.
Use Case 1: AGV and AMR connectivity and mobility
Automated guided vehicles and autonomous mobile robots move continuously across the plant floor, between production cells, and into staging or storage areas, requiring an uninterrupted control-plane and telemetry connection as they roam. Roaming interruptions have historically been a common source of dropped sessions and stalled vehicles in Wi-Fi-served plants.
The topic then does something unusual and important. It concedes the counterargument. Modern Wi-Fi roaming standards, meaning IEEE 802.11k neighbor reports, 802.11r fast BSS transition, and 802.11v BSS transition management, substantially mitigate fixed-access-point handoff behavior when properly deployed on capable client devices. The more fundamental challenges in this environment are contention-based access on unlicensed, shared spectrum and the severe attenuation, multipath, and reflection conditions of metal-heavy plants, which degrade any RF system absent careful network planning.
The advantage sought under this topic is therefore not that Wi-Fi cannot roam, but that a 3GPP system provides deterministic, network-scheduled access on interference-managed spectrum, standardized mobility management under network control, and quality-of-service guarantees that remain enforceable under load.
This use case requires the platform to sustain low-latency, high-reliability connectivity and seamless handover as AGVs and AMRs move between small cells, indoors and where applicable into adjoining outdoor areas.
It additionally requires on-floor localization of AGVs, AMRs, and tagged mobile assets for fleet management, geofencing, and safety zoning. Network-native positioning using 3GPP NR positioning methods from Release 16 and 17 is preferred. Hybrid approaches that fuse NR positioning with existing plant localization systems may be proposed with justification.
Two things to take from this. First, do not write a Wi-Fi-cannot-roam argument; the topic pre-refuted it and a reviewer will notice. Make the case on deterministic scheduling, interference-managed spectrum, network-controlled mobility, and enforceable quality of service. Second, localization is a requirement inside this use case, not an optional extra, and network-native NR positioning is preferred over fusion with existing plant systems.
Use Case 2: Machine vision backhaul
Quality-inspection and process-monitoring cameras generate continuous, high-bandwidth video or image streams that must reach an on-premises or edge analytics system with minimal delay and jitter to support real-time defect detection and line-stoppage decisions.
This use case requires the platform to sustain high uplink throughput with low jitter for multiple simultaneous camera streams, including in metal-heavy or RF-reflective areas of the plant where Wi-Fi performance typically degrades.
Note that this is the use case the sub-30 and sub-15 millisecond latency targets attach to, and it is an uplink-heavy problem, which is the harder direction for a 5G system. Uplink capacity is also one of the named OCUDU enhancement areas in Task B, so this use case connects directly to the mandatory work package.
Use Case 3: Connected-worker safety
Plant personnel increasingly carry or wear connected devices such as gas and hazard sensors, push-to-talk radios, panic buttons, or health and location monitors, that must reliably reach a monitoring system without gaps in coverage, including in areas such as mezzanines, tank farms, and loading docks that legacy Wi-Fi does not reliably reach.
This use case requires the platform to sustain consistent, low-latency coverage for safety-critical alerting across the full indoor plant footprint.
This is where the five-nines availability target lives, and it is the use case most likely to involve RedCap and eRedCap devices, since wearables and sensors are exactly the reduced-capability endpoint class.
Use Case 4: Secure outdoor yard and logistics coverage
Loading docks, staging yards, rail sidings, and outdoor storage areas typically fall outside indoor Wi-Fi coverage entirely, yet increasingly require connectivity for yard trucks, RFID and asset tracking, outdoor cameras, and inventory handling equipment.
This use case requires the platform to extend secure, private coverage into outdoor areas immediately adjacent to the plant, using the same OCUDU-based infrastructure rather than a separate outdoor Wi-Fi buildout.
Note that outdoor RF performance is named as one of the dimensions the RTEC testing program covers, which makes this use case comparatively well supported by existing validation work.
Choosing your two
Use Cases 1 and 2 are the most tightly coupled to the topic's stated performance classes, since Use Case 1 carries the handover success target and Use Case 2 carries the latency targets, and together they exercise both dominant performance classes of URLLC and high-mobility reliability. They also both live indoors on the same RF design, which is the cheapest pairing.
Use Case 3 is the natural pair with either, since it shares the indoor footprint and adds the RedCap and availability dimensions at modest additional hardware cost. Use Case 4 requires outdoor cell planning and additional radio units.
The Contested Logistics Technologies Critical Technology Area designation points toward Use Case 4 and the depot and logistics defense narrative, so if the defense transition story matters to you, weigh that.
The Mandatory Common Work Package
All performers under this topic shall execute the following common work package, which is a required element of the Phase II Statement of Work regardless of the use cases selected.
Not optional, and not scoped by your use case choice. Budget and staff it separately.
Task A: Baseline Benchmark
Establish a quantified performance baseline of the integrated open-source stack, meaning OCUDU plus SD-Core plus SD-RAN plus OSC, against the Phase II KPMs relevant to the selected use cases, including the General System and Architectural Requirements.
An emulated end-to-end configuration, using emulated radio units and user equipment, RF channel emulation, or synthetic load generation, is acceptable and encouraged for the baseline, provided the benchmark methodology, tooling, configurations, and results are fully documented and reproducible.
Where an RTEC-validated reference configuration already exists for the proposed RU, Core, RIC, and SMO combination, the baseline shall incorporate available RTEC results rather than duplicate them.
Baseline methodology and results shall be presented to the OCUDU Test and Evaluation Working Group.
The baseline benchmark report is expected by Month 3, which means your emulation environment must stand up in the first weeks of the award.
Task B: Code and Feature Enhancement
Identify the gaps between baseline performance and threshold and objective values, and develop the OCUDU code improvements and features required to close them, for example scheduler and quality-of-service enhancements, mobility and handover optimization, uplink capacity improvements, stability hardening, and security features.
All modifications to OCUDU shall be contributed upstream through the project's standard contribution and review process. Enhancements that cannot be upstreamed shall be documented with rationale.
Progress against each targeted KPM, and the status of each upstream contribution, shall be reported in the Monthly Status Reports presented to the OCUDU Test and Evaluation Working Group.
Two consequences worth confronting in your proposal. Your code improvements go into a public project on that project's review timeline, which is schedule risk you do not own, and the deliverable log explicitly includes review status because acceptance is not guaranteed. And your commercial differentiation cannot be the OCUDU code itself; it has to be the integration, the RF engineering, the evidence package, the service model, and the support relationship. Say so in the commercialization strategy.
Note that mobility and handover optimization and uplink capacity improvements are both named enhancement examples, and both map directly onto Use Cases 1 and 2. That alignment is worth making explicit in your performance-class mapping.
Task C: Benchmark and Regression Harness
Deliver the emulation-based end-to-end benchmark suite developed under Task A as a repeatable, documented, open-source harness suitable for adoption by the OCUDU community and RTECs for regression testing of future OCUDU releases.
This work package complements, and does not replace, the interoperability testing and the physical MVP demonstration required elsewhere in this topic. Emulated results establish the baseline and guide enhancement work. Over-the-air performance with physical radio units and user equipment at the RTEC or representative demonstration site remains the standard of evidence for final KPM achievement.
RF Network Planning and Site Engineering, a Second Mandatory Task
This requirement is unique to the manufacturing topic and it is one of the more substantive engineering asks in the release.
Industrial facilities are among the most difficult RF environments for any wireless system. Dense metal structures, racking, and machinery produce severe attenuation, multipath, and reflection conditions that directly affect handover performance, throughput, jitter, and coverage completeness.
Performers shall execute a representative facility-specific RF engineering task comprising three elements.
Predictive propagation modeling incorporating facility-specific features such as metal racking, machinery, mezzanines, tank farms, and loading areas.
An RF design that mitigates identified dead spots and multipath-driven impairments through cell placement, antenna selection and orientation, and mobility-parameter tuning.
And installation engineering practices that protect radio hardware, including antenna placement clearances from nearby reflective metal and verification of antenna-system return loss and voltage standing wave ratio at commissioning, with monitoring thereafter, to prevent reflected-power damage to radio unit front ends.
That third element is notably practical and it is the kind of detail that signals the requirement was written by someone who has damaged a radio front end. Return loss and VSWR verification at commissioning, with ongoing monitoring, is an installation and operations procedure, and an RF Design Report including representative coverage maps and return-loss and VSWR commissioning approaches is a named deliverable.
Security Requirements
Security shall be a first-class design requirement of the platform, not a demonstration afterthought.
Performers shall implement and document a security architecture covering the following.
3GPP security per TS 33.501, including mutual authentication and air-interface encryption and integrity protection.
Protection of the O-RAN open interfaces, meaning open fronthaul, E2, A1, and O1, per O-RAN WG11 specifications.
Zero-trust principles per NIST SP 800-207, including least-privilege access and separation of management and user traffic.
Monitoring of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures affecting OCUDU and its dependencies, and timely upstream patching.
Security features and hardening developed for OCUDU shall be contributed upstream under the common benchmarking and enhancement work package.
The security architecture shall be documented at the Critical Design Review and validated in RTEC testing, and the MVP demonstration shall include at least one security capability shown live, for example rejection of an unauthorized device, encrypted fronthaul, or detection of a simulated intrusion.
Pick your live security demonstration early and design for it. Note also that the IIoT requirement above asks for secure IT and OT segmentation via network slicing or 5G-LAN group management, which is a second security-adjacent requirement specific to this topic and worth addressing alongside the architecture.
Milestones, Demonstration Site, and Deliverables
Milestones as stated
Month 1: Kickoff and Technical Interchange Meeting.
Monthly Status Reports throughout.
Month 12: Critical Design Review.
Month 16: Prototype demonstration.
Month 14: Final design review, demonstration, and assessment.
Month 18: Final Phase II Report.
The published list places the Month 16 prototype demonstration before the Month 14 final design review, which cannot be the intended sequence. The same inversion appears in the companion topic DV031, which points to a shared drafting error. Confirm through DSIP Topic Q&A and state your assumed sequence in your work plan.
Monthly Status Reports must be presented to the OCUDU Test and Evaluation Working Group as well, bringing the community up to speed on progress. That is a recurring external commitment and it should be staffed.
The demonstration site, which is specified more tightly here than in the venue topic
Prototype demonstrations will be performed at the proposer's site, ideally an operating or representative manufacturing facility such as a partner small or medium manufacturer plant, a manufacturing institute or applied-research factory floor, or a comparable industrial or laboratory environment.
The demonstration environment must be representative of the target deployment class in RF character, meaning metal-heavy, multipath-rich industrial construction, and in scale, meaning a footprint and cell count at minimum three cells, sufficient to exercise inter-cell handover at operational AGV and AMR speeds. Its fidelity to plant conditions must be documented in the MVP demonstration package.
Partial solutions may be considered successful if effective within a defined scope. A final technical report detailing the capabilities demonstrated will be required. Extended user evaluations or additional prototypes may be pursued based on utility.
The three-cell minimum is a hard, checkable number and it should drive your site selection and your hardware budget. The topic's own worked KPM example describes handing over between at least three small cells at speeds up to 10 miles per hour, so three cells and roughly 10 miles per hour is the demonstration you should plan.
Note that the site sentence in the published text reads "ideally an operating or representative manufacturing facility (such as a partner SMM plant, a manufacturing institute or applied-research factory floor, or a comparable industrial or laboratory environment) where live plant access is not feasible during Phase II," which parses oddly. The companion venue topic contains the parallel construction "or a full-scale representative test bed where live-venue access is not feasible during Phase II," which suggests the alternative clause was dropped here. The sensible reading is that an operating plant is preferred and a comparable industrial or laboratory environment is the fallback where live plant access is not feasible. Either way, the RF character and three-cell scale requirements govern.
OCUDU integration and scalability
The MVP demonstration, including physical radio units and user equipment, will need to occur at the factory-representative site, as close to a real environment as possible.
Performers should address scalability, including testing across multiple radio unit vendors and hardware-accelerator options, and should leverage RTEC-executed interoperability testing to address integration risks ahead of the demonstration wherever a validated reference configuration already exists.
Phase II deliverables
Kickoff and Technical Interchange Meeting slides.
Monthly Status Reports.
A Critical Design Document containing the full reference architecture across OCUDU, SD-Core, SD-RAN, and OSC.
Key Performance Metrics.
MVP Demonstration slides and documentation, including a description of the demonstration site's fidelity to factory conditions and the KPI results achieved against the referenced thresholds.
A Reference Configuration Package comprising executables, integration documentation, and RTEC test results for the validated RU, Core, RIC, and SMO combinations used.
Integration of the platform into an RTEC-affiliated test and evaluation network or a factory-representative demonstration site, demonstrating at least one of the two selected use cases.
An OCUDU Baseline Benchmark Report covering methodology, emulation environment description, configurations, and measured baseline results, expected by Month 3.
An Upstream Contribution Log, itemizing OCUDU code contributions such as patches and pull requests, their review status, and the KPM gap each addresses, updated in each Monthly Status Report with the final version in the Final Technical Report.
An open-source benchmark and regression harness, with documentation sufficient for independent execution by RTECs and the OCUDU community.
An RF Design Report, including representative coverage maps and return-loss and VSWR commissioning approaches.
A Final Design Document.
A Final Technical Report.
Note the relationship between addressing at least two use cases and "demonstrating at least one of the two selected use cases." You scope two in the Statement of Work and physically demonstrate at least one. That is a meaningful reduction in demonstration burden and it should shape your pairing: pick two where one is demonstrable at your site and the other is architecturally addressed.
Note also that the Critical Design Document here does not carry the venue topic's requirement to include a 6G and ISAC evolution path, consistent with this topic having no ISAC use case. It does, however, require the latency budget decomposition described earlier, and the Phase II scope calls for a documented technical bridge path toward FutureG capability.
Phase III Dual Use
The development of an open-source private 5G network platform for smart manufacturing offers significant dual-use potential, benefiting both commercial industry and Department operations.
For the commercial sector, this technology provides small and medium-sized manufacturers with a low-cost, secure, and vendor-neutral wireless solution. It directly addresses key manufacturing needs such as enhancing automated guided vehicle mobility, enabling real-time machine vision for quality control, improving connected-worker safety, and extending secure connectivity to outdoor logistics yards.
For the Department, this same technology can be applied to its own industrial and logistical environments. It offers a pathway to modernize DoW-affiliated depots, maintenance facilities, and logistics operations with resilient, high-mobility wireless connectivity. This is particularly relevant for contested logistics, where reliable, secure, and private communication networks are critical for maintaining operational tempo and supply chain integrity. The platform's open-source nature reduces dependency on proprietary systems and enhances security, aligning with key modernization goals.
The depot and maintenance facility case is the strongest defense hook and it is structurally identical to the commercial one. Depots are large, metal-heavy, multipath-rich industrial environments with mobile equipment, asset tracking needs, and outdoor yards, run by organizations that also lack in-house cellular engineering staff. If you can name a specific depot, maintenance center, or logistics activity, that is worth more than the general claim.
Funding, Cost Structure, and FutureG Mechanics
The award
Direct to Phase II proposals must not exceed a cost of $2,153,927 and a duration of 18 months.
Be realistic about scope. A full open-source stack integration, RTEC interoperability testing, OCUDU code enhancement with upstream contribution, a facility-specific RF engineering task with predictive propagation modeling, a security architecture with a live demonstration, an emulation benchmark harness, and a physical three-cell MVP at a factory-representative site, in 18 months for $2.15 million, is a full program. Existing OCUDU experience, an existing plant or applied-research factory floor relationship, and existing RTEC engagement are worth more than headcount.
Cost volume
A detailed Phase II Cost Volume must be submitted online in the proper format shown in the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA. Some items may not apply, and there is no need to provide information for every item. Provide enough information to allow evaluators to assess your plans to use the requested funds.
Justify items of equipment to be purchased, including Government Furnished Equipment. All requirements for government furnished equipment or other assets, and associated costs, must be determined and agreed to during Phase II contract negotiations. At least three radio units, user equipment across full-capability and reduced-capability classes, hardware accelerators, CBRS Spectrum Access System service, channel emulation and load generation for the Task A baseline, propagation modeling tools, and VSWR and return-loss test equipment all belong in the cost discussion.
Percentage of Work, with no exceptions
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. The FutureG Office will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements.
The natural team here includes a radio unit vendor, a systems integrator, a plant partner, possibly an RTEC, and possibly a manufacturing institute or university. Model your POW before you assemble it.
Technical and Business Assistance
Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase II cost ceiling 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.
For this topic the strongest uses are commercial go-to-market development, since the topic asks explicitly for an as-a-service offer inside a stated price band, and spectrum and regulatory support for the CBRS deployment.
The 20-page structure
Volume 2 is 20 pages maximum: Part 1, Phase I Justification, 5 pages maximum, and Part 2, Phase II Technical Proposal, 15 pages maximum, with the Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy at no more than 2 pages counting toward the 15.
So 5 pages of feasibility, 13 pages of technical proposal, 2 pages of commercialization. Against that you must fit: three research questions, two use cases, RedCap handling, the IIoT and TS 22.104 requirements, the required performance-class mapping, three common work package tasks, the RF network planning and site engineering task, the security architecture, the latency measurement definitions and budget approach, the milestone plan, key personnel, facilities, and consultants. This topic has more mandatory content than its venue companion and the same page allowance. Plan the allocation before drafting.
The FutureG instructions do not state that figures, tables, charts, and references count inside the page limit, and do not prohibit appendices. They defer to the DoW SBIR Program BAA formatting requirements, so read that rather than assuming another component's stricter rule applies.
What the technical proposal must contain
The Phase II Technical Objectives and Approach section must list specific technical objectives and provide a detailed technical approach, and must include these named subsections.
Phase II Work Plan, with an explicit, detailed description of the approach, indicating what is planned, how and where the work will be carried out, a schedule of major events, and the final product to be developed.
Related Work, describing significant activities directly related to the effort including those of the Principal Investigator, the firm, consultants, or others, and demonstrating awareness of the state of the art.
Relationship with Future Research or Research and Development, stating anticipated results and the significance of the Phase II effort as a foundation for Phase III.
Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy, at no more than 2 pages counting toward the 15-page limit, addressing five specific questions: what is the first product this technology will go into; who will be your customers and what is your estimate of the market size; how much funding will you need to bring the technology to market and how will you raise those funds; does your company contain marketing expertise and if not how do you intend to bring it in; and who are your competitors and what is your price or quality advantage.
Key Personnel, including the Principal Investigator, with directly related education, experience, and relevant publications, and a concise resume of the PI.
Facilities and Equipment, describing available instrumentation and physical facilities, justifying equipment purchases including Government Furnished Equipment, and stating whether facilities meet federal, state, and local environmental laws across the named groupings.
Consultants, describing in detail any involvement of universities, academic institutions, or other consultants and identifying them in the Cost Volume.
Answer the five commercialization questions as five distinct answers, and note that the topic hands you the answer to the pricing part of question three: the $100,000 to $250,000 band.
The Company Commercialization Report is evaluated
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required. The information contained in the CCR will be considered during proposal evaluations.
FutureG states this consistently in both its Phase I and Direct to Phase II sections. It is separate from the commercialization strategy in Volume 2: the CCR covers what you have done with past Phase II awards, the strategy covers how you propose to commercialize this research.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation.
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 days of the closing date of the topic via DSIP. The FutureG text says "for a Phase I award," which appears to be residual language given that this topic issues no Phase I award. The notification will be sent to the individual listed as the Corporate Official on the proposal cover sheet, so make sure that is someone who will act on it.
Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.
Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. Protests after award should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.SBIR-STTR-Protest@mail.mil.
Questions
Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the FutureG SBIR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to the OUSW(R&E) FutureG Office at OSDRE-FutureG@groups.mail.mil.
The FutureG instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW process applies and Topic Q&A closes two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026.
The Reference
One, and it is a link to a vendor explainer: smart manufacturing, at ibm.com.
As with the companion venue topic, the formal reference list is not where the substance is. The real citations are embedded in the topic text and they are the reading list that matters: 3GPP TS 22.104 on service requirements for cyber-physical control applications, which you must map your use cases to; 3GPP TS 28.554 on key performance indicator definitions, named as an acceptable latency measurement methodology; 3GPP Release 16 and 17 NR positioning methods; 3GPP Release 17 RedCap and Release 18 eRedCap; 3GPP TS 33.501 on security; O-RAN WG11 specifications; NIST SP 800-207 on zero trust; the O-RAN 7.2x split; IEEE 802.11k, 802.11r, and 802.11v for the Wi-Fi comparison the topic makes; and IEEE Time-Sensitive Networking concepts.
That is ten substantive references embedded in prose against one marketing link in the reference section. The Related Work section is required to demonstrate awareness of the state of the art, and you carry that burden entirely. Bring the OCUDU project documentation, the OCUDU Testing and Validation Plan the topic refers to, the SD-Core and SD-RAN and OSC project documentation, and published RTEC test results.
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 SBIR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027
Period of performance: 18 months from award
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Audit the funding provenance of every feasibility result you intend to cite, since work based upon or logically extending from prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work is excluded and failing the feasibility bar means the proposal is not evaluated. Resolve intellectual property ownership or license rights. Secure your demonstration site, confirming it is metal-heavy and multipath-rich and can host at minimum three cells with room to exercise handover at AGV speeds. Build the cost model against the $100,000 to $250,000 as-a-service price band and confirm it closes. Engage RTECs and identify which validated reference configurations exist for your intended RU, Core, RIC, and SMO combination. Get familiar with the OCUDU contribution process and the OCUDU Test and Evaluation Working Group cadence. Choose your two use cases. Plan your CBRS spectrum approach. Read TS 22.104 and prepare your service class mapping, and read TS 28.554 for the latency methodology. Model your Percentage of Work before assembling a team including an RU vendor, an integrator, a plant partner, and possibly a manufacturing institute. Confirm SAM registration and your CMMC posture.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 5-page Phase I justification using the four accepted evidence categories, leaning on private, academic, and non-SBIR federally funded work. Draft the 13-page technical proposal covering the three research questions, your two use cases, RedCap handling, the IIoT and TS 22.104 requirements including NPN support and TSC and TSN awareness and IT and OT segmentation, the required performance-class mapping, the three common work package tasks, the RF network planning and site engineering task, the security architecture with your chosen live demonstration, your latency measurement reference points and budget decomposition approach, and the milestone plan with your assumed Month 14 and Month 16 sequence. Propose your own KPM set with threshold and objective values calibrated to your use cases, demonstration environment, spectrum plan, and channel bandwidth, and justify each. Draft the 2-page commercialization strategy answering all five enumerated questions, using the $100,000 to $250,000 band and the seven named adoption barriers. Draft the 3,000 character cover sheet abstract and the 3,000 character anticipated benefits and commercial applications discussion.
October 6 through October 7. Submit questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes. The essential ones are the missing KPM tables, Section 3.0, and General System and Architectural Requirements section, and the Month 14 versus Month 16 milestone ordering. Send administrative questions to OSDRE-FutureG@groups.mail.mil.
October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume online following the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA, against the $2,153,927 and 18-month ceiling. Price at least three radio units across multiple vendors, user equipment including reduced-capability classes, hardware accelerators, CBRS Spectrum Access System service, channel emulation and load generation, propagation modeling tools, VSWR and return-loss test equipment, RTEC testing engagement, site access and installation, OCUDU development labor including upstream contribution effort, security architecture work, and the recurring OCUDU T&E Working Group reporting. Identify Government Furnished Equipment needs. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form and place it in Volume 5.
October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, carefully, since FutureG states it is considered during evaluations. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form and any letters from plant partners, manufacturing institutes, or RTECs that substantiate specific claims. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering it must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded there. Run compliance: 5 plus 15 pages with the 2-page commercialization strategy inside the 15, no proprietary or classified information on the cover sheet, 3,000 character limits per cover sheet section.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW-FutureG SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-DV032?
OSW26BZ06-DV032 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic titled "Smart Manufacturing," released under the OSW FutureG Office FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to design, validate, and demonstrate a fully open-source private 5G network platform for smart manufacturing integrating OCUDU, SD-Core, SD-RAN, and OSC components into a secure, vendor-neutral architecture supporting autonomous robotics, machine vision, and connected-worker safety.
How much funding is available?
Direct to Phase II proposals must not exceed a cost of $2,153,927 and a duration of 18 months. Phase II awardees may also request up to $50,000 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.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal?
No. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only, and a formal Phase I award will not be issued.
What software stack is required?
OCUDU for the Centralized Unit and Distributed Unit, SD-Core for the 5G core, SD-RAN for the Near-Real-Time RIC, and the OSC stack for the Non-Real-Time RIC and SMO, integrated into a single fully open-source reference architecture with no proprietary core, RIC, or SMO component anywhere in the stack.
What are the stated performance targets?
Sustained sub-30 millisecond threshold to sub-15 millisecond objective latency for machine-vision backhaul, at least 99.5 percent handover success at operational AGV and AMR speeds, and at least five-nines availability for safety-critical services, all in dense, metal-heavy RF environments. The topic also gives a worked example: a session success rate greater than 99.5 percent for AGV and AMR connections while handing over between at least 3 small cells at speeds up to 10 miles per hour.
Where are the KPM tables the topic refers to?
They do not appear in the published document, and there is no numbered Section 3.0 or General System and Architectural Requirements section. Raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes on October 7. The topic does state the governing principle: the KPM values in the tables are suggested reference values rather than pass or fail contract requirements, proposers shall propose specific justified KPM targets calibrated to their use cases, demonstration environment, spectrum plan, and channel bandwidth, deviations must be technically justified, threshold values represent the intended standard of demonstration success while objective values are stretch goals, and final targets are agreed with the Government at kickoff and confirmed at the Critical Design Review.
How is latency defined?
Round-trip application-layer latency measured between the user equipment application interface and the local edge application endpoint served behind the on-site or edge User Plane Function, meaning device to edge through the RAN and core user plane, excluding external WAN transport. Handover time means user-plane interruption time at the RAN per 3GPP definitions. For each latency KPM you must specify measurement reference points, traffic type and packet size, and methodology such as KPI definitions per 3GPP TS 28.554, and include a latency budget decomposition in the Critical Design Document across the air interface, DU and CU processing, fronthaul and F1 transport, core user plane, and application processing.
Do I have to demonstrate hard-real-time motion control?
No. Hard-real-time machine motion control, meaning isochronous traffic with cycle times of approximately 0.5 to 2 milliseconds per 3GPP TS 22.104, is explicitly outside the Phase II demonstration scope. The latency KPMs target AGV and AMR supervision and control-plane traffic, machine-vision backhaul, and safety alerting. You must, however, address in your FutureG evolution path the OCUDU enhancements required to approach the 1 millisecond latency class over time, including deterministic and priority scheduling, Time-Sensitive Communication support, and mini-slot and preemption features.
What is the target commercial price point?
A CBRS-based as-a-service offer at $100,000 to $250,000. This is the most actionable number in the topic and it bounds the entire design: radio unit count and class, integration labor, and recurring service margin.
What does the topic say about the market?
Roughly 50,000 U.S. manufacturing firms in the 20 to 99 employee band alone, with several thousand more in the 100 to 250 range, based on National Association of Manufacturers data. But the serviceable addressable market is not all manufacturers, it is the subset with real mobility, reliability, coverage, or security pain: plants using AGVs, AMRs, machine vision, connected workers, outdoor yards, large indoor spaces, or metal-heavy RF environments.
What are the stated barriers to adoption?
Seven, described as consistent and compounding: return-on-investment ambiguity, legacy equipment and retrofit costs, spectrum and regulatory fragmentation, uneven device ecosystems, IT and OT integration complexity, in-house skills shortages, and tight capital budgets. Addressing each explicitly in your commercialization strategy is cheap differentiation.
Should I argue that Wi-Fi cannot roam?
No, and the topic pre-empts it. It states that modern Wi-Fi roaming standards, IEEE 802.11k, 802.11r, and 802.11v, substantially mitigate fixed-access-point handoff behavior when properly deployed on capable client devices. The advantage sought is that a 3GPP system provides deterministic network-scheduled access on interference-managed spectrum, standardized mobility management under network control, and quality-of-service guarantees enforceable under load. It also endorses Wi-Fi coexistence rather than rip-and-replace.
How many use cases must I address?
At least two of the four, in your Phase II Statement of Work, and you must identify which your reference architecture and pilot deployment are designed to validate. The deliverables require demonstrating at least one of the two selected use cases, so you scope two and physically demonstrate at least one.
What are the four use cases?
AGV and AMR connectivity and mobility, which also requires on-floor localization. Machine vision backhaul. Connected-worker safety. And secure outdoor yard and logistics coverage.
Is localization required?
Yes, within Use Case 1. That use case additionally requires on-floor localization of AGVs, AMRs, and tagged mobile assets for fleet management, geofencing, and safety zoning. Network-native positioning using 3GPP NR positioning methods from Release 16 and 17 is preferred, and hybrid approaches fusing NR positioning with existing plant localization systems may be proposed with justification.
What Industrial IoT requirements apply?
For the manufacturing vertical specifically, proposers shall address IIoT service characteristics as framed by 3GPP TS 22.104, including mapping selected use cases to TS 22.104 communication service classes, support for private-network or Non-Public Network operation, awareness of Time-Sensitive Communication and IEEE Time-Sensitive Networking integration concepts in the platform architecture, and secure IT and OT segmentation for IIoT traffic such as via network slicing or 5G-LAN group management. This requirement has no counterpart in the companion venue topic.
What is the mandatory common work package?
Three tasks, required regardless of use cases selected. Task A, Baseline Benchmark, establishing a quantified performance baseline of the integrated stack, with emulated end-to-end configuration acceptable and encouraged, incorporating existing RTEC results where available, presented to the OCUDU Test and Evaluation Working Group, with the report expected by Month 3. Task B, Code and Feature Enhancement, closing gaps between baseline and threshold and objective values, with all OCUDU modifications contributed upstream. Task C, Benchmark and Regression Harness, delivering the emulation-based benchmark suite as a repeatable, documented, open-source harness for adoption by the OCUDU community and RTECs.
Is there an additional mandatory engineering task?
Yes, and it is unique to this topic. A representative facility-specific RF engineering task comprising predictive propagation modeling incorporating facility-specific features such as metal racking, machinery, mezzanines, tank farms, and loading areas; an RF design mitigating dead spots and multipath impairments through cell placement, antenna selection and orientation, and mobility-parameter tuning; and installation engineering practices protecting radio hardware, including antenna placement clearances from reflective metal and verification of antenna-system return loss and VSWR at commissioning with monitoring thereafter to prevent reflected-power damage to RU front ends. An RF Design Report with representative coverage maps and commissioning approaches is a deliverable.
Do I have to contribute my code upstream?
Yes. All modifications to OCUDU shall be contributed upstream through the project's standard contribution and review process, and enhancements that cannot be upstreamed shall be documented with rationale. Progress and upstream status are reported in Monthly Status Reports to the OCUDU T&E Working Group, and an itemized Upstream Contribution Log is a deliverable. This means your commercial differentiation cannot be the OCUDU code itself.
What are the security requirements?
A documented security architecture covering 3GPP security per TS 33.501 including mutual authentication and air-interface encryption and integrity protection; protection of the O-RAN open interfaces, meaning open fronthaul, E2, A1, and O1, per O-RAN WG11 specifications; zero-trust principles per NIST SP 800-207 including least-privilege access and separation of management and user traffic; and CVE monitoring for OCUDU and its dependencies with timely upstream patching. The architecture is documented at CDR, validated in RTEC testing, and the MVP demonstration must include at least one security capability shown live.
What are the Phase II milestones?
Month 1 kickoff and Technical Interchange Meeting, Monthly Status Reports throughout, Month 12 Critical Design Review, Month 16 prototype demonstration, Month 14 final design review and demonstration and assessment, and Month 18 Final Phase II Report. The published list places Month 16 before Month 14, which cannot be the intended order and appears as the same inversion in the companion topic DV031. Confirm through DSIP Topic Q&A and state your assumption in your work plan.
What does the demonstration site have to be?
Ideally an operating or representative manufacturing facility such as a partner small or medium manufacturer plant, a manufacturing institute or applied-research factory floor, or a comparable industrial or laboratory environment. It must be representative of the target deployment class in RF character, meaning metal-heavy and multipath-rich industrial construction, and in scale, meaning at minimum three cells sufficient to exercise inter-cell handover at operational AGV and AMR speeds. Its fidelity to plant conditions must be documented in the MVP demonstration package.
Is emulation acceptable?
For the Task A baseline, yes, and it is encouraged, provided the methodology, tooling, configurations, and results are fully documented and reproducible. But over-the-air performance with physical radio units and user equipment at the RTEC or representative demonstration site remains the standard of evidence for final KPM achievement.
How do I handle RedCap devices?
Address how the platform serves reduced-capability device classes including 3GPP Release 17 RedCap and Release 18 eRedCap, and identify any OCUDU scheduler or feature enhancements required, which are strongly encouraged as upstream contributions. Where RedCap-certified devices are not commercially available for a given endpoint type at demonstration time, you may demonstrate with available device classes or emulated RedCap UE profiles, and shall document the RedCap migration path.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2. Note that this topic states Level 2 without the parenthetical self-assessment qualifier that appears on the other two topics in this release, so if the distinction affects your compliance planning it is worth confirming through DSIP Topic Q&A.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
No topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on OSW26BZ06-DV032, and none appears on any of the three topics in this FutureG release.
How long can my technical volume be?
Twenty pages maximum, divided into Part 1 Phase I Justification at 5 pages maximum and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal at 15 pages maximum, with the Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy at no more than 2 pages counting toward the 15. The FutureG instructions do not state that figures, tables, charts, and references count inside the limit or prohibit appendices, deferring instead to the DoW SBIR Program BAA formatting requirements.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
Yes. FutureG states in both its Phase I and Direct to Phase II sections that information contained in the CCR will be considered during proposal evaluations. It is separate from the commercialization strategy in Volume 2.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. The FutureG Office will not accept any deviation to the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. Model your POW before assembling a team that includes a radio unit vendor, an integrator, a plant partner, and possibly a manufacturing institute or university.
When will I hear back, and who gets notified?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, via DSIP. The notification goes to the individual listed as the Corporate Official on the proposal cover sheet. Note that the FutureG text says notification "for a Phase I award," which appears to be residual language given that this topic issues no Phase I award.
What is the defense application?
Modernizing DoW-affiliated depots, maintenance facilities, and logistics operations with resilient, high-mobility wireless connectivity, described as particularly relevant for contested logistics where reliable, secure, private communication networks are critical for maintaining operational tempo and supply chain integrity. Depots are structurally the same problem as commercial plants: large, metal-heavy, multipath-rich, with mobile equipment and outdoor yards.
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 FutureG SBIR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to the OUSW(R&E) FutureG Office at OSDRE-FutureG@groups.mail.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Audit your feasibility provenance before anything else. Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and a proposal that fails the feasibility bar is not evaluated. Open-source 5G integration work in the United States has been heavily SBIR funded, so this is a real risk for the most qualified bidders. The topic's own fourth evidence category tells you where to look: private, academic, or non-SBIR federally funded work.
Build the cost model to $100,000 to $250,000 and show it closes. This is the only topic in the release that states a target price point, and it is the question the government asked. A platform that performs beautifully at $600,000 per plant does not answer it. Show the radio unit count, hardware class, integration labor, and recurring service margin that land inside the band, and be explicit about what you trade to get there.
Do not argue that Wi-Fi cannot roam. The topic concedes that 802.11k, 802.11r, and 802.11v substantially mitigate handoff behavior when properly deployed, and it names the real advantages: deterministic network-scheduled access on interference-managed spectrum, standardized network-controlled mobility, and enforceable quality of service under load. Make that case instead. And adopt the Wi-Fi coexistence posture the topic endorses rather than a rip-and-replace pitch.
Secure a metal-heavy three-cell site early. The demonstration environment must be representative in RF character and in scale, with at minimum three cells sufficient to exercise inter-cell handover at operational AGV speeds, and its fidelity must be documented. A partner plant, a manufacturing institute, or an applied-research factory floor is a dependency you cannot buy quickly. Name it on page one.
Ask about the missing KPM tables, then propose your own. The topic points at tables and a Section 3.0 that are not published, but it also tells you how the KPMs are meant to work: suggested reference values, not pass or fail, with proposers proposing justified targets calibrated to their environment and final targets agreed at kickoff and confirmed at CDR. Raise the gap in Topic Q&A and handle it professionally in the proposal.
Do the latency budget decomposition properly. Five named segments, air interface, DU and CU processing, fronthaul and F1 transport, core user plane, and application processing, in the Critical Design Document, with measurement reference points, traffic type, packet size, and methodology specified per latency KPM. It is a named requirement, it is genuinely useful engineering, and most proposals will state a latency number without decomposing it.
Respect the isochronous scope boundary. Hard-real-time motion control at 0.5 to 2 millisecond cycle times is out of scope for Phase II. Promising it reads as not having read the topic. Address the 1 millisecond class in your FutureG evolution path with deterministic and priority scheduling, TSC support, and mini-slot and preemption features, which is exactly what was asked.
Take the TS 22.104 mapping seriously. Mapping your selected use cases to TS 22.104 communication service classes is a concrete, checkable artifact, and NPN support, TSC and TSN awareness, and secure IT and OT segmentation are named requirements unique to this topic. IT and OT segmentation in particular is what a plant IT department will scrutinize, so network slicing or 5G-LAN group management deserves real treatment.
Pick Use Cases 1 and 2 unless you have a reason not to. They carry the topic's two stated performance targets, handover success and machine-vision latency, they exercise both dominant performance classes, they share the indoor RF design, and they align with the two named OCUDU enhancement areas of mobility and handover optimization and uplink capacity. Use Case 3 pairs cheaply with either and adds the RedCap and five-nines dimensions.
Answer the trust question as a document. What does a plant manager with no RF staff need to see, in what form, to sign for a network with no vendor warranty? Sketching that evidence package, even as a table of contents, differentiates you from proposals that answer with a test matrix.
Treat the RF engineering task as a differentiator, not a chore. Predictive propagation modeling in metal-heavy environments, dead-spot mitigation through cell placement and antenna orientation, and VSWR verification at commissioning to prevent reflected-power damage to RU front ends. That last item is a practitioner's requirement, and answering it with actual installation practice signals that you have deployed in a factory rather than modeled one.
Budget the common work package separately. Tasks A, B, and C are required regardless of use case, the baseline report is due by Month 3, and the harness is an open-source deliverable documented for independent execution. Folding it into general engineering underprices it.
Plan for upstream review you do not control. All OCUDU changes go upstream on the project's timeline, the log includes review status, and non-upstreamable enhancements need documented rationale. Say how you sequence contributions and what happens to a KPM claim if a patch is still in review at Month 18.
State how you make money when the code is public. Integration, RF engineering, the evidence package, the as-a-service model, and support are your differentiation. A commercialization strategy that avoids this looks naive to a reviewer who wrote the upstream requirement.
Address the seven adoption barriers one by one. ROI ambiguity, legacy equipment and retrofit costs, spectrum and regulatory fragmentation, uneven device ecosystems, IT and OT integration complexity, skills shortages, and tight capital budgets. The topic says a tier-one proprietary platform addresses almost none of them. Showing that you address each is the clearest possible articulation of why you should be funded.
Plan the page budget before drafting. This topic has more mandatory content than its venue companion, including the IIoT requirements and the RF engineering task, and the same 5 plus 13 plus 2 page allowance. Decide the allocation first.
OSW-FutureG SBIR OSW26BZ06-DV031: Smart Venues and Stadiums, Open-Source Private 5G
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $2m
Description: Complete guide to OSW-FutureG SBIR Direct to Phase II topic OSW26BZ06-DV031, open-source private 5G for stadiums and large venues with 6G ISAC path. Up to $2,153,927 over 18 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26BZ06-DV031 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic under the OSW FutureG Office, FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. No Phase I award will be issued. The government wants a private 5G network for stadiums and large venues built entirely from open-source software, with no proprietary core, RAN Intelligent Controller, or Service Management and Orchestration component anywhere in the stack, validated at a real venue under real event-day congestion, and architected to evolve toward 6G Integrated Sensing and Communication. The award must not exceed $2,153,927 over 18 months, with a 20-page technical volume. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The specific stack is named and it is not optional: OCUDU for the Centralized Unit and Distributed Unit, SD-Core for the 5G core, SD-RAN for the Near-Real-Time RIC, and the OSC stack for the Non-Real-Time RIC and SMO. If your architecture includes a commercial core or a vendor RIC, it does not meet the topic.
The economic argument is unusually detailed for a solicitation. Distributed Antenna System deployments in large public venues have grown from a few million dollars in early builds to routinely tens of millions. Active multi-carrier DAS hardware and installation is commonly quoted at $5 to $10 per square foot, meaning even a mid-sized 300,000 square foot concourse and bowl footprint implies a multi-million-dollar build before integration, spectrum, and ongoing carrier-management costs. And mobile network operator appetite to fund new DAS builds outside Tier 1 venues, meaning 70,000-plus capacity or 200-plus events per year, is shrinking, leaving small and mid-sized venues with a widening connectivity gap.
There is one thing you should know before reading further. The topic repeatedly directs proposers to key performance metrics in "the table below" and to "Section 3.0" thresholds. No such tables and no numbered Section 3.0 appear in the published document. That gap is discussed in its own section below, and it is the most important question to ask the government before the topic closes.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26BZ06-DV031
Title: Smart Venues and Stadiums
Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, FutureG Office, under OUSW(R&E)
Solicitation: OSW FutureG Office, FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Direct to Phase II only. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only, and a formal Phase I award will not be issued
Award: must not exceed $2,153,927
Period of performance: 18 months
Technical volume limit: 20 pages maximum, structured as Part 1 Phase I Justification at 5 pages maximum and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal at 15 pages maximum, with the Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy at no more than 2 pages counting toward the 15
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Areas: Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI), Contested Logistics Technologies (LOG)
Component Technology Priority Areas: FutureG, Sustainment and Logistics
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic
Mandatory stack: OCUDU plus SD-Core plus SD-RAN plus OSC, with no proprietary core, RIC, or SMO component anywhere
Dominant performance classes: extreme user density, ultra-secure operation, and integrated sensing
Use cases: proposers must address at least two of four, and must identify which their reference architecture and pilot deployment are designed to validate
Mandatory common work package: OCUDU baseline benchmarking and upstream enhancement, Tasks A, B, and C, required regardless of use cases selected
Upstream requirement: all modifications to OCUDU shall be contributed upstream through the project's standard contribution and review process
Demonstration site: the proposer's site, ideally an operating or representative venue or stadium environment, or a full-scale representative test bed where live-venue access is not feasible during Phase II
Technical and Business Assistance: up to $50,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5
Percentage of Work: the FutureG Office will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements
Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will be considered during proposal evaluations
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: smart venues and stadiums, connected stadiums, 5G stadiums
The Feasibility Bar, Which Is the First Thing to Check
This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only, so a formal Phase I award will not be issued.
To qualify for a Phase II award, proposers must submit Feasibility Documentation as part of their proposal package demonstrating that they have already completed Phase I-type research and development. The purpose of this documentation is to prove that the underlying technology is mature, scientifically sound, and ready to transition immediately into the Phase II prototyping and testing environment.
What the government will accept
The Government will accept a wide variety of documentation styles. Proposers do not need to have a perfect, finished product, but they must show that their core ideas have been successfully tested. One or more of the following items should be included to prove technology readiness.
Test data and metrics: real-world measurements, performance charts, or network test data from previous lab environments or early field trials.
Technical reports and white papers: written summaries explaining your previous research, system designs, or software integration efforts.
Prototype designs and simulation models: diagrams, architectural blueprints, or computer simulation results showing how your proposed software and hardware components interact.
Previous project outcomes: success criteria, milestone reports, or commercialization results from prior private, academic, or non-SBIR federally funded work.
This is among the most accommodating feasibility framings in the 2026 cycle. "One or more of the following" and "do not need to have a perfect, finished product" are real allowances, and simulation models are explicitly acceptable.
The restriction that still applies, and it matters here
The FutureG Direct to Phase II guidelines impose a hard constraint that the topic-level text does not repeat.
Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the principal investigator. If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property, the proposer must either own the IP or must have obtained license rights to such technology prior to proposal submission, to enable it and its subcontractors to legally carry out the proposed work.
The Volume 2 instruction phrases it as "must not be solely based on" prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, which is weaker. Plan against the stricter formulation.
Notice that the topic's own fourth acceptable evidence category says "prior private, academic, or non-SBIR federally funded work," which is consistent with the restriction and tells you exactly where to look. Non-SBIR federally funded work is explicitly fine. Private and academic work is fine. Prior SBIR and STTR work is the problem.
This is a live risk for exactly the companies most likely to bid, because open-source 5G integration work in the United States has been substantially SBIR funded. Audit the provenance of every result you intend to cite.
And the consequence is severe: if the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.
The Missing KPM Tables
This section exists because the gap is material and you should not discover it while drafting.
The topic refers to key performance metric tables and to a numbered section repeatedly. It says other suggested KPMs for the various use cases and system requirements are given below for reference. In Use Case 2 it says the positioning and velocity accuracy, anomaly alert, and missed-detection and false-alarm KPMs "in the table below" apply to the Tier 1 demonstrated functions. Task A requires establishing a baseline against the KPMs relevant to the selected use cases "including the General System and Architectural Requirements." The deliverables list requires MVP demonstration documentation reporting "the KPI results achieved against Section 3.0 thresholds" and a baseline benchmark report with "measured baseline results against Section 3.0 KPMs."
No KPM tables appear in the published document. There is no numbered Section 3.0, and no section titled General System and Architectural Requirements.
What to do about it
Ask. DSIP Topic Q&A closes October 7, 2026, two weeks before the topic closes, and this is the single highest-value question available on this topic. Ask whether the KPM tables and the General System and Architectural Requirements section were omitted from the published instructions and, if so, request them or a pointer to them.
In the meantime, the topic gives you enough to proceed and in fact tells you to. It says proposers should address specific, relevant, measurable, and quantifiable KPMs including, for example, concurrent-device density, sensing detection accuracy, latency, jitter, and service availability. And it gives one worked example: "The platform must sustain a session success rate greater than 99.5% for fan-facing connections at a concurrent-device density of 3,000 devices per acre in the lower bowl."
The companion topic in this same release, DV032 Smart Manufacturing, states the governing principle explicitly and it is reasonable to read it as the program office's general intent: the KPM values in the tables are suggested reference values, not pass/fail contract requirements; proposers shall propose specific, justified KPM targets in the Technical Volume, calibrated to their selected use cases, demonstration environment, spectrum plan, and channel bandwidth; deviations from suggested values must be technically justified; threshold values represent the intended standard of Phase II demonstration success while objective values are stretch goals; and final KPM targets will be agreed with the Government at kickoff and confirmed at the Critical Design Review.
So the practical approach is to propose your own KPM set with threshold and objective values, justify each against your architecture and spectrum plan, state plainly that you are doing so because the referenced tables do not appear in the published instructions, and note that final targets will be agreed at kickoff and confirmed at CDR. That is a defensible position and it demonstrates that you read the document carefully, which is itself worth something.
What the Government Is Actually Buying
The objective
The objective of this Phase II effort is to design, validate, and demonstrate a secure, high-density private 5G network platform for stadiums and large venues, integrating open-source OCUDU, SD-Core, SD-RAN, and OSC components, to deliver resilient, multi-service communication alongside a 6G-ready Integrated Sensing and Communication architecture.
This platform will be validated at a representative venue site to prove stable performance under extreme device congestion, enable native device localization for crowd analytics, and establish a cost-effective, vendor-neutral dual-use framework for both commercial entertainment venues and dense military installation environments.
The market, as the government describes it
The realistic near-to-mid-term serviceable addressable market for private 5G and 6G-ready platforms among U.S. venues and stadiums is a subset of venues with acute connectivity, safety, and operational pain: major-league and collegiate stadiums, multi-purpose arenas, outdoor amphitheaters, and convention and exhibition centers that host recurring high-density events, require public-safety-grade coverage throughout bowls, concourses, tunnels, and back-of-house areas, and are increasingly asked to support fan-facing digital experiences, cashierless concessions, camera and sensor networks, and first-responder communications simultaneously on event day.
The United States features an extensive footprint of sports and entertainment infrastructure, spanning an estimated 2,000 to 5,000 major stadiums and arenas when accounting for all professional, collegiate, and municipal facilities, which further scales to over 15,000 total venues if relatively large localized high school stadiums are included. Beyond stadiums and arenas, industry directories catalog well over 400 U.S. convention and exhibition centers, ranging from single-hall regional facilities to multi-million-square-foot complexes. Together, these figures put the large-venue addressable base at several hundred U.S. facilities, before counting mid-sized arenas, amphitheaters, and secondary convention space. Localized large gatherings such as fairs add up to several thousand more.
Note the careful narrowing. Fifteen thousand venues exist, but the serviceable addressable base is "several hundred U.S. facilities." Your commercialization strategy should use the government's own narrower figure rather than the headline number, because inflating it against the topic's own text is an easy weakness to spot.
The pain points
Venues already invest heavily in connectivity infrastructure, yet several published industry reports indicate persistent cost and coverage pain. Distributed Antenna System deployments in large public venues have grown from a few million dollars in early builds to routinely tens of millions of dollars. Independent of venue scale, active multi-carrier DAS hardware and installation is commonly quoted at $5 to $10 per square foot, meaning even a mid-sized 300,000 square foot concourse and bowl footprint implies a multi-million-dollar build before integration, spectrum, and ongoing carrier-management costs.
Despite this infrastructure spend, published reviews consistently cite coverage dead zones in lower bowls and concourses, congestion during peak moments such as kickoff, halftime, and entry and egress, and multi-year vendor lock-in as recurring pain points. Industry reporting suggests that mobile network operator appetite to fund new DAS builds outside Tier 1 venues, defined as 70,000-plus capacity or 200-plus events per year, is shrinking, leaving small and mid-sized venues with a widening connectivity gap.
How this segment buys
This segment buys on measurable fan and operational outcomes, specifically dropped-call rate at kickoff, point-of-sale uptime, camera uptime, and incident-response time, not on global platform standardization.
Its stated barriers to adopting anything other than the incumbent DAS and neutral-host model are consistent: high capital expenditure and multi-year contract terms, uncertainty about interoperability across multiple wireless carriers that must all be hosted on one system, integration complexity with legacy venue information technology and operational technology and public-safety radio systems, and a lack of in-house RF and cellular engineering staff.
Those four named metrics are the ones to build your value proposition around. Dropped-call rate at kickoff, POS uptime, camera uptime, incident-response time. They are also natural KPMs, and using the buyer's own language is more persuasive than throughput figures.
The open-source argument, and its honest cost
An all-open-source stack removes the structural cost and lock-in that makes proprietary DAS platforms a poor fit for this segment's economics. Because OCUDU communicates with the rest of the network over open, standardized interfaces, especially the O-RAN 7.2x split to the O-RU, the network can be assembled from whichever radio unit vendor and antenna form factor best fits a given venue's bowl geometry, concourse layout, and budget.
Together, OCUDU, SD-Core, SD-RAN, and OSC form one integrated, fully open-source 5G stack that a systems integrator can deploy, support, and price as a right-sized, as-a-service offer for a single venue, rather than a broad, vendor-locked, multi-carrier neutral-host platform.
The trade-off of an all-open-source stack is the same one seen in other verticals: the burden of proving interoperability, stability, and security shifts from a single vendor's warranty to the integrator and the open-source community.
Venue operators, who by their own account do not carry in-house cellular or RF engineering expertise, have essentially zero tolerance for connectivity failures discovered live, on a broadcast event, in front of tens of thousands of people.
That last sentence is the commercial crux of the topic and it deserves a direct answer in your proposal. The topic gives you the intended answer: this is exactly the gap the ongoing OCUDU Testing and Validation Plan, and its RTEC-centered extensions, are designed to close, through independently witnessed, multi-vendor testing of device diversity, RU diversity, high-density and high-mobility RF performance, Core, RIC, and SMO integration, and security. The proposal should leverage the current, ongoing testing and evaluation activities in RTECs and associated results.
The generalization requirement
Although this topic is anchored in a specific vertical to ensure a concrete deployment environment, real users, and a defensible commercialization path, proposers should recognize and are required to present the technical work in terms of the generic network performance classes it advances.
Improvements made to the OCUDU O-CU and O-DU under this effort, meaning scheduler behavior, mobility management, uplink capacity, stability under sustained load, and security features, are expected to generalize across verticals and to benefit the broader community of RAN developers building on OCUDU.
The Technical Volume shall include a mapping of each selected use case, and its associated KPMs, to the performance class or classes it exercises, and shall identify which anticipated OCUDU code or feature enhancements correspond to each class.
This is a required Technical Volume element, stated with "shall." It is a mapping table in substance, and it is easy to omit while writing about the venue application. Do not omit it.
For this topic, the dominant performance classes are extreme user density, ultra-secure operation, and integrated sensing: tens of thousands of concurrent devices per venue with sharp event-day load peaks, public-safety-grade availability and access control across bowls, concourses, and back-of-house areas, and an architecture evolvable to 6G Integrated Sensing and Communication.
The Four Research Questions
Research and development for this effort should address, at minimum, the following four questions. Treat them as required sections.
All-open-source economics
What is the fully loaded cost, covering integration, support, spectrum, hardware, and RF design, of an OCUDU plus SD-Core plus SD-RAN plus OSC deployment at venue scale relative to a proprietary DAS and neutral-host platform, and how should that be packaged as a CBRS-based, as-a-service offer within the price point venue operators require?
Note "CBRS-based." Citizens Broadband Radio Service spectrum is the assumed band, which shapes your RF design, your device ecosystem, and your Spectrum Access System dependency. Note also "as-a-service," meaning the business model is recurring rather than capital sale. Unlike the companion manufacturing topic, this one does not state a target price point, so you must establish it from the DAS comparison the topic gave you.
Use-case-first deployment
Which of the use cases defined below deliver the fastest, most measurable return on investment on the open-source stack, and what RTEC-executed interoperability tests across Device, RU, Core, RIC and SMO, and Infrastructure dimensions are needed to validate each one end-to-end under stadium-scale, high-density loading conditions?
6G and ISAC evolution path
What architectural changes across waveform, RU capability, RIC application, and SMO orchestration are required to evolve the platform from a 5G communications-only deployment to a 6G-ready platform capable of Integrated Sensing and Communication, and which ISAC-enabled use cases can be prototyped now using 5G-Advanced sensing features as a bridge to native 6G ISAC?
Trust in open source
How does RTEC-executed testing of the full open-source stack reduce the integration risk and skills-shortage barrier venue operators most often cite, and what evidence package best converts community-maintained, no-license-fee software into a procurement-ready proof point for a buyer with no in-house cellular expertise?
That fourth question is the most commercially important and the one most proposals will answer weakly. The deliverable it implies is an evidence package: what does a venue general manager with no RF staff need to see, in what form, to sign a contract for a network with no vendor warranty behind it? Answer it as a document design problem, not as a testing plan.
Solutions leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning for crowd analytics, predictive maintenance, network optimization, or automated fault resolution are encouraged but not required. The government will consider any novel concept that increases the reliability, economics, and trustworthiness of an all-open-source private 5G and FutureG platform for the venues and stadiums vertical. Dual-use opportunities are expected across commercial venue operators, DoW-affiliated event and installation venues, and public-safety agencies.
The Four Use Cases, Of Which You Must Address Two
Proposers must address at least two of the following four use cases in their Phase II Statement of Work and must identify which use cases their reference architecture and pilot deployment are designed to validate.
Device-class diversity and RedCap, which applies across all use cases
Each use-case set spans device classes from full-capability user equipment, meaning equipment modems, cameras, and broadcast and production units, to reduced-capability Internet of Things endpoints, meaning sensors, wearables, tags, and trackers.
Proposers shall address how the platform serves reduced-capability device classes, including 3GPP Release 17 Reduced Capability, RedCap, and Release 18 eRedCap user equipment, and shall identify any OCUDU scheduler or feature enhancements required to support RedCap operation. Such enhancements are strongly encouraged as upstream contributions under the common OCUDU benchmarking and enhancement work package.
Where RedCap-certified devices are not commercially available for a given endpoint type at demonstration time, proposers may demonstrate with available device classes or emulated RedCap user equipment profiles, and shall document the RedCap migration path.
That final allowance is a practical accommodation worth using. RedCap device availability in CBRS bands is limited, and the topic explicitly permits emulated profiles with a documented migration path.
Use Case 1: High-density fan connectivity and broadcast and production backhaul
Tens of thousands of fans, concession point-of-sale terminals, ticketing scanners, and broadcast and production camera and audio feeds must all operate simultaneously within a single bowl and concourse footprint, with demand spiking sharply at kickoff, halftime, and egress. Legacy DAS and Wi-Fi are commonly saturated at these peak moments, producing dropped sessions and stalled transactions.
This use case requires the platform to sustain high concurrent-device density with consistent per-user throughput, plus dedicated low-latency, low-jitter uplink capacity for broadcast and production camera backhaul, across the full bowl and concourse footprint.
Note that this bundles two different problems: massive downlink-and-uplink density for consumer devices, and guaranteed low-jitter uplink for a small number of professional video feeds, on the same network at the same moment. The quality-of-service and slicing story is the answer, and it should be explicit.
Use Case 2: ISAC-enabled crowd analytics and situational awareness, 6G-ready
Venue operators and public-safety personnel need continuous, accurate awareness of crowd density, flow, and anomalies such as bottlenecks at egress, unattended objects, and unauthorized drone incursion into restricted airspace above the bowl, to prevent crushing incidents and stampedes and respond quickly to emerging threats. Deploying a separate dedicated sensor network of radar, lidar, or additional camera arrays to provide this awareness is costly and adds another system to integrate.
This use case requires the platform to support Integrated Sensing and Communication, which uses the same radio infrastructure and spectrum that carries communication traffic to also sense the physical environment, through bistatic or monostatic sensing from gNB and O-RU hardware correlated with RIC-hosted analytics applications, without requiring a separate sensing-only network build.
The topic cites 3GPP Release 19 Technical Report 22.837, which identifies more than 30 ISAC use cases spanning object and intruder detection, environmental monitoring, motion sensing, and public-safety scenarios directly applicable to stadiums, arenas, and convention centers. It also cites 3GPP TS 22.137, which establishes a standardized set of ISAC performance metrics including positioning accuracy, velocity accuracy, sensing resolution, sensing range, refresh rate, latency, and missed-detection and false-alarm probabilities.
Proposers should treat 5G-Advanced sensing features as the near-term bridge path toward native 6G ISAC.
The hybrid localization requirement
Proposers shall employ a hybrid architecture in which standardized network-native user equipment positioning, meaning 3GPP Release 16 and 17 NR positioning using uplink time difference of arrival, multi-round-trip-time, and angle of arrival and departure, over the connected device population provides the primary, near-term source of crowd density, flow, and bottleneck analytics, with appropriate aggregation and anonymization for fan-facing devices, and RF sensing, meaning ISAC, is applied to non-cooperative targets that carry no connected device.
Crowd-analytics KPMs may be satisfied via UE positioning in the Phase II demonstration.
That last sentence is a significant de-risking allowance. You can meet the crowd analytics metrics using standardized positioning of connected phones rather than true RF sensing. Read it together with the tiering below.
The tiered scope, which is the most important paragraph in this use case
Sensing functions under this use case are tiered by 12-month feasibility.
Tier 1, for the Phase II demonstration, comprises two things. First, crowd density and flow analytics derived from network-native UE positioning of connected devices, per the hybrid-localization requirement, aggregated and anonymized. Second, at least one non-cooperative RF-sensing bridge function achievable at 5G-Advanced maturity and deployed sensing bandwidths, for example detection of unauthorized drone incursion exploiting Doppler and motion signatures, demonstrated in a laboratory or limited field configuration.
Tier 2 is roadmap only: unattended-object detection and fine-grained tracking of individuals within dense, multi-directional crowds, which are limited by achievable sensing resolution of approximately c over 2B at deployable bandwidths. These shall be addressed in the documented 6G and ISAC evolution path with quantified bandwidth, waveform, aperture, and sensor-fusion requirements rather than demonstrated in Phase II.
Custom or modified waveforms are not required for Phase II.
The positioning and velocity accuracy, anomaly alert, and missed-detection and false-alarm KPMs referenced in the tables apply to the Tier 1 demonstrated functions.
This tiering is the government being realistic, and it is written by someone who understands the physics. The c over 2B range resolution limit means that at CBRS-scale bandwidths you cannot resolve individual people in a crowd, and the topic says so rather than asking you to pretend otherwise. Respect the tiering. A proposal that promises Tier 2 capability in Phase II is not more ambitious, it is less credible.
Note also that a laboratory or limited field configuration is acceptable for the Tier 1 non-cooperative sensing function. Drone detection by Doppler signature in a controlled setting satisfies it.
Use Case 3: Public safety and first responder priority communications
First responders, venue security, and event staff require reliable, prioritized push-to-talk and data communications throughout the bowl, concourses, tunnels, loading docks, and below-grade back-of-house areas that legacy DAS and Wi-Fi frequently fail to reach or fail to prioritize during network congestion.
This use case requires the platform to sustain low-latency, high-reliability, priority and preemption-capable connectivity for public-safety traffic across the full indoor venue footprint, including areas outside typical fan-facing coverage design.
Priority and preemption is a specific 3GPP capability set and it is the part of this use case that has to actually work under the Use Case 1 load. If you address both use cases, show the interaction: public-safety traffic preempting fan traffic at kickoff is the test.
Use Case 4: Venue operations, logistics, and outdoor perimeter coverage
Loading docks, outdoor plazas, parking structures, and perimeter areas surrounding a venue increasingly require connectivity for autonomous cleaning and security robots, connected cameras, RFID and asset tracking for concessions and merchandise logistics, and credentialed-access control, yet typically fall outside indoor DAS and Wi-Fi coverage entirely.
This use case requires the platform to extend secure, private coverage into outdoor plaza, parking, and perimeter areas immediately adjacent to the venue, using the same OCUDU-based infrastructure rather than a separate outdoor Wi-Fi or cellular repeater buildout.
Choosing your two
Some combinations are cheaper than others. Use Cases 1 and 3 share the indoor bowl and concourse RF design and differ mainly in quality-of-service treatment, which makes them the most economical pair and the most directly aligned with the buying metrics the topic named. Use Case 2 requires ISAC-capable radio units or software-defined sensing functions plus RIC-hosted analytics, which is additional hardware and additional integration, though the Tier 1 tiering and the UE-positioning allowance make it more tractable than it first appears. Use Case 4 requires outdoor cell planning and additional radio units.
State your choice explicitly and say what your reference architecture and pilot deployment are designed to validate, because the topic requires you to identify that.
The Mandatory Common Work Package
All performers under this topic shall execute the following common work package, which is a required element of the Phase II Statement of Work regardless of the use cases selected.
This is not optional and it is not scoped by your use case choice. Budget it and staff it separately.
Task A: Baseline Benchmark
Establish a quantified performance baseline of the integrated open-source stack, meaning OCUDU plus SD-Core plus SD-RAN plus OSC, against the KPMs relevant to the selected use cases, including the General System and Architectural Requirements.
An emulated end-to-end configuration, using emulated radio units and user equipment, RF channel emulation, or synthetic load generation, is acceptable and encouraged for the baseline, provided the benchmark methodology, tooling, configurations, and results are fully documented and reproducible.
Where an RTEC-validated reference configuration already exists for the proposed RU, Core, RIC, and SMO combination, the baseline shall incorporate available RTEC results rather than duplicate them.
Baseline methodology and results shall be presented to the OCUDU Test and Evaluation Working Group.
Note that the baseline benchmark report is expected by Month 3. That is early, and it means your emulation environment has to be standing up in the first weeks of the award.
Task B: Code and Feature Enhancement
Identify the gaps between baseline performance and the threshold and objective values, and develop the OCUDU code improvements and features required to close them, for example scheduler and quality-of-service enhancements, mobility and handover optimization, uplink capacity improvements, stability hardening, and security features.
All modifications to OCUDU shall be contributed upstream through the project's standard contribution and review process. Enhancements that cannot be upstreamed shall be documented with rationale.
Progress against each targeted KPM, and the status of each upstream contribution, shall be reported in the Monthly Status Reports presented to the OCUDU Test and Evaluation Working Group.
The upstream contribution requirement has real business consequences. Your code improvements go into a public open-source project, reviewed by that project's maintainers on their timeline. That means your differentiation cannot be the OCUDU code itself. It has to be the integration, the RF engineering, the evidence package, the service model, and the support relationship. Say so in your commercialization strategy rather than leaving a reviewer to wonder how you make money.
It also means schedule risk you do not control. Upstream review timelines belong to the project, and the deliverable is an itemized log including review status, which acknowledges that acceptance is not guaranteed. Plan for contributions in review at the end of the period of performance.
Task C: Benchmark and Regression Harness
Deliver the emulation-based end-to-end benchmark suite developed under Task A as a repeatable, documented, open-source harness suitable for adoption by the OCUDU community and RTECs for regression testing of future OCUDU releases.
This work package complements, and does not replace, the interoperability testing and the physical MVP demonstration required elsewhere in this topic. Emulated results establish the baseline and guide enhancement work. Over-the-air performance with physical radio units and user equipment at the RTEC or representative demonstration site remains the standard of evidence for final KPM achievement.
That final sentence is the one to underline. Emulation gets you the baseline. Over-the-air with real hardware is what counts for final KPM achievement.
Security Requirements
Security shall be a first-class design requirement of the platform, not a demonstration afterthought.
Performers shall implement and document a security architecture covering the following.
3GPP security per TS 33.501, including mutual authentication and air-interface encryption and integrity protection.
Protection of the O-RAN open interfaces, meaning open fronthaul, E2, A1, and O1, per O-RAN WG11 specifications.
Zero-trust principles per NIST SP 800-207, including least-privilege access and separation of management and user traffic.
Monitoring of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures affecting OCUDU and its dependencies, and timely upstream patching.
Security features and hardening developed for OCUDU shall be contributed upstream under the common benchmarking and enhancement work package.
The security architecture shall be documented at the Critical Design Review and validated in RTEC testing, and the MVP demonstration shall include at least one security capability shown live, for example rejection of an unauthorized device, encrypted fronthaul, or detection of a simulated intrusion.
Four named standards and one live demonstration requirement. The live security demonstration is easy to underplan, so pick which capability you will show and design the demonstration around it early. Note also that ultra-secure operation is one of the three dominant performance classes for this topic, alongside extreme user density and integrated sensing, so security is a scored dimension rather than a compliance section.
Milestones and Deliverables
Milestones as stated
Month 1: Kickoff and Technical Interchange Meeting.
Monthly Status Reports throughout.
Month 12: Critical Design Review.
Month 16: Prototype demonstration.
Month 14: Final design review, demonstration, and assessment.
Month 18: Final Phase II Report.
Note the ordering. The published list places the Month 16 prototype demonstration before the Month 14 final design review, which cannot be the intended sequence. The same inversion appears in the companion topic DV032 in this release, which suggests a shared drafting error rather than a deliberate structure. The sensible reading is a Month 14 prototype demonstration followed by a Month 16 final design review and assessment, or the reverse; either way, confirm through DSIP Topic Q&A before you build a schedule around it, and state your assumed sequence in your work plan.
Monthly Status Reports are to be presented to the OCUDU Test and Evaluation Working Group as well, bringing the community up to speed on progress. That is a recurring external commitment, not just an internal report, and it should be staffed.
The demonstration site
Prototype demonstrations will be performed at the proposer's site, ideally an operating or representative venue or stadium environment, or a full-scale representative test bed where live-venue access is not feasible during Phase II.
Partial solutions may be considered successful if effective within a defined scope. A final technical report detailing the capabilities demonstrated will be required. Extended user evaluations or additional prototypes may be pursued based on utility.
The MVP demonstration, including physical radio units and user equipment, and for Use Case 2 ISAC-capable RU and sensing hardware or software-defined sensing functions, will need to occur at the venue-representative site.
Securing a venue relationship is the practical crux of this proposal. An operating stadium, arena, amphitheater, or convention center that will let you install radio units and run tests, or a full-scale representative test bed, is a dependency you do not control and cannot buy quickly. If you have a venue partner, name it on page one. If you have a test bed, describe its fidelity to venue conditions, because the deliverables require a description of the demonstration site's fidelity to venue and stadium conditions.
Scalability and RTEC leverage
Performers should address scalability, including testing across multiple radio unit vendors and hardware-accelerator options, and should leverage RTEC-executed interoperability testing to address integration risks ahead of the demonstration wherever a validated reference configuration already exists.
Phase II deliverables
Kickoff and Technical Interchange Meeting slides.
Monthly Status Reports.
A Critical Design Document containing the full reference architecture across OCUDU, SD-Core, SD-RAN, and OSC, including the 6G and ISAC evolution path.
Key Performance Metrics.
MVP Demonstration slides and documentation, including a description of the demonstration site's fidelity to venue and stadium conditions and the KPI results achieved against the referenced thresholds.
A Reference Configuration Package comprising executables, integration documentation, and RTEC test results for the validated RU, Core, RIC, and SMO combinations used.
Integration of the platform into an RTEC-affiliated test and evaluation network or a venue-representative demonstration site, demonstrating at least one of the two selected use cases.
An OCUDU Baseline Benchmark Report covering methodology, emulation environment description, configurations, and measured baseline results, expected by Month 3.
An Upstream Contribution Log, itemizing OCUDU code contributions such as patches and pull requests, their review status, and the KPM gap each addresses, updated in each Monthly Status Report with the final version in the Final Technical Report.
An open-source benchmark and regression harness, with documentation sufficient for independent execution by RTECs and the OCUDU community.
A Final Design Document.
A Final Technical Report.
Two notes on this list. The published deliverables include a duplicated integration bullet, one referring to a venue-representative demonstration site and one referring to a factory-representative demonstration site. The factory reference is plainly carried over from the companion Smart Manufacturing topic and does not apply here.
Also note the relationship between "address at least two use cases" and "demonstrating at least one of the two selected use cases." You scope two in the Statement of Work and demonstrate at least one physically. That is a meaningful reduction in demonstration burden and it should shape which two you select: pick a pair where one is demonstrable at your site and the other is architecturally addressed.
Phase III Dual Use
The advanced private 5G and FutureG networking platform presents significant dual-use opportunities by leveraging a single, open-source technology stack to serve both commercial venues and critical DoW operational needs.
For commercial interests, this technology offers a cost-effective and vendor-neutral alternative to proprietary systems in stadiums, arenas, and convention centers. It aims to enhance fan experiences with high-density connectivity, support broadcast backhauling, and improve venue operations through integrated sensing for crowd analytics and situational awareness.
For the Department, the same platform provides resilient, secure, and high-density wireless coverage essential for DoW-affiliated event venues, training facilities, and large-scale installation assembly spaces. The platform's capability for Integrated Sensing and Communication can be adapted for enhanced situational awareness, asset tracking, and security monitoring in dynamic military environments, ensuring that advancements in commercial wireless technology directly bolster defense capabilities.
The defense case is worth developing beyond the stated text. Large-scale installation assembly spaces, base-wide event venues, training facilities, and deployed camp environments all involve dense transient populations in fixed footprints, which is structurally the same problem as a stadium. The Contested Logistics Technologies Critical Technology Area designation also points at the logistics and asset-tracking angle in Use Case 4 more than at fan connectivity, so if you want the defense narrative to land, Use Case 4 and the public-safety priority communications of Use Case 3 are the stronger hooks.
Funding, Cost Structure, and FutureG Mechanics
The award
Direct to Phase II proposals must not exceed a cost of $2,153,927 and a duration of 18 months.
Be realistic about scope. A full open-source stack integration, RTEC interoperability testing, OCUDU code enhancement with upstream contribution, a venue-scale RF design, an ISAC or positioning capability if you select Use Case 2, an emulation benchmark harness, a security architecture with a live demonstration, and a physical MVP at a venue-representative site, in 18 months for $2.15 million, is a full program. Existing OCUDU experience, an existing venue or test bed relationship, and existing RTEC engagement are worth more here than headcount.
Cost volume
A detailed Phase II Cost Volume must be submitted online in the proper format shown in the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA. Some items in the cost volume template may not apply, and there is no need to provide information for every item. Provide enough information to allow evaluators to assess your plans to use the requested funds.
Justify items of equipment to be purchased, including Government Furnished Equipment. All requirements for government furnished equipment or other assets, and associated costs, must be determined and agreed to during Phase II contract negotiations. Radio units, user equipment, CBRS Spectrum Access System service, channel emulators, and load generators all belong in the cost discussion.
Percentage of Work, with no exceptions
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. The FutureG Office will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements.
This is a serious constraint on this topic. The natural team includes a radio unit vendor, a systems integrator, a venue partner, possibly an RTEC, and possibly a university. Model your POW before you assemble it, because a plan that pushes too much work outside your firm cannot be negotiated back into compliance.
Technical and Business Assistance
Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase II cost ceiling 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.
For this topic the strongest uses are commercial go-to-market development, since the topic is explicitly asking for an as-a-service offer at a price point, and spectrum and regulatory support for the CBRS deployment.
The 20-page structure
Volume 2 is 20 pages maximum: Part 1, Phase I Justification, 5 pages maximum, and Part 2, Phase II Technical Proposal, 15 pages maximum. Within the 15 pages, the Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy is not to exceed 2 pages and counts toward the limit.
So 5 pages of feasibility, 13 pages of technical proposal, 2 pages of commercialization. Against that you must fit: the four research questions, two use cases, the RedCap discussion, the hybrid localization architecture if you select Use Case 2, the performance-class mapping, three common work package tasks, the security architecture, the RF design approach, the milestone plan, key personnel, facilities, and consultants. Plan the page allocation before drafting, because this is one of the tightest content-to-page ratios in the cycle.
Note that the FutureG instructions do not state that figures, tables, charts, and references count inside the page limit, and do not prohibit appendices. They defer to the DoW SBIR Program BAA formatting requirements. Read that BAA rather than assuming another component's stricter rule applies.
What the technical proposal must contain
The Phase II Technical Objectives and Approach section must list specific technical objectives and provide a detailed technical approach, and must include these named subsections.
Phase II Work Plan, with an explicit, detailed description of the approach, indicating what is planned, how and where the work will be carried out, a schedule of major events, and the final product to be developed.
Related Work, describing significant activities directly related to the effort including those of the Principal Investigator, the firm, consultants, or others, and demonstrating awareness of the state of the art.
Relationship with Future Research or Research and Development, stating anticipated results and the significance of the Phase II effort as a foundation for Phase III.
Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy, at no more than 2 pages counting toward the 15-page limit, addressing five specific questions: what is the first product this technology will go into; who will be your customers and what is your estimate of the market size; how much funding will you need to bring the technology to market and how will you raise those funds; does your company contain marketing expertise and if not how do you intend to bring it in; and who are your competitors and what is your price or quality advantage.
Key Personnel, including the Principal Investigator, with directly related education, experience, and relevant publications, and a concise resume of the PI.
Facilities and Equipment, describing available instrumentation and physical facilities, justifying equipment purchases including Government Furnished Equipment, and stating whether facilities meet federal, state, and local environmental laws across the named groupings.
Consultants, describing in detail any involvement of universities, academic institutions, or other consultants and identifying them in the Cost Volume.
Answer the five commercialization questions as five distinct answers. They are enumerated and a reviewer will look for each.
The Company Commercialization Report is evaluated
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required. The information contained in the CCR will be considered during proposal evaluations.
FutureG states this in both its Phase I and Direct to Phase II sections, consistently. Complete it fully. Note that it is separate from the commercialization strategy in Volume 2: the CCR covers what you have done with past Phase II awards, the strategy covers how you propose to commercialize this research.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation.
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 days of the closing date of the topic via DSIP. Note that the FutureG text says "for a Phase I award," which appears to be residual language given that this topic issues no Phase I award. The notification will be sent to the individual listed as the Corporate Official on the proposal cover sheet, so make sure that is someone who will act on it.
Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.
Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. Protests after award should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.SBIR-STTR-Protest@mail.mil.
Questions
Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the FutureG SBIR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to the OUSW(R&E) FutureG Office at OSDRE-FutureG@groups.mail.mil.
The FutureG instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW process applies and Topic Q&A closes two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026. Use it, and use it on the missing KPM tables above all.
The Reference
One, and it is a link to an industry article: the rise of smart stadiums, at cellnex.com.
That is the entire cited reference list, which is remarkable for a topic of this technical density. The substantive citations are embedded in the topic text rather than in the reference section, and they are the ones that matter: 3GPP Release 19 TR 22.837 for ISAC use cases, 3GPP TS 22.137 for ISAC performance metrics, 3GPP Release 16 and 17 NR positioning methods, 3GPP Release 17 RedCap and Release 18 eRedCap, 3GPP TS 33.501 for security, O-RAN WG11 specifications for open interface protection, NIST SP 800-207 for zero trust, and the O-RAN 7.2x split.
Those eight are your real reading list. The Related Work section is required to demonstrate awareness of the state of the art, and with only a marketing article in the formal reference list you carry that burden entirely. Bring the OCUDU project documentation, the OCUDU Testing and Validation Plan the topic refers to, the SD-Core and SD-RAN and OSC project documentation, and the published RTEC test results the topic tells you to leverage.
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 SBIR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027
Period of performance: 18 months from award
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Audit the funding provenance of every feasibility result you intend to cite, because work based upon or logically extending from prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work is excluded and failing the feasibility bar means the proposal is not evaluated. Resolve intellectual property ownership or license rights. Secure your venue or full-scale test bed relationship in writing, since the MVP demonstration requires physical radio units and user equipment at a venue-representative site. Engage the RTEC community and identify which validated reference configurations already exist for your intended RU, Core, RIC, and SMO combination, since the baseline shall incorporate available RTEC results rather than duplicate them. Get familiar with the OCUDU contribution process and the OCUDU Test and Evaluation Working Group cadence, since Monthly Status Reports go to that group. Choose your two use cases and be able to say which your reference architecture and pilot deployment validate. Plan your CBRS spectrum approach. Read the eight embedded standards references. Model your Percentage of Work before assembling a team that includes an RU vendor, an integrator, a venue, and possibly a university. Confirm SAM registration and CMMC Level 2 self-assessment in SPRS.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 5-page Phase I justification using the four accepted evidence categories, leaning on private, academic, and non-SBIR federally funded work. Draft the 13-page technical proposal covering the four research questions, your two use cases, RedCap handling, the hybrid localization architecture and Tier 1 and Tier 2 scoping if you select Use Case 2, the required performance-class mapping, the three common work package tasks, the security architecture with your chosen live demonstration, the RF design approach, and the milestone plan with your assumed Month 14 and Month 16 sequence. Draft your own KPM set with threshold and objective values and justify each. Draft the 2-page commercialization strategy answering all five enumerated questions, using the government's own "several hundred U.S. facilities" figure and the four buying metrics. Draft the 3,000 character cover sheet abstract and the 3,000 character anticipated benefits and commercial applications discussion.
October 6 through October 7. Submit questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes. The essential ones are the missing KPM tables and General System and Architectural Requirements section, and the Month 14 versus Month 16 milestone ordering. Send administrative questions to OSDRE-FutureG@groups.mail.mil.
October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume online following the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA, against the $2,153,927 and 18-month ceiling. Price radio units across multiple vendors, user equipment, hardware accelerators, CBRS Spectrum Access System service, channel emulation and load generation for the Task A baseline, RTEC testing engagement, venue site access and installation, ISAC or sensing hardware if applicable, OCUDU development labor including upstream contribution effort, security architecture work, and the recurring OCUDU T&E Working Group reporting. Identify Government Furnished Equipment needs. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form and place it in Volume 5.
October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, carefully, since FutureG states it is considered during evaluations. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form and any letters from venue partners or RTECs that substantiate specific claims. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering it must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded there. Run compliance: 5 plus 15 pages with the 2-page commercialization strategy inside the 15, no proprietary or classified information on the cover sheet, 3,000 character limits per cover sheet section.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW-FutureG SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-DV031?
OSW26BZ06-DV031 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic titled "Smart Venues and Stadiums," released under the OSW FutureG Office FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to design, validate, and demonstrate a secure, high-density private 5G network platform for stadiums and large venues, integrating open-source OCUDU, SD-Core, SD-RAN, and OSC components, delivering resilient multi-service communication alongside a 6G-ready Integrated Sensing and Communication architecture, validated at a representative venue site.
How much funding is available?
Direct to Phase II proposals must not exceed a cost of $2,153,927 and a duration of 18 months. Phase II awardees may also request up to $50,000 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.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal?
No. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II proposals only, and a formal Phase I award will not be issued.
What software stack is required?
OCUDU for the Centralized Unit and Distributed Unit, SD-Core for the 5G core, SD-RAN for the Near-Real-Time RIC, and the OSC stack for the Non-Real-Time RIC and SMO, integrated into a single fully open-source reference architecture with no proprietary core, RIC, or SMO component anywhere in the stack.
What feasibility evidence does the topic accept?
One or more of four categories: test data and metrics from previous lab environments or early field trials; technical reports and white papers explaining previous research, system designs, or software integration efforts; prototype designs and simulation models including diagrams, architectural blueprints, or simulation results; and previous project outcomes including success criteria, milestone reports, or commercialization results from prior private, academic, or non-SBIR federally funded work. The government states that proposers do not need to have a perfect, finished product.
Can my feasibility evidence come from a prior SBIR award?
No. The FutureG Direct to Phase II guidelines state that feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and that the work must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. The Volume 2 instruction uses the weaker phrasing "must not be solely based on"; plan against the stricter reading. Note that the topic's own fourth evidence category names private, academic, or non-SBIR federally funded work, which is consistent with the restriction.
Where are the KPM tables the topic refers to?
They do not appear in the published document. The topic refers to KPMs in "the table below," to "Section 3.0" thresholds, and to a "General System and Architectural Requirements" section, none of which are present. This is the most important thing to raise through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes on October 7. In the meantime, propose your own justified KPM set with threshold and objective values, state why you are doing so, and note that final targets are agreed at kickoff and confirmed at the Critical Design Review.
What KPMs does the topic name in its text?
Concurrent-device density, sensing detection accuracy, latency, jitter, and service availability, given as examples. It also provides one worked example: the platform must sustain a session success rate greater than 99.5 percent for fan-facing connections at a concurrent-device density of 3,000 devices per acre in the lower bowl. The four buying metrics the segment uses are also natural KPMs: dropped-call rate at kickoff, point-of-sale uptime, camera uptime, and incident-response time.
How many use cases must I address?
At least two of the four, in your Phase II Statement of Work, and you must identify which your reference architecture and pilot deployment are designed to validate. Note that the deliverables require demonstrating at least one of the two selected use cases, so you scope two and physically demonstrate at least one.
What are the four use cases?
High-density fan connectivity and broadcast and production backhaul. ISAC-enabled crowd analytics and situational awareness, 6G-ready. Public safety and first responder priority communications. And venue operations, logistics, and outdoor perimeter coverage.
Do I have to build true RF sensing for the crowd analytics use case?
Not entirely. Proposers shall employ a hybrid architecture where standardized network-native UE positioning using 3GPP Release 16 and 17 NR positioning provides the primary near-term source of crowd density, flow, and bottleneck analytics, with RF sensing applied to non-cooperative targets carrying no connected device. The topic states that crowd-analytics KPMs may be satisfied via UE positioning in the Phase II demonstration.
What is the tiered sensing scope?
Tier 1, for the Phase II demonstration, is crowd density and flow analytics from network-native UE positioning, aggregated and anonymized, plus at least one non-cooperative RF-sensing bridge function achievable at 5G-Advanced maturity and deployed bandwidths, such as unauthorized drone incursion detection using Doppler and motion signatures, demonstrated in a laboratory or limited field configuration. Tier 2 is roadmap only: unattended-object detection and fine-grained tracking of individuals in dense crowds, limited by achievable sensing resolution of approximately c over 2B at deployable bandwidths, to be addressed in the documented 6G and ISAC evolution path rather than demonstrated. Custom or modified waveforms are not required for Phase II.
What is the mandatory common work package?
Three tasks, required in the Phase II Statement of Work regardless of use cases selected. Task A, Baseline Benchmark, establishing a quantified performance baseline of the integrated stack, with emulated end-to-end configuration acceptable and encouraged, incorporating existing RTEC results where available, presented to the OCUDU Test and Evaluation Working Group. Task B, Code and Feature Enhancement, closing the gaps between baseline and threshold and objective values, with all OCUDU modifications contributed upstream. Task C, Benchmark and Regression Harness, delivering the emulation-based benchmark suite as a repeatable, documented, open-source harness for adoption by the OCUDU community and RTECs.
Do I have to contribute my code upstream?
Yes. All modifications to OCUDU shall be contributed upstream through the project's standard contribution and review process, and enhancements that cannot be upstreamed shall be documented with rationale. Progress and upstream contribution status are reported in Monthly Status Reports to the OCUDU T&E Working Group, and an itemized Upstream Contribution Log is a deliverable. This means your commercial differentiation cannot be the OCUDU code itself.
What are the security requirements?
A documented security architecture covering 3GPP security per TS 33.501 including mutual authentication and air-interface encryption and integrity protection; protection of the O-RAN open interfaces, meaning open fronthaul, E2, A1, and O1, per O-RAN WG11 specifications; zero-trust principles per NIST SP 800-207 including least-privilege access and separation of management and user traffic; and CVE monitoring for OCUDU and its dependencies with timely upstream patching. The architecture is documented at CDR, validated in RTEC testing, and the MVP demonstration must include at least one security capability shown live.
What are the Phase II milestones?
Month 1 kickoff and Technical Interchange Meeting, Monthly Status Reports throughout, Month 12 Critical Design Review, Month 16 prototype demonstration, Month 14 final design review and demonstration and assessment, and Month 18 Final Phase II Report. Note that the published list places Month 16 before Month 14, which cannot be the intended order and appears as the same inversion in the companion topic DV032. Confirm the sequence through DSIP Topic Q&A and state your assumption in your work plan.
Where must the demonstration happen?
At the proposer's site, ideally an operating or representative venue or stadium environment, or a full-scale representative test bed where live-venue access is not feasible during Phase II. The MVP demonstration, including physical radio units and user equipment, must occur at the venue-representative site, and the deliverables require documenting the site's fidelity to venue and stadium conditions.
Is emulation acceptable?
For the Task A baseline, yes, and it is encouraged, provided the methodology, tooling, configurations, and results are fully documented and reproducible. But over-the-air performance with physical radio units and user equipment at the RTEC or representative demonstration site remains the standard of evidence for final KPM achievement.
What spectrum does the topic assume?
CBRS. The economics question asks how the deployment should be packaged as a CBRS-based, as-a-service offer within the price point venue operators require. Unlike the companion manufacturing topic, this one does not state a target price point, so you must establish it from the DAS cost comparison the topic provides.
What does the topic say about the market size?
An estimated 2,000 to 5,000 major stadiums and arenas across professional, collegiate, and municipal facilities, scaling to over 15,000 total venues including larger high school stadiums, plus well over 400 U.S. convention and exhibition centers. But the topic narrows the serviceable addressable base to several hundred U.S. facilities before counting mid-sized arenas, amphitheaters, and secondary convention space. Use the narrower figure in your commercialization strategy.
What is the required performance-class mapping?
The Technical Volume shall include a mapping of each selected use case, and its associated KPMs, to the generic network performance class or classes it exercises, and shall identify which anticipated OCUDU code or feature enhancements correspond to each class. For this topic the dominant performance classes are extreme user density, ultra-secure operation, and integrated sensing. This is a required element stated with "shall" and it is easy to omit.
How do I handle RedCap devices?
Address how the platform serves reduced-capability device classes including 3GPP Release 17 RedCap and Release 18 eRedCap, and identify any OCUDU scheduler or feature enhancements required, which are strongly encouraged as upstream contributions. Where RedCap-certified devices are not commercially available for a given endpoint type at demonstration time, you may demonstrate with available device classes or emulated RedCap UE profiles, and shall document the RedCap migration path.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2 with self-assessment.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
No topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on OSW26BZ06-DV031, and none appears on any of the three topics in this FutureG release.
How long can my technical volume be?
Twenty pages maximum, divided into Part 1 Phase I Justification at 5 pages maximum and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal at 15 pages maximum, with the Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy at no more than 2 pages counting toward the 15. The FutureG instructions do not state that figures, tables, charts, and references count inside the limit or prohibit appendices, deferring instead to the DoW SBIR Program BAA formatting requirements.
What must the commercialization strategy address?
Five specific questions in no more than 2 pages. What is the first product this technology will go into. Who will be your customers and what is your estimate of the market size. How much funding will you need to bring the technology to market and how will you raise those funds. Does your company contain marketing expertise and if not how do you intend to bring it in. Who are your competitors and what is your price or quality advantage.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
Yes. FutureG states in both its Phase I and Direct to Phase II sections that information contained in the CCR will be considered during proposal evaluations. It is separate from the commercialization strategy in Volume 2: the CCR covers what you have done with past Phase II awards, the strategy covers how you propose to commercialize this research.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. The FutureG Office will not accept any deviation to the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. This is a real constraint given that the natural team includes a radio unit vendor, an integrator, a venue partner, possibly an RTEC, and possibly a university. Model your POW before assembling it.
When will I hear back, and who gets notified?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, via DSIP. The notification goes to the individual listed as the Corporate Official on the proposal cover sheet. Note that the FutureG text says notification "for a Phase I award," which appears to be residual language given that this topic issues no Phase I award.
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 FutureG SBIR Program and these proposal preparation instructions go to the OUSW(R&E) FutureG Office at OSDRE-FutureG@groups.mail.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Audit your feasibility provenance before anything else. Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and a proposal that fails the feasibility bar is not evaluated at all. Open-source 5G integration work in the United States has been heavily SBIR funded, so this is a real risk for the most qualified bidders. The topic's own fourth evidence category tells you where to look: private, academic, or non-SBIR federally funded work.
Ask about the missing KPM tables, then proceed anyway. The topic points at tables and a Section 3.0 that are not in the published document. Raise it in Topic Q&A before October 7, and in the proposal propose your own justified KPM set with threshold and objective values, saying plainly why. Noting the gap and handling it professionally is a strength, not a complaint.
Secure the venue relationship first. The MVP demonstration requires physical radio units and user equipment at a venue-representative site, and the deliverables require documenting that site's fidelity to venue conditions. A signed venue partner or a described full-scale test bed is the single most valuable thing on page one. Nothing technical compensates for not having somewhere to demonstrate.
Answer the trust question as a document, not a test plan. The fourth research question asks what evidence package best converts community-maintained, no-license-fee software into a procurement-ready proof point for a buyer with no in-house cellular expertise. That is a deliverable a venue general manager reads and acts on. Designing it, and showing a mockup or a table of contents, differentiates you from proposals that answer with a testing matrix.
Use the buyer's four metrics. Dropped-call rate at kickoff, point-of-sale uptime, camera uptime, incident-response time. The topic says this segment buys on those, not on platform standardization. Building your KPMs and your value proposition on those four speaks the customer's language and the government's at the same time.
Pick your two use cases on cost, then justify on mission. Use Cases 1 and 3 share the indoor RF design and differ mainly in quality-of-service treatment, which makes them the most economical pair and the one closest to the named buying metrics. If you address both, show priority and preemption for public safety working under peak fan load, because that interaction is the real test.
Respect the Tier 1 and Tier 2 sensing boundary. The topic tells you that fine-grained tracking of individuals in dense crowds is limited by c over 2B at deployable bandwidths and puts it in the roadmap, not the demonstration. A proposal promising Tier 2 in Phase II reads as not having done the physics. Use the UE-positioning allowance for crowd analytics and pick one tractable non-cooperative sensing function, drone detection being the topic's own example, in a laboratory or limited field setting.
Do the performance-class mapping. It is a "shall" requirement on the Technical Volume: map each use case and its KPMs to the performance classes it exercises and identify the OCUDU code or feature enhancements corresponding to each class. It is also the element most likely to get squeezed out by venue-specific content. Reserve space for it.
Budget the common work package as a separate line. Tasks A, B, and C are required regardless of use case, the baseline benchmark report is due by Month 3, and the harness is an open-source deliverable with documentation sufficient for independent execution. Proposals that fold this into general engineering will underprice it.
Plan for upstream review you do not control. All OCUDU modifications go upstream through the project's process, the deliverable is a log including review status, and enhancements that cannot be upstreamed need documented rationale. That is schedule risk owned by someone else. Say how you sequence contributions and what happens to a KPM claim if a patch is still in review at Month 18.
State how you make money when the code is public. Your differentiation is integration, RF engineering, the evidence package, the as-a-service model, and support, not the OCUDU code. A commercialization strategy that does not confront this looks naive to a reviewer who wrote the upstream requirement.
Use the government's own market number. Several hundred U.S. facilities is the serviceable addressable base the topic states, after listing 15,000 venues. Quoting the big number when the topic already narrowed it is an easy weakness to spot. The credible move is to use the narrow number and show that the unit economics work at that scale.
Engage RTECs before you propose. The baseline shall incorporate available RTEC results rather than duplicate them, RTEC-executed interoperability testing is referenced throughout, and the security architecture is validated in RTEC testing. Knowing which validated reference configurations already exist for your RU, Core, RIC, and SMO combination saves you money and shows the reviewer you are inside the community.
Plan the page budget before drafting. Five, thirteen, and two pages against four research questions, two use cases, RedCap, hybrid localization, performance-class mapping, three work package tasks, a security architecture, an RF design, and a milestone plan. Decide the allocation first or the technical proposal will lose whichever section you write last.
Make the Corporate Official someone who watches email. FutureG sends the selection notification to the Corporate Official on the cover sheet and does not state that the Principal Investigator is copied.
OSW-FutureG SBIR OSW26BZ06-NV028: 5G Signature Tracking Mitigation via Cyber Deception
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $2m
Description: Complete guide to OSW-FutureG SBIR Phase I topic OSW26BZ06-NV028, 5G signature tracking mitigation via cyber deception. Up to $323,090 over 6 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26BZ06-NV028 is a Phase I SBIR topic under the OSW FutureG Office, FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. When military and government personnel use commercial cellular networks abroad, the metadata their phones generate is enough for an adversary to map their routines, spot when something unusual is happening, and locate sensitive facilities. This topic funds a system that generates convincing fake cellular signatures to bury the real ones. The award is up to $323,090 over 6 months, with a 20-page technical volume. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The threat model is stated concisely and it is worth reading twice. Accessing foreign mobile phone networks exposes individuals and organizations to surveillance and espionage threats due to their digital exhaust, meaning the metadata required to operate on a cellular network such as credentials, location data, and device identifiers. Adversaries can leverage this data to track daily routines, identify deviations indicating special events such as VIP visits or mission preparation, and map sensitive facilities based on cell phone concentration or periods of inactivity.
That last item is the subtle one. A facility can be identified not only by phones being present but by their absence, and a sudden change in the pattern is itself the signal. Any deception system has to be believable in both directions.
Phase I is a design study, not a build. Six months produces initial application concepts, algorithms, and a comprehensive design document outlining the software architecture, plus a detailed plan for a Phase II prototype effort aiming at Technology Readiness Level 7.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26BZ06-NV028
Title: 5G Signature Tracking Mitigation via Cyber Deception
Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, FutureG Office, under OUSW(R&E)
Solicitation: OSW FutureG Office, FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Phase I
Base award: must not exceed $323,090
Base period of performance: 6 months
Technical volume limit: not to exceed 20 pages. Pages over 20 will not be considered in proposal evaluations
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Contested Logistics Technologies (LOG)
Component Technology Priority Areas: FutureG, Emerging Threat Reduction, Sustainment and Logistics
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, and none appears on any of the three topics in this release
Phase II target: Technology Readiness Level 7, with follow-on Phase II funding of $2,153,927 over 18 months
Phase II form factors: hardened decoy boxes, for example Wi-Fi router-sized team devices and puck-sized personal devices
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: the FutureG Office will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements
Company Commercialization Report: information contained in the CCR will be considered by the FutureG Office during proposal evaluations
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: digital signature management, digital exhaust, operating on untrusted networks
The Objective and the Threat
The objective
The objective of this effort is to develop an advanced digital signature management and deception system that obfuscates cellular metadata, described as digital exhaust, to protect personnel, small units, and critical facilities from adversarial surveillance, tracking, and pattern-of-life analysis on third-party commercial networks.
Three protected entities are named, and they are different problems. An individual needs a personal device small enough to carry. A small unit needs coordinated signatures that do not contradict each other. A critical facility needs a persistent baseline of plausible activity that does not go quiet when the real population leaves.
The problem
As military and government personnel increasingly rely on commercial mobile networks, the management of digital signatures has become a critical operational concern.
Accessing foreign mobile phone networks exposes individuals and organizations to surveillance and espionage threats due to their digital exhaust, the metadata required to operate on a cellular network, for example credentials, location data, and device IDs.
Adversaries can leverage this data to track daily routines, identify deviations indicating special events, for example VIP visits or mission preparation, and map sensitive facilities based on cell phone concentration or periods of inactivity.
What that implies technically
The phrase "third-party commercial networks" is doing a lot of work. You do not control the network. The metadata that leaks is the metadata the network requires to function, which means you cannot simply suppress it and still have a working phone. The only options are to change what the metadata says, to add plausible metadata that dilutes the real signal, or both. The topic's answer is deception rather than suppression, and it names the two mechanics in the Phase I deliverable list: AI-persona generation and identity-swapping.
Note also that the adversary in this model is doing automated analysis at population scale, not manual surveillance of one target. That is why realism against machine learning matters more than realism to a human analyst, and the performance metrics reflect it.
Key Performance Metrics, Which You Must Propose Yourself
Proposers must define specific, relevant, measurable, and quantifiable key performance metrics for their proposed solutions. The topic offers suggested metrics with threshold and objective values, explicitly stated as including but not limited to the following four.
Persona capacity
The metric is AI-powered personas broadcast simultaneously per decoy device. The suggested threshold, meaning minimum success, is 2 personas. The suggested objective, meaning desired success, is 4 or more personas.
Two personas per device is the floor, which tells you the intended ratio: a decoy is not a one-to-one substitute for a phone, it is a multiplier. Four or more per device is where a small team's footprint becomes genuinely ambiguous.
Operational endurance
The metric is battery life for highly mobile and pluggable decoy form factors. The suggested threshold is 12 hours. The suggested objective is 24 to 36 hours.
Twelve hours is a working day. Twenty-four to thirty-six hours is an operational cycle without recharge. Note the phrase "highly mobile and pluggable," which suggests two power models, a carried battery-powered unit and a unit that plugs into available power, and the endurance metric applies to the mobile case.
System weight
The metric is the weight of the personal decoy device. The suggested threshold is under 2 pounds. The suggested objective is approximately 1 pound.
Two pounds for a carried radio with multiple simultaneous cellular personas and 12 hours of battery is a demanding target, and one pound is aggressive. The Phase II description calls the personal form factor puck-sized, which is the physical envelope to design against.
Obfuscation realism
The metric is the ability of AI-generated traffic to mimic realistic patterns of life to defeat automated network analysis. The suggested threshold is defeating basic heuristic analysis. The suggested objective is defeating advanced machine-learning-based behavioral tracking.
This is the metric that decides whether the system works, and it is the hardest to quantify. The threshold and objective are stated qualitatively, which means the burden is on you to make them measurable. That is exactly what the topic asks for when it says proposers must define specific, relevant, measurable, and quantifiable metrics.
A credible answer proposes an adversary model and an evaluation method. What classifier are you testing against, what features does it use, what does its detection rate look like against your generated traffic versus real traffic, and how do you avoid overfitting your generator to one detector. Proposing the red-team methodology is as important as proposing the generator, and most proposals will neglect it.
Why the metrics section deserves real effort
The topic says proposers must define the metrics and that the four above are suggestions. That is an invitation with a catch: a proposal that simply restates the four suggested metrics has not done what was asked. Add the metrics your architecture actually turns on. Plausible candidates include persona persistence over time, the number of distinct network attach events per hour and whether that rate is itself anomalous, geographic consistency between a persona's claimed movement and physically possible movement, cross-persona correlation, meaning whether your personas accidentally look like each other, and time to detection under sustained observation.
What Phase I Requires
During Phase I, proposers are required to present a comprehensive concept design and feasibility study for a digital exhaust deception system. Solutions should outline the proprietary software required to conduct AI-enabled mission planning and operations.
Phase I will consist of a six-month period of performance to develop the initial application concepts, algorithms, and a comprehensive design document that outlines the software architecture for future development and deployment.
Key activities
Phase kickoff, comprising a Technical Interchange Meeting and a Preliminary Design Review.
Before the end of Phase I, the performer must develop and present a detailed plan for addressing Phase II prototype development, testing, and evaluation, aiming to advance the technology from its current state to Technology Readiness Level 7.
Phase I deliverables
Kickoff and Technical Interchange Meeting slides.
Monthly Status Reports.
A Preliminary Design Document detailing AI-persona generation and identity-swapping mechanics.
A Phase II Plan.
A Final Phase I Report.
Reading the Phase I scope
This is a software architecture and algorithm effort with a formal design review, not a hardware build. Five deliverables in six months, three of which are reporting artifacts. The substantive output is the Preliminary Design Document, and the topic names its two required subjects precisely: AI-persona generation and identity-swapping mechanics.
Note "AI-enabled mission planning and operations." The system is not only a signature generator, it is a planning tool. Someone has to decide what personas to run, where, for how long, and with what pattern, and the topic says the software supports that decision. Address the operator's workflow, not just the signal generation.
Note also the phrase "advance the technology from its current state to TRL 7." TRL 7 means a prototype demonstrated in an operational environment. A six-month Phase I design study followed by an 18-month Phase II reaching TRL 7 implies you are starting well above TRL 1. Be explicit in your proposal about your actual current maturity, because the Phase II plan has to be credible against it.
Phase II, For Planning Purposes
Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. For successful Phase I efforts, there may be a follow-on Phase II topic released within six months of Phase I completion, and Phase II efforts may be funded at $2,153,927 for an 18-month period of performance.
A Phase II follow-on effort will focus on prototype production, testing, and evaluation to reach a TRL 7 capability. The effort should result in the delivery of fully integrated mission management software and hardened decoy box form factors, for example Wi-Fi router-sized team devices and puck-sized personal devices.
Phase II milestones as stated
Month 1: Monthly Status Reports, and Kickoff and Technical Interchange Meeting.
Month 6: Critical Design Review.
Month 9: Prototype demonstration of single and multi-node networked operations.
Month 11: Final design review, field demonstration, for example 5G test network execution, and assessment.
Months 12 through 18: Final Phase II Report.
What the Phase II milestones tell you
Prototype demonstrations will be performed at the proposer's site or an approved DoW test range. Performers should address scalability, including the ability to run multiple linked decoy boxes from a single operations laptop.
Three things worth planning for now, in Phase I.
Two form factors, not one. A router-sized team device and a puck-sized personal device are different thermal, power, and antenna problems from the same software base. Your Phase I architecture should anticipate both.
Networked multi-node operation is a Month 9 milestone. Multiple decoy boxes linked and coordinated, run from a single operations laptop, means your persona generation has to be consistent across devices. Two decoys independently generating personas will produce contradictions an analyst or classifier can exploit. Design the coordination layer in Phase I.
A 5G test network is named as the Phase II field demonstration environment. Access to a 5G test network, whether your own, a partner's, or a DoW range, is a Phase II dependency worth identifying in your Phase I Phase II Plan.
Note that the Phase II milestone list places the final design review at Month 11, before the Months 12 through 18 reporting window, which leaves a long tail after the last technical milestone. If you are writing the Phase II Plan deliverable, propose what fills Months 12 through 17 rather than treating it as report-writing time.
Phase III Dual Use
The proposed digital signature management technology presents significant dual-use potential. While fundamentally designed to protect military assets from advanced signals intelligence, the core capability of obfuscating cellular metadata directly translates to protecting high-value corporate assets, personnel, and intellectual property from commercial espionage and tracking.
The commercial case is real but it needs specificity to be persuasive. Executive protection, corporate travel to high-risk jurisdictions, journalist and non-governmental organization safety, merger and acquisition activity where travel patterns leak deal information, and research facility protection are all identifiable buyers with the same exposure. Naming a segment and a buyer is stronger than the general claim.
There is also a legal and policy dimension worth acknowledging rather than avoiding. A device that broadcasts fabricated cellular identities operates in a regulated radio environment and interacts with third-party carrier networks. A proposal that addresses spectrum authorization, the difference between operating on a test network and on a live commercial network, and the compliance posture for commercial sale will read as more mature than one that treats the technology as purely technical. This is a legitimate place to say what you would use TABA for.
Funding, Cost Structure, and FutureG Mechanics
The award
The Phase I base amount must not exceed $323,090 and a duration of 6 months.
Note the phrasing: this is a not-to-exceed ceiling on both cost and duration, stated in the Volume 3 instruction rather than in a per-topic table. Roughly $323,000 over six months is a high burn rate, which suits a focused software architecture effort with an existing team and does not suit one that has to hire and ramp.
Cost volume
A detailed cost volume must be submitted online in the proper format shown in the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA. Some items in the cost volume template may not apply to the proposed project, and there is no need to provide information for every item. Provide enough information to allow evaluators to assess your plans to use the requested funds.
Justify items of equipment to be purchased, including Government Furnished Equipment. All requirements for government furnished equipment or other assets, and associated costs, must be determined and agreed to during Phase II contract negotiations. If your Phase I work needs access to cellular test equipment, network emulation, or a test network, say so.
Percentage of Work, with no exceptions
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. The FutureG Office will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements.
For this topic, the temptation is to subcontract the cellular protocol stack work, the machine learning generator, or the hardware form factor design. Model your POW before you assemble the team.
Technical and Business Assistance
The OSW SBIR/STTR Program will consider TABA requests in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 638(q). 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. 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 SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form or that are not included as a submission document in Volume 5.
The form requirement is absolute. A TABA request made any other way is not accepted. For this topic, regulatory and spectrum counsel is the standout use, given that the commercial product transmits fabricated cellular identities.
The Company Commercialization Report is evaluated
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required. Information contained in the CCR will be considered by the FutureG Office during proposal evaluations.
FutureG states this consistently in both its Phase I and Direct to Phase II instructions, which is worth noting because it is not universal across components. Your prior Phase II commercialization history is part of your score. Fill it out completely rather than treating it as a formality.
Note that the commercialization strategy in the technical volume is separate from the CCR. The strategy addresses how you propose to commercialize this research; the CCR covers what you have done to commercialize the results of past Phase II awards.
Proposal format
The technical volume is not to exceed 20 pages and must follow the formatting requirements provided in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. Any pages in the technical volume over 20 pages will not be considered in proposal evaluations. Use the Phase I Proposal Template provided in the DoW SBIR Program BAA, Appendix A.
Note what this document does not say. It does not state that figures, tables, charts, and references count inside the page limit, and it does not prohibit appendices. Some other OSW program offices impose those rules explicitly; FutureG defers to the DoW SBIR Program BAA formatting requirements instead. Read that BAA for the governing rules rather than assuming another component's restrictions apply.
The proposal cover sheet must include a brief technical abstract describing the proposed R&D project and an anticipated benefits and potential commercial applications discussion, each no more than 3,000 characters. Do not include proprietary or classified information in the cover sheet. If selected for negotiation and possible award, the technical abstract and anticipated benefits discussion may be publicly released online.
DSIP assigns a proposal number once the cover sheet is saved, and you may modify the cover sheet as needed until the topic closes.
Volumes 5 through 7
Volume 5 is for additional documentation supporting the cover sheet, technical volume, and cost volume, and it is where the TABA request form goes if you are requesting TABA.
Volume 6 is Fraud, Waste and Abuse training, which must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission.
Volume 7 is the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries webform. It will not be accepted as a PDF supporting document in Volume 5, and you should not upload any previous versions of the form to Volume 5.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation.
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 via DSIP. This notification will be sent to the individual listed as the Corporate Official on the proposal cover sheet.
Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027. Note that the notification goes to the Corporate Official only, not to the Principal Investigator, so make sure the Corporate Official on the cover sheet is someone who will act on it.
Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement. Protests after award should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.SBIR-STTR-Protest@mail.mil.
Questions
Specific questions pertaining to the administration of the FutureG SBIR Program and these proposal preparation instructions should be directed to the OUSW(R&E) FutureG Office at OSDRE-FutureG@groups.mail.mil.
The FutureG instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW SBIR Program BAA Topic Q&A process applies. Topic Q&A closes to new questions two weeks before the topic closes, which is October 7, 2026. Use it for technical questions about the topic and the program office address for administrative ones.
The References
One, and it is a link rather than a citation: DoD Instruction 8520.02, at esd.whs.mil.
DoDI 8520.02 governs Public Key Infrastructure and Public Key enabling across the Department. Its relevance here is credentials. The topic's own definition of digital exhaust names credentials first among the metadata that leaks, and a system that swaps identities on a commercial network has to manage credentials somehow.
The single reference is a signal about the topic's character. Unlike topics that cite a research literature to point at an approach, this one gives you a policy instruction and leaves the technical approach entirely open. That means two things. Your Related Work discussion carries the full burden of demonstrating awareness of the state of the art, so bring the relevant literature yourself: cellular metadata privacy research, IMSI and subscription identifier handling in 5G including SUPI and SUCI concealment, pattern-of-life analysis methods, and generative modeling of network traffic. And you should read DoDI 8520.02 and say something concrete about how your credential handling relates to it, because a reviewer who put that reference in the topic will look for it.
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 SBIR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027
Period of performance: 6 months from award
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Define your adversary model, because obfuscation realism is the metric that decides whether the system works and it is stated only qualitatively. Decide what classifier or analysis method you are defeating and how you will measure that. Draft your own key performance metrics beyond the four suggested, since the topic requires you to define specific, measurable metrics rather than restate its suggestions. Assess your current technology readiness honestly against a Phase II that must reach TRL 7 in 18 months. Identify your cellular test environment, whether an in-house network emulator, a partner network, or a DoW range. Read DoDI 8520.02. Model your Percentage of Work before subcontracting protocol stack, machine learning, or hardware work. Confirm SAM registration and CMMC Level 2 self-assessment in SPRS. Download the DoW SBIR Program BAA Appendix A Phase I Proposal Template.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 20-page technical volume against the DoW Appendix A template. Structure it around the threat model, the persona generation approach, the identity-swapping mechanics, the AI-enabled mission planning workflow, your proposed key performance metrics with justification, the software architecture, and the path to two Phase II form factors and networked multi-node operation. Address the legal and spectrum dimension rather than avoiding it. Draft the 3,000 character cover sheet abstract and the 3,000 character anticipated benefits and commercial applications discussion.
October 6 through October 7. Submit any technical questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes, and send administrative questions to OSDRE-FutureG@groups.mail.mil.
October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume online following the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA, against the $323,090 and 6-month ceiling. Price the software development, the machine learning work, the red-team evaluation effort, any network emulation or test access, and the design review and reporting deliverables. Identify any Government Furnished Equipment needs. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form if you want the $6,500 and place it in Volume 5.
October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, carefully, since FutureG states it will be considered during evaluations. Assemble Volume 5. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering it must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded there. Run compliance: 20 pages maximum, no proprietary or classified information on the cover sheet, 3,000 character limits on each cover sheet section.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW-FutureG SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-NV028?
OSW26BZ06-NV028 is a Phase I SBIR topic titled "5G Signature Tracking Mitigation via Cyber Deception," released under the OSW FutureG Office FY26 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop an advanced digital signature management and deception system that obfuscates cellular metadata, described as digital exhaust, to protect personnel, small units, and critical facilities from adversarial surveillance, tracking, and pattern-of-life analysis on third-party commercial networks.
How much funding is available?
The Phase I base amount must not exceed $323,090 with a duration of 6 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 20 pages, following the formatting requirements in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. Any pages over 20 will not be considered in proposal evaluations. Use the Phase I Proposal Template in Appendix A of the DoW SBIR Program BAA.
Do figures and references count against the 20 pages?
The FutureG instructions do not say so. They defer to the DoW SBIR Program BAA formatting requirements. Some other OSW program offices explicitly require figures, tables, charts, and references to count inside the limit and evaluate no appendices; FutureG does not state that, so follow the DoW BAA rules rather than assuming another component's restriction applies.
What is digital exhaust?
The topic defines it as the metadata required to operate on a cellular network, giving credentials, location data, and device identifiers as examples. Adversaries use it to track daily routines, identify deviations indicating special events such as VIP visits or mission preparation, and map sensitive facilities based on cell phone concentration or periods of inactivity.
What are the suggested key performance metrics?
Four, stated as suggestions and not limits. Persona capacity, measured as AI-powered personas broadcast simultaneously per decoy device, with a threshold of 2 and an objective of 4 or more. Operational endurance, measured as battery life for highly mobile and pluggable decoy form factors, with a threshold of 12 hours and an objective of 24 to 36 hours. System weight for the personal decoy device, with a threshold under 2 pounds and an objective of approximately 1 pound. And obfuscation realism, the ability of AI-generated traffic to mimic realistic patterns of life to defeat automated network analysis, with a threshold of defeating basic heuristic analysis and an objective of defeating advanced machine-learning-based behavioral tracking.
Do I have to use those metrics?
You have to define your own. The topic states that proposers must define specific, relevant, measurable, and quantifiable key performance metrics and that the four listed are suggestions including but not limited to. A proposal that only restates the four suggestions has not done what was asked. Add the metrics your architecture actually turns on and justify them.
How do I make obfuscation realism measurable?
That is the central proposal problem, since the threshold and objective are stated qualitatively. A credible answer proposes an adversary model and an evaluation method: what classifier you test against, what features it uses, its detection rate against your generated traffic versus real traffic, and how you avoid overfitting the generator to one detector. Proposing the red-team methodology matters as much as proposing the generator.
What does Phase I actually deliver?
Five deliverables. Kickoff and Technical Interchange Meeting slides, Monthly Status Reports, a Preliminary Design Document detailing AI-persona generation and identity-swapping mechanics, a Phase II Plan, and a Final Phase I Report. Key activities include a phase kickoff comprising a Technical Interchange Meeting and a Preliminary Design Review.
Is Phase I a hardware build?
No. Phase I develops initial application concepts, algorithms, and a comprehensive design document outlining the software architecture for future development and deployment. The hardware form factors appear in Phase II.
What is the Phase II target?
Technology Readiness Level 7, meaning a prototype demonstrated in an operational environment. Phase II focuses on prototype production, testing, and evaluation, delivering fully integrated mission management software and hardened decoy box form factors such as Wi-Fi router-sized team devices and puck-sized personal devices.
What are the Phase II milestones?
Month 1 for Monthly Status Reports plus Kickoff and Technical Interchange Meeting. Month 6 for Critical Design Review. Month 9 for prototype demonstration of single and multi-node networked operations. Month 11 for final design review, field demonstration such as 5G test network execution, and assessment. Months 12 through 18 for the Final Phase II Report.
How much is Phase II funded at?
Phase II efforts may be funded at $2,153,927 for an 18-month period of performance. Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, and for successful Phase I efforts there may be a follow-on Phase II topic released within six months of Phase I completion.
Where will the Phase II prototype be demonstrated?
At the proposer's site or an approved DoW test range. The topic names 5G test network execution as an example field demonstration, so identifying your test network access is worth doing in the Phase I Phase II Plan.
What does networked multi-node operation require?
Running multiple linked decoy boxes from a single operations laptop, which the topic lists under scalability. That means persona generation has to be coordinated across devices, since independently generated personas can produce contradictions an analyst or classifier could exploit. Design the coordination layer in Phase I.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2 with self-assessment.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
No topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on OSW26BZ06-NV028, and none appears on any of the three topics in this FutureG release.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
Yes. FutureG states in both its Phase I and Direct to Phase II instructions that information contained in the CCR will be considered during proposal evaluations. Complete it fully rather than treating it as a formality. Note that it is separate from the commercialization strategy in the technical volume: the CCR covers what you have done with past Phase II awards, the strategy covers how you propose to commercialize this research.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. The FutureG Office will not accept any deviation to the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW SBIR Program BAA. Model your POW before subcontracting cellular protocol stack, machine learning, or hardware form factor work.
How do I request TABA?
Using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, included in Volume 5 of the DSIP submission. OSW will not accept requests that do not use the form or that are not submitted in Volume 5. Phase I is up to $6,500 and Phase II up to $50,000 per project, both in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee.
Can I ask questions about the topic?
Yes. The FutureG instructions do not state that DSIP Topic Q&A is unavailable, so the standard DoW process applies and Topic Q&A closes two weeks before the topic closes, on October 7, 2026. Administrative questions about the FutureG SBIR Program and these proposal instructions go to OSDRE-FutureG@groups.mail.mil.
When will I hear back, and who gets notified?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, approximately January 19, 2027, via DSIP. The notification is sent to the individual listed as the Corporate Official on the proposal cover sheet. Note that unlike some components, FutureG does not state that the Principal Investigator is also notified, so make sure the Corporate Official is someone who will act on it.
What is the commercial market?
The topic identifies protection of high-value corporate assets, personnel, and intellectual property from commercial espionage and tracking. Concrete segments worth naming include executive protection, corporate travel to high-risk jurisdictions, journalist and non-governmental organization safety, merger and acquisition activity where travel patterns leak deal information, and research facility protection.
What is the single reference about?
DoD Instruction 8520.02, which governs Public Key Infrastructure and Public Key enabling. Its relevance is credentials, which the topic names first among the metadata that leaks. Read it and say something concrete about how your credential handling relates to it, because a reviewer who included that reference will look for it.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Define your adversary before you define your system. Obfuscation realism is the metric that determines whether any of this works, and the topic states it qualitatively: defeat basic heuristic analysis at threshold, defeat advanced machine-learning-based behavioral tracking at objective. Name the analysis you are defeating, the features it uses, and how you measure success against it. A proposal that describes a persona generator without describing the detector it beats has skipped the hard half.
Propose your own metrics, and say why. The topic requires specific, relevant, measurable, and quantifiable metrics and offers four as suggestions. Restating those four is the minimum and it will not distinguish you. Add persona persistence, attach-event rate plausibility, geographic consistency, cross-persona correlation, and time to detection under sustained observation, with threshold and objective values you can defend.
Solve the absence problem, not just the presence problem. The threat description says adversaries map sensitive facilities based on cell phone concentration or periods of inactivity. Deception that adds plausible activity is half the answer. Maintaining a plausible baseline when the real population leaves, and avoiding a suspicious change in pattern when it returns, is the other half, and most proposals will only address the first.
Design for three protected entities, not one. An individual, a small unit, and a facility have different requirements. A puck on one person, a coordinated set of personas across a team that do not contradict each other, and a persistent facility signature are three modes of the same system. Say which you optimize for and how the others follow.
Take the mission planning software seriously. The topic asks for AI-enabled mission planning and operations, and the Phase II deliverable is fully integrated mission management software. Someone has to decide which personas to run, where, for how long, and with what pattern of life, under time pressure and without deep technical knowledge. Show that workflow.
Design the coordination layer in Phase I. Multi-node networked operation is a Month 9 Phase II milestone and running multiple linked decoy boxes from one operations laptop is a stated scalability requirement. Independently generated personas will collide statistically. Solving that in Phase I architecture rather than discovering it in Phase II integration is the difference between a plan and a hope.
Be honest about your current TRL. Phase II must reach TRL 7 in 18 months following a 6-month design study. That arithmetic only closes if you are starting from working components. State what you have, and let the Phase II Plan be credible against it rather than aspirational.
Address the legal and spectrum question head on. A device broadcasting fabricated cellular identities on or near third-party commercial networks raises authorization questions, and the commercial market raises them again. A proposal that names the compliance posture, distinguishes test network operation from live network operation, and identifies where it needs counsel reads as more mature than one that treats the problem as purely technical. It is also a good use for TABA.
Read DoDI 8520.02 and use it. It is the topic's only reference and it is about credentials, which the threat description names first. A paragraph connecting your identity and credential handling to that instruction shows you read what the Government pointed you at.
Bring your own literature. With one policy reference and no research citations, your Related Work section carries the whole burden of demonstrating awareness of the state of the art, which the DoW template requires. Cellular metadata privacy research, subscription identifier concealment in 5G, pattern-of-life analysis, and generative traffic modeling all belong there.
Fill out the Company Commercialization Report properly. FutureG says twice that it is considered during evaluations. If you have prior Phase II awards, their outcomes are part of your score here.
Model Percentage of Work first. No deviations accepted, and this topic invites subcontracting the protocol stack, the machine learning, and the hardware. Run the calculation before you commit to a team.
Make the Corporate Official someone who watches email. FutureG sends the selection notification to the Corporate Official on the cover sheet and, unlike some components, does not say the Principal Investigator is copied.
Plan for the weight and endurance targets from the start. Under 2 pounds with 12 hours of battery, objective approximately 1 pound with 24 to 36 hours, for a device broadcasting multiple simultaneous cellular personas, is a genuine radio and power engineering problem. Even in a Phase I software effort, a preliminary power and thermal budget against the puck form factor makes the Phase II plan credible.
OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR OSW26BZ06-DV027: Monolithic Graphene-CMOS Broadband UV to LWIR Focal Plane Arrays
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $2m
Description: Complete guide to OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR Direct to Phase II topic OSW26BZ06-DV027, monolithic graphene-CMOS broadband UV to LWIR focal plane arrays. $2M over 24 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26BZ06-DV027 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. Phase I proposals will not be accepted. The Navy wants one detector that sees from 300 nanometers to 10,000 nanometers, built by putting graphene directly on a CMOS readout wafer instead of bonding a separate detector array to it. The award is $2,000,000 over 24 months, with a 20-page technical volume. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The argument for it is one sentence in the topic and it is a good one: you cannot detect something you cannot see. Today every wavelength band needs its own material system. Aluminum gallium nitride for ultraviolet, silicon-based devices for near infrared, indium gallium arsenide for short-wave infrared, mercury cadmium telluride and III-V strain-layer superlattices for mid-wave and long-wave infrared. Each is a separate supply chain, a separate cost structure, and a separate camera.
The incumbent approach also has specific, quantified limits. Indium gallium arsenide photodiode arrays for short-wave infrared are hybridized to a silicon readout integrated circuit by indium-bump flip-chip bonding. That is a mature approach but constrained by high unit cost, a limited domestic foundry base, pixel pitches that are difficult to scale below roughly 15 micrometers, array formats limited by hybridization yield, and a spectral response that typically cuts off near 1,700 nanometers.
Monolithic graphene on CMOS removes the bonding step, which is where most of that cost and yield penalty comes from. The topic is not asking you to prove the concept. Graphene-on-CMOS broadband imagers have been demonstrated in the literature, and the topic cites the 2017 Nature Photonics paper that did it. It is asking you to retire four specific risks that stand between those demonstrations and a fieldable naval imager.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26BZ06-DV027
Title: Monolithic Graphene-CMOS Broadband (UV-LWIR) Focal Plane Arrays for target detection in low-light conditions
Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, administered by the OUSW(R&E) SBIR Program
Solicitation: OSW-Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Direct to Phase II only. Phase I proposals will not be accepted
Base award: $2,000,000
Base period of performance: 24 months
Technical volume limit: 20 pages, structured as 5 pages of Phase I justification plus 15 pages of Phase II technical proposal, with the transition and commercialization strategy at no more than 2 pages counting toward the 15
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance
Component Technology Priority Areas: Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Microelectronics, Quantum Science, Space Technology, Advanced Materials
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic
Spectral requirement: broadband imaging from 300 nanometers to 10,000 nanometers
Architecture: wafer-scale, monolithically integrated graphene-on-CMOS image sensor
Operating condition: compact, low-power, uncooled focal plane array
Mobility goal: a substantial increase in integrated-device carrier mobility, with a goal approaching 10,000 square centimeters per volt-second
Phase II end state: a functioning broadband camera, characterized against Navy-relevant targets including passive low-light atmospheric nightglow imaging and imaging through obscurants such as fog and haze
Phase III path: a pilot qualification lot on the order of tens of wafers with defined yield and performance metrics
Technical and Business Assistance: up to $50,000 per Phase II project, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5
Cost volume: the DSIP online Cost Volume webform is required. No separate Excel template
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: graphene, focal plane array, monolithic CMOS integration, two-dimensional materials, broadband imaging, night vision, wafer-scale manufacturing, uncooled detector, quantum-dot and metal oxide nanocrystal sensitization
The Feasibility Bar, Which Is the First Thing to Check
This topic solicits Direct to Phase II proposals only. Phase I proposals will not be accepted. Offerors must document that Phase I feasibility has already been established through prior work.
What counts as acceptable evidence
Acceptable feasibility evidence includes the fabrication and measured characterization of graphene phototransistor or graphene-on-CMOS coupon test structures exhibiting broadband ultraviolet-through-long-wave-infrared photoresponse, and demonstration of die- or wafer-scale graphene integration with quantified device yield and uniformity.
Documentation may comprise technical reports, peer-reviewed publications, measured data, and design artifacts sufficient to substantiate the scientific, technical, and commercial merit required to enter Phase II.
Two distinct capability claims are named, and the word "includes" suggests they are examples rather than an exhaustive list. The first is device physics: coupon structures with measured broadband photoresponse across the band. The second is integration engineering: die- or wafer-scale graphene integration with quantified yield and uniformity. Notice that yield and uniformity must be quantified, not described. Numbers.
What you explicitly do not need yet
Requirements definition for the naval use case, detailed focal-plane-array performance modeling, and pixel-architecture and back-end-of-line integration-flow design need not be complete at proposal. These activities are carried into the Phase II Base effort.
This is a useful and unusually explicit allowance. Three substantial engineering activities are carved out of the feasibility requirement and assigned to the funded Base task. It tells you where to spend your five pages of justification: on measured graphene photoresponse and measured integration yield, not on system modeling or pixel design you have not been paid to do yet.
The restriction that will disqualify some proposers
The OSW-Reliance 21 Direct to Phase II guidelines impose a constraint stricter than most components apply.
Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the principal investigator. If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property, the proposer must either own the IP or must have obtained license rights to such technology prior to proposal submission, to enable it and its subcontractors to legally carry out the proposed work.
The Volume 2 instruction phrases it slightly differently, saying feasibility documentation must not be solely based on work performed under prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. The two formulations do not match, and the stricter one, "cannot be based upon or logically extend from," is the one to plan against.
This matters more on this topic than on most. Graphene photodetector and two-dimensional material integration work in the United States has been heavily federally funded, and a meaningful share of it through SBIR and STTR. Audit the provenance of every result you intend to cite. Internally funded work, privately funded work, non-SBIR government contract work, foundry-partnered development, and published academic work you performed yourself under other funding are all cleaner ground.
Note also the intellectual property requirement. Graphene transfer, encapsulation, and sensitization processes are frequently licensed from universities or partners. You must own the IP or hold license rights before you submit, and be able to show it.
And the consequence of falling short is not a low score: if the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.
What the Navy Is Actually Buying
The objective
Develop, fabricate, and demonstrate a wafer-scale, monolithically integrated graphene-on-CMOS image sensor that provides broadband imaging from 300 nanometers to 10,000 nanometers in a compact, low-power, uncooled focal plane array.
Every word in that sentence is a requirement. Wafer-scale, not die-scale. Monolithically integrated, not hybridized. 300 to 10,000 nanometers, which spans ultraviolet through long-wave infrared. Compact, low-power, and uncooled, which rules out the cryogenic cooling that mercury cadmium telluride and superlattice detectors typically need and is a large part of the size, weight, power, and cost argument.
The operational problem
The Navy continues to field multiple seeker technologies to detect, identify, and engage targets in multi-domain operations through obscurants. However, you cannot detect something you cannot see. Each wavelength range provides unique opportunity to glean information.
Currently, for each wavelength range a distinct material system technology is required: aluminum gallium nitride for ultraviolet, analog devices for near infrared, indium gallium arsenide for short-wave infrared, mercury cadmium telluride and III-V strain-layer superlattice detectors for mid-wave and long-wave infrared.
The incumbent's specific limits
Indium gallium arsenide photodiode arrays for short-wave infrared are hybridized to a silicon readout integrated circuit by indium-bump flip-chip bonding. This is a mature approach but constrained by five things: high unit cost, a limited domestic foundry base, pixel pitches that are difficult to scale below roughly 15 micrometers, array formats limited by hybridization yield, and a spectral response that typically cuts off near 1,700 nanometers.
These constraints limit the resolution, affordability, and proliferation of imagers across size, weight, power, and cost constrained platforms.
Those five constraints are your value proposition checklist. A strong proposal states, one by one, what monolithic graphene-on-CMOS does to each: what the unit cost becomes at volume, why a CMOS foundry base is broader than a compound semiconductor one, what pixel pitch you can reach without hybridization, what array format becomes possible when yield is not bounded by bump bonding, and how far past 1,700 nanometers you actually get.
A note on the source text
The paragraph describing incumbent technology is broken in the source document. The sentence beginning "In addition, the incumbent detector technologies, for example indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs)" ends abruptly, the four risk items are inserted, and then the sentence resumes several lines later with "photodiode arrays for SWIR are hybridized to a silicon read-out integrated circuit (ROIC) by indium-bump flip-chip bonding."
Reassembled, it reads as a single statement about InGaAs photodiode arrays being flip-chip bonded to a silicon ROIC. This page presents it in that reconstructed order because that is plainly the intended meaning. Nothing about the requirement changes, but be aware that the topic text as published is out of sequence, and if you quote it, quote it carefully.
The Four Risks to Retire
This is the heart of the topic. It seeks to retire the principal risks that stand between existing demonstrations and a fieldable naval imager. Four are named, and they make a natural outline for your technical proposal.
Risk one: graphene material quality and uniformity at wafer scale
Carrier mobility, Dirac-point control, low hysteresis, and low defect density, for example Raman D-to-G intensity ratio, held tight across full wafers and lot to lot.
Four material metrics and a named measurement for the fourth. "Held tight across full wafers and lot to lot" is the operative phrase: this is a statistical process control requirement, not a best-coupon requirement. Report distributions, not champions.
Dirac-point control and low hysteresis deserve particular attention because they are what make a graphene device stable enough to calibrate. A focal plane whose pixels drift in threshold cannot hold a flat field.
Risk two: back-end-of-line integration on CMOS
Repeatable, high-yield BEOL transfer, encapsulation, patterning, and contacting of graphene on CMOS read-out wafers.
Four process steps, all constrained by the fact that they happen after the CMOS is built. BEOL means low thermal budget, no damage to underlying metal and dielectric layers, and compatibility with a foundry's process flow. Graphene grown at high temperature elsewhere and transferred is the usual answer, and transfer at wafer scale with high yield is the hardest single manufacturing problem in this topic. The topic cites Neumaier, Pindl, and Lemme on integrating graphene into semiconductor fabrication lines, which is exactly this problem.
Risk three: absorber sensitization and passivation
Absorber sensitization and passivation that deliver uniform, stable, low-noise broadband response.
Graphene alone absorbs only a few percent of incident light, so a broadband imager needs a sensitizer that absorbs and transfers charge to the graphene channel. The keywords name the candidates: quantum-dot and metal oxide nanocrystal sensitization. Uniformity, stability, and low noise are the three qualities demanded, and stability is the one that usually fails, since colloidal quantum dot films are prone to drift and degradation.
Note that getting to 10,000 nanometers is the hardest part of the spectral requirement. Quantum dot sensitization comfortably covers visible through short-wave infrared. Long-wave infrared response at 10 micrometers from an uncooled graphene device is a much more demanding claim, and it likely involves a different physical mechanism than the short-wave case. Address the long-wave end explicitly rather than presenting a single sensitization story for the whole band.
Risk four: the focal plane array itself
An imaging focal plane array meeting the noise-equivalent irradiance, dynamic range, frame rate, operability, and stability required for naval intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
Five system metrics. Note "operability," which in focal plane array practice means the fraction of pixels meeting specification, and it is where monolithic integration should beat hybridization. If your yield story is good, operability is where you show it numerically.
The stated performance target
Proposers should target a substantial increase in integrated-device carrier mobility, with a goal approaching 10,000 square centimeters per volt-second, tight pixel-to-pixel uniformity, and a manufacturable process flow with a clear path to pilot-scale production.
Note "integrated-device carrier mobility." Not mobility measured on a pristine transferred graphene film, but mobility in the finished device after transfer, encapsulation, patterning, and contacting. That is a considerably harder number, and stating your current integrated-device mobility honestly, with the measurement conditions, is more persuasive than citing a film-level figure.
Phase II Structure and Requirements
Design, fabricate, and deliver a prototype monolithic graphene-CMOS broadband and short-wave infrared focal plane array, maturing the technology from documented feasibility through a demonstrated camera. The effort is organized into a Base task that completes design and risk reduction and a Prototype task that builds and characterizes the imager.
Base task: design and risk reduction
Define imager requirements against a representative naval ISR use case.
Develop and validate focal plane array performance models covering spectral response, responsivity, noise-equivalent irradiance, dynamic range, and operability.
Complete the pixel-architecture and back-end-of-line integration-flow design for a foundry CMOS readout integrated circuit.
Fabricate and characterize coupon-level and small-array test structures to confirm material quality, integration yield, and broadband photoresponse.
Finalize the wafer-scale process definition.
Note "for a foundry CMOS ROIC." Your integration flow has to target a real foundry process, which means a foundry relationship and a process design kit. If you already have one, name it early. If you do not, getting one is a Base task dependency you do not fully control.
Prototype task: fabrication and demonstration
Mature the wafer-scale process, meaning graphene growth and transfer, encapsulation, patterning, contacting, and absorber sensitization, to demonstrate high device yield and pixel-to-pixel uniformity across full wafers.
Build and demonstrate a functioning broadband camera, meaning sensor plus read-out and minimal supporting electronics and optics.
Characterize spectral response, responsivity, noise-equivalent irradiance, dynamic range, frame rate, operability, fixed-pattern noise, and stability against Navy-relevant targets, including passive low-light atmospheric nightglow imaging and imaging through obscurants such as fog and haze.
Conduct an initial environmental and reliability assessment.
The two named demonstration scenarios
Passive low-light imaging under atmospheric nightglow, and imaging through obscurants such as fog and haze. These are not generic performance claims and they should drive your test planning and your budget.
Atmospheric nightglow is a specific and demanding illumination condition. The night sky radiates in the near infrared and short-wave infrared, notably from hydroxyl emission bands, at levels well below what a visible sensor can use. Passive imaging by nightglow is the operational argument for short-wave infrared night vision, and demonstrating it requires either a genuinely dark field site on a moonless night or a calibrated low-light chamber that reproduces the spectral distribution. Both are real costs and real schedule.
Obscurant penetration through fog and haze needs either a fog chamber or opportunistic field testing, and quantifying it requires a measured obscurant condition rather than a qualitative before-and-after image. Say how you will measure the obscurant.
Deliverables
Validated performance models and final focal plane array design.
Prototype focal plane arrays and cameras.
The documented wafer-scale process flow with measured yield and uniformity.
A full test and evaluation data package.
A Phase III transition and manufacturing plan, including a path to a pilot qualification lot on the order of tens of wafers with defined yield and performance metrics.
That last item is the most commercially meaningful. "Tens of wafers with defined yield and performance metrics" is a manufacturing qualification plan, not a research roadmap. It tells you the Navy is thinking about a production path and expects you to price and schedule one.
A terminology note
The objective and the title specify 300 to 10,000 nanometers, which is ultraviolet through long-wave infrared. The Phase II section repeatedly says "broadband and short-wave infrared," and the Phase III section refers to "broadband and short-wave infrared imaging." The Phase II characterization scenarios, nightglow and obscurant penetration, are both short-wave infrared applications.
The most reasonable reading is that the full 300 to 10,000 nanometer band is the objective and the short-wave infrared portion is the near-term naval application driving the demonstration. Plan to demonstrate broadband response, as the feasibility evidence requires, while designing the camera demonstration around the short-wave infrared use cases the topic actually names. If the discrepancy affects your architecture choices, raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes on October 7.
Phase III Dual Use
Transition the technology to naval and joint platforms that require affordable, compact, broadband and short-wave infrared imaging: unmanned aerial, surface, and undersea vehicles; handheld, weapon-mounted, and helmet-mounted night-vision and threat-warning systems; shipboard situational-awareness and navigation suites; and distributed or expendable sensor nodes. Also to hyperspectral and multispectral payloads for camouflage and decoy discrimination and littoral mine countermeasures.
Establish and qualify a domestic, CMOS-foundry-based manufacturing capability for monolithic two-dimensional material focal plane arrays.
The same platform carries broad commercial dual-use value in automotive and autonomous-vehicle vision, seeing through fog, smoke, and darkness; machine vision and semiconductor and solar wafer inspection; agricultural and food-quality sorting; medical and biometric imaging; and environmental and industrial process monitoring, supporting an economically sustainable supply base.
Two things worth pulling out. First, "establish and qualify a domestic, CMOS-foundry-based manufacturing capability" is a supply chain objective, not just a product objective. The topic named a limited domestic foundry base as one of the incumbent's five constraints, and domestic manufacturability is part of what is being bought. Say something concrete about which domestic foundry path you would use.
Second, automotive short-wave infrared vision is the largest commercial market on that list by an order of magnitude, and it is driven by exactly the cost and pixel pitch constraints the topic identifies. If your cost model closes for automotive volumes, that is the strongest possible commercialization argument, and it also happens to be the market that would fund the pilot line the Navy wants.
Funding, Cost Structure, and OSW-Reliance 21 Mechanics
The award
$2,000,000 over 24 months.
Be realistic about scope against that budget. Wafer-scale process development, a foundry CMOS run, camera integration, and a characterization campaign including low-light and obscurant testing is a lot for two million dollars over two years. Existing foundry relationships, existing test infrastructure, and existing graphene transfer capability are worth more here than headcount.
Cost volume mechanics
OSW-Reliance 21 requires the use of the DSIP online Cost Volume webform. No separate Excel template is required. If supplementary cost detail is desired, it may be uploaded as a PDF attachment within Volume 3.
A detailed Phase II cost volume must be submitted online in the proper format shown in the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA. Provide enough information to allow evaluators to assess your plans to use the requested funds.
Justify items of equipment to be purchased, including Government Furnished Equipment. All requirements for government furnished equipment or other assets, and associated costs, must be determined and agreed to during Phase II contract negotiations. If you need government-furnished readout wafers, test articles, or facility access, say so.
Percentage of Work, with no exceptions
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW solicitation. OSW-Reliance 21 will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements.
This is a live risk on this topic. A monolithic graphene-CMOS effort naturally involves a CMOS foundry, possibly a graphene supplier, possibly a university for materials characterization, and possibly a camera integrator. Model your Percentage of Work before you assemble that team, because a plan that pushes too much work outside your firm cannot be negotiated back into compliance.
Technical and Business Assistance
Phase II awardees may request up to $50,000 per Phase II project. TABA funding is in addition to the Phase II cost ceiling 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.
Fifty thousand dollars is at the high end across components in this cycle. For this topic, the strongest uses are manufacturing and foundry transition consulting, given that the Phase III deliverable is a pilot qualification plan, and intellectual property counsel, since graphene transfer and sensitization processes are commonly licensed.
The 20-page structure
Volume 2 is 20 pages maximum, divided into Part 1, Phase I Justification, at 5 pages maximum, and Part 2, Phase II Technical Proposal, at 15 pages maximum. Within the 15 pages, the Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy is not to exceed 2 pages and counts toward the limit.
All figures, tables, charts, and references must be included within the page count. Any pages past the limit will not be considered, and no separate appendices will be evaluated.
So: 5 pages of feasibility, 13 pages of technical proposal, 2 pages of commercialization. For a topic with four named risks, a two-task program, a foundry integration flow, and a characterization campaign, that is tight. Plan the page budget before you draft.
What the Phase II technical proposal must contain
The Phase II Technical Objectives and Approach section must list specific technical objectives and provide a detailed technical approach, and include these named subsections.
Phase II Work Plan, with an explicit, detailed description of the approach, indicating what is planned, how and where the work will be carried out, a schedule of major events, and the final product to be developed.
Related Work, describing significant activities directly related to the effort including those of the Principal Investigator, the firm, consultants, or others, and demonstrating awareness of the state of the art.
Relationship with Future Research or Research and Development, stating anticipated results and the significance of the Phase II effort as a foundation for Phase III.
Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy, at no more than 2 pages counting toward the 15-page limit, addressing five specific questions: what is the first product this technology will go into; who will be your customers and what is your estimate of the market size; how much funding will you need to bring the technology to market and how will you raise those funds; does your company contain marketing expertise and if not how do you intend to bring it in; and who are your competitors and what is your price or quality advantage.
Key Personnel, including the Principal Investigator, with directly related education, experience, and relevant publications, and a concise resume of the PI.
Facilities and Equipment, describing available instrumentation and physical facilities, justifying equipment purchases including Government Furnished Equipment, and stating whether facilities meet federal, state, and local environmental laws across the named groupings.
Consultants, describing in detail any involvement of universities, academic institutions, or other consultants and identifying them in the Cost Volume.
Answer the five commercialization questions as five distinct answers. They are enumerated and a reviewer will look for each one.
The Company Commercialization Report, and a contradiction
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required.
The Direct to Phase II section of this release states that the information contained in the CCR will not be considered by "SCO" during proposal evaluations. The Phase I section of the same document states that CCR information will be considered by OSW-Reliance 21 during proposal evaluations.
The two statements conflict, and the reference to SCO appears to be residual text from another organization's instructions, which weakens the DP2 statement as authority. Complete the CCR carefully and completely, and if the answer materially affects your proposal, raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A.
Note that the commercialization strategy in Volume 2 is separate from the CCR. The strategy addresses how you propose to commercialize this research; the CCR covers what you have done to commercialize the results of past Phase II awards.
Supporting documents that are optional but encouraged
Letters of Support from prospective transition stakeholders within DEVCOM C5ISR Center, PAE Maneuver Ground, PAE Maneuver Air, CPE Autonomy, the Naval Research Laboratory, or the Air Force Research Laboratory.
A Data Management Plan addressing provenance, licensing, and protection of pre-training data and government-furnished data.
For this topic the Naval Research Laboratory is the most natural fit, since the topic is written around naval seekers and naval ISR. NRL is also among the named evaluating organizations. DEVCOM C5ISR Center is relevant for the handheld and weapon-mounted night vision applications, and CPE Autonomy for the unmanned platform cases.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation.
Government technical evaluators from Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army DEVCOM Army Research Lab, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory may participate in the evaluation. Non-government support contractors may assist in administrative handling of proposals if the individual has signed a non-disclosure agreement, and they will not participate in selection decisions.
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, which is approximately January 19, 2027. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator listed on the proposal.
Protests after award should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.SBIR-STTR-Protest@mail.mil.
Tri-service coordination and the TPOC question
This topic is of joint interest to the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force and Space Force through the organizations named above. Proposers are strongly encouraged to engage the Technical Point of Contact listed in the topic description during the pre-release period to discuss technical scope and transition opportunities across the Services.
No Technical Point of Contact appears in the DV027 topic description, or in any of the four topic descriptions in this release. Use DSIP Topic Q&A, and send administrative questions to osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.communities-of-interest@mail.mil.
Note that Phase II efforts under this release shall include a transition plan addressing at least two of the three Services. The topic is written from a Navy perspective, but its Phase III list already spans naval platforms, handheld and helmet-mounted night vision, and space-adjacent applications, so a two-service transition case is available. Write it explicitly rather than assuming it is obvious.
Classification
Classified proposals are not accepted. Including classified data in an unclassified proposal may be grounds for the Agency to determine the proposal non-responsive and not evaluate it.
In some instances, work being performed on Phase II contracts will require security clearances. If a Phase II contract requires classified work, the offeror must have a facility clearance and appropriate personnel clearances.
Note that although this topic carries no ITAR restriction paragraph, infrared focal plane array technology is frequently export controlled in practice, and specific seeker performance requirements are often classified. Keep the unclassified proposal unclassified and be careful about claims regarding specific naval seeker systems.
The References
Only three, and together they define the topic's premise almost exactly.
Goossens, Navickaite, Monasterio, and colleagues, "Broadband image sensor array based on graphene-CMOS integration," Nature Photonics 11, 366 to 371, 2017. This is the demonstration the topic is building on: a broadband image sensor array made by integrating graphene with CMOS. Read it as the baseline, and be explicit about what your work adds, since the topic's whole framing is that demonstrations exist and the remaining risks are manufacturability and performance at naval requirements.
Neumaier, Pindl, and Lemme, "Integrating graphene into semiconductor fabrication lines," Nature Materials 18, 525 to 529, 2019. This is risk two, back-end-of-line integration, stated as a review. If your BEOL transfer and patterning approach does not engage with the issues this paper raises, a reviewer will notice.
Koppens, Mueller, Avouris, and colleagues, "Photodetectors based on graphene, other two-dimensional materials and hybrid systems," Nature Nanotechnology 9, 780 to 793, 2014. This is the device physics foundation, including the sensitized and hybrid architectures that risk three concerns.
Three references, three of the four risks. The fourth risk, focal plane array system performance against naval ISR requirements, has no cited reference, which is consistent with it being the part no one has published because no one has built it. That is also where your proposal has the most room to differentiate.
Bring additional literature yourself, particularly on colloidal quantum dot and metal oxide nanocrystal sensitization stability, since the keywords name those approaches while the reference list does not cover them, and stability is the property most likely to be questioned.
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 SBIR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027
Period of performance: 24 months from award
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Audit the funding provenance of every feasibility result you intend to cite, because work based upon or logically extending from prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work is excluded and failing the feasibility bar means the proposal is not evaluated. Confirm the work was substantially performed by your firm or your PI. Resolve intellectual property ownership or licensing for graphene transfer, encapsulation, and sensitization processes, since license rights must be in place before submission. Pull your measured integrated-device carrier mobility, Dirac-point distribution, hysteresis, and Raman D-to-G data, and be ready to present them as distributions across wafers and lots rather than best-coupon values. Quantify your die- or wafer-scale integration yield and uniformity. Secure or confirm your foundry CMOS readout relationship and process design kit access, since the Base task requires a BEOL integration flow for a foundry ROIC. Identify your low-light and obscurant test approach, including whether you need a dark field site, a calibrated low-light chamber, or a fog chamber. Model your Percentage of Work before finalizing foundry, supplier, university, and integrator arrangements. Approach the Naval Research Laboratory and other named organizations about letters of support. Confirm SAM registration and your CMMC Level 1 posture.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 5-page Phase I justification around measured broadband photoresponse on coupon or graphene-on-CMOS structures and quantified die- or wafer-scale integration yield and uniformity, remembering that requirements definition, FPA modeling, and pixel and BEOL design are explicitly not required at proposal. Draft the 13-page technical proposal organized around the four named risks and the Base and Prototype task structure. Address the long-wave infrared end of the band explicitly rather than extrapolating a short-wave sensitization story. Draft the 2-page commercialization strategy answering all five enumerated questions. Draft the 3,000 character cover sheet abstract and the 3,000 character anticipated benefits and commercial applications discussion.
October 6 through October 7. Submit questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes. Worth asking: the broadband versus short-wave infrared scope question if it affects your architecture, the CCR evaluation discrepancy, and whether any government-furnished readout wafers or test support are available.
October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the DSIP online webform following the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA. Price the foundry CMOS run, graphene growth and transfer at wafer scale, encapsulation and patterning, sensitizer deposition, camera integration electronics and optics, the characterization campaign including nightglow and obscurant testing, and the environmental and reliability assessment. Justify equipment purchases and identify any Government Furnished Equipment needs, remembering those are settled in contract negotiations. Add supplementary cost detail as a Volume 3 PDF if useful. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form and place it in Volume 5.
October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, carefully. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form, letters of support, and a Data Management Plan if applicable. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering that Volume 7 must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded to Volume 5. Run compliance: 5 plus 15 pages with the 2-page commercialization strategy inside the 15, all figures, tables, charts, and references counted inside, no appendices, unclassified or CUI only.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-DV027?
OSW26BZ06-DV027 is a Direct to Phase II SBIR topic titled "Monolithic Graphene-CMOS Broadband (UV-LWIR) Focal Plane Arrays for target detection in low-light conditions," released under the Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop, fabricate, and demonstrate a wafer-scale, monolithically integrated graphene-on-CMOS image sensor providing broadband imaging from 300 nanometers to 10,000 nanometers in a compact, low-power, uncooled focal plane array.
How much funding is available?
$2,000,000 over 24 months. Phase II awardees may also request up to $50,000 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.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal?
No. This topic solicits Direct to Phase II proposals only, and Phase I proposals will not be accepted.
What feasibility evidence does the topic accept?
Fabrication and measured characterization of graphene phototransistor or graphene-on-CMOS coupon test structures exhibiting broadband ultraviolet-through-long-wave-infrared photoresponse, and demonstration of die- or wafer-scale graphene integration with quantified device yield and uniformity. Documentation may comprise technical reports, peer-reviewed publications, measured data, and design artifacts.
What do I not need to have done yet?
Requirements definition for the naval use case, detailed focal plane array performance modeling, and pixel-architecture and back-end-of-line integration-flow design need not be complete at proposal. Those activities are carried into the funded Phase II Base effort.
Can my feasibility evidence come from a prior SBIR award?
No. The OSW-Reliance 21 Direct to Phase II guidelines state that feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and that the work must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. The Volume 2 instruction uses the weaker phrasing "must not be solely based on"; plan against the stricter reading. This matters here because graphene photodetector work in the United States has been heavily SBIR funded.
What if my feasibility documentation falls short?
If the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.
Do I need to own the intellectual property?
Yes, or hold license rights. If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property, the proposer must either own the IP or have obtained license rights prior to proposal submission, sufficient to enable it and its subcontractors to legally carry out the proposed work. Graphene transfer, encapsulation, and sensitization processes are commonly licensed, so resolve this before submitting.
What is the spectral requirement?
Broadband imaging from 300 nanometers to 10,000 nanometers, spanning ultraviolet through long-wave infrared, in an uncooled focal plane array.
Why is monolithic integration better than the current approach?
The incumbent approach bonds InGaAs photodiode arrays to a silicon readout integrated circuit by indium-bump flip-chip bonding. The topic names five resulting constraints: high unit cost, a limited domestic foundry base, pixel pitches difficult to scale below roughly 15 micrometers, array formats limited by hybridization yield, and spectral response typically cutting off near 1,700 nanometers. Monolithic integration removes the bonding step that drives most of that.
What are the four risks the topic wants retired?
Graphene material quality and uniformity at wafer scale, covering carrier mobility, Dirac-point control, low hysteresis, and low defect density such as Raman D-to-G ratio, held tight across full wafers and lot to lot. Repeatable, high-yield back-end-of-line transfer, encapsulation, patterning, and contacting of graphene on CMOS readout wafers. Absorber sensitization and passivation delivering uniform, stable, low-noise broadband response. And a focal plane array meeting the noise-equivalent irradiance, dynamic range, frame rate, operability, and stability required for naval ISR.
What mobility should I target?
A substantial increase in integrated-device carrier mobility, with a goal approaching 10,000 square centimeters per volt-second. Note "integrated-device," meaning mobility in the finished device after transfer, encapsulation, patterning, and contacting, not mobility measured on a pristine film.
How is Phase II structured?
Into a Base task and a Prototype task. The Base task defines imager requirements against a representative naval ISR use case, develops and validates FPA performance models, completes the pixel-architecture and BEOL integration-flow design for a foundry CMOS ROIC, fabricates and characterizes coupon and small-array test structures, and finalizes the wafer-scale process definition. The Prototype task matures the wafer-scale process for high yield and uniformity across full wafers, builds and demonstrates a functioning broadband camera, characterizes it against Navy-relevant targets, and conducts an initial environmental and reliability assessment.
What demonstration scenarios are required?
Characterization against Navy-relevant targets including passive low-light imaging under atmospheric nightglow and imaging through obscurants such as fog and haze. Both require real test infrastructure, either a dark field site or a calibrated low-light chamber, and either a fog chamber or measured field conditions.
What are the Phase II deliverables?
Validated performance models and final FPA design; prototype focal plane arrays and cameras; the documented wafer-scale process flow with measured yield and uniformity; a full test and evaluation data package; and a Phase III transition and manufacturing plan including a path to a pilot qualification lot on the order of tens of wafers with defined yield and performance metrics.
Is the requirement full ultraviolet to long-wave infrared, or short-wave infrared?
The title and objective specify 300 to 10,000 nanometers. The Phase II and Phase III sections repeatedly say "broadband and short-wave infrared," and both named demonstration scenarios are short-wave infrared applications. The reasonable reading is that the full band is the objective while short-wave infrared is the near-term naval application driving the demonstration. Raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A if it affects your architecture.
How long can my technical volume be?
Twenty pages maximum, divided into Part 1 Phase I Justification at 5 pages maximum and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal at 15 pages maximum. The Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy is limited to 2 pages and counts toward the 15. All figures, tables, charts, and references count inside the limits, and no separate appendices will be evaluated.
What must the commercialization strategy address?
Five specific questions. What is the first product this technology will go into. Who will be your customers and what is your estimate of the market size. How much funding will you need to bring the technology to market and how will you raise those funds. Does your company contain marketing expertise and if not how do you intend to bring it in. Who are your competitors and what is your price or quality advantage over them.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
No topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on DV027, unlike NV024 and DV025 in the same release. Note that infrared focal plane array technology is frequently export controlled in practice, and the release's Additional Information section still addresses foreign national disclosure, so treat export control as a live consideration in your business planning.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.
What cost volume format do I use?
The DSIP online Cost Volume webform. OSW-Reliance 21 does not require a separate Excel template. Supplementary cost detail may be uploaded as a PDF attachment within Volume 3. Follow the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. OSW-Reliance 21 will not accept any deviation to the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW solicitation. This is a real risk on a topic that naturally involves a CMOS foundry, a graphene supplier, a university, and possibly a camera integrator. Model your POW before assembling the team.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
The document conflicts with itself. The Direct to Phase II section states that CCR information will not be considered by "SCO," which appears to be residual text from another organization's instructions. The Phase I section of the same document states that CCR information will be considered by OSW-Reliance 21 during proposal evaluations. Complete it carefully either way and raise the discrepancy through DSIP Topic Q&A if it matters.
How do I request TABA?
Using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, included in Volume 5 of the DSIP submission. OSW will not accept TABA requests that do not use the form or that are not submitted in Volume 5. Phase II is up to $50,000 per project, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee.
What optional documents help?
Letters of support from prospective transition stakeholders within DEVCOM C5ISR Center, PAE Maneuver Ground, PAE Maneuver Air, CPE Autonomy, the Naval Research Laboratory, or the Air Force Research Laboratory. For this topic the Naval Research Laboratory is the most natural fit, and NRL is also among the named evaluating organizations. A Data Management Plan addressing provenance, licensing, and protection of pre-training and government-furnished data is also encouraged.
Who evaluates my proposal?
Government technical evaluators from Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army DEVCOM Army Research Lab, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory may participate. Non-government support contractors may assist with administrative handling under a non-disclosure agreement but do not participate in selection decisions.
When will I hear back?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, which is approximately January 19, 2027. Notifications go through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator listed on the proposal.
Does Phase II require a multi-service transition plan?
Yes. Phase II efforts under this release shall include a transition plan addressing at least two of the three Services. Phase II contracting actions are anticipated to be firm-fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.
What is the commercial market?
Automotive and autonomous-vehicle vision through fog, smoke, and darkness; machine vision and semiconductor and solar wafer inspection; agricultural and food-quality sorting; medical and biometric imaging; and environmental and industrial process monitoring. Automotive short-wave infrared vision is the largest of these and is driven by the same cost and pixel pitch constraints the topic identifies.
Who is the technical point of contact?
The release strongly encourages engaging the Technical Point of Contact listed in the topic description during pre-release, but no TPOC appears in the DV027 description or in any of the four topic descriptions in this release. Use DSIP Topic Q&A, and send administrative questions to osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.communities-of-interest@mail.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Audit your feasibility provenance first, before anything else. Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and a proposal that fails the feasibility bar is not evaluated at all. Graphene photodetector development in the United States is heavily SBIR-funded, so this is a real risk for exactly the companies most likely to bid. Trace every result. Internally funded work, privately funded work, non-SBIR government contract work, foundry-partnered development, and your own published academic work under other funding are all cleaner.
Report distributions, not champion devices. The first named risk is material quality and uniformity "held tight across full wafers and lot to lot." That is a statistical process control claim. Give mobility, Dirac point, hysteresis, and Raman D-to-G as distributions with wafer maps and lot-to-lot comparison. A single spectacular coupon answers a question the topic did not ask.
Quote integrated-device mobility, honestly. The goal approaching 10,000 square centimeters per volt-second is specified for the integrated device, after transfer, encapsulation, patterning, and contacting. Citing a film-level number and hoping no one notices is the fastest way to lose credibility with a reviewer who works on this. State your current integrated-device value, the measurement conditions, and your path to the goal.
Treat wafer-scale BEOL transfer as the central manufacturing problem. It is the second named risk and it is the thing that has kept graphene out of production for a decade. The topic cites Neumaier, Pindl, and Lemme specifically on integrating graphene into semiconductor fabrication lines. Engage with that paper's issues directly, and give measured yield across full wafers rather than a process description.
Address the long-wave infrared end separately. Quantum dot sensitization gets you visible through short-wave infrared comfortably. Uncooled response at 10 micrometers is a different physical problem and a much bigger claim. A proposal that presents one sensitization story for 300 to 10,000 nanometers will read as not having thought it through. Say what mechanism carries the long-wave end, or be explicit about how far you actually reach and why that still meets the naval need.
Make sensitizer stability a first-class topic. Uniform, stable, and low-noise are the three qualities demanded of the absorber, and stability is where colloidal quantum dot and nanocrystal films usually fail. The reference list does not cover sensitization, so bring that literature yourself and address photodegradation, ambient sensitivity, encapsulation, and drift over the operating life.
Name your foundry. The Base task requires completing the BEOL integration flow for a foundry CMOS readout integrated circuit, and Phase III asks you to establish and qualify a domestic CMOS-foundry-based manufacturing capability. An existing foundry relationship with process design kit access is worth more to this proposal than almost any technical claim. If you have one, put it on page one. If you do not, explain how you get one and when.
Answer the five incumbent constraints one at a time. High unit cost, limited domestic foundry base, pixel pitch below 15 micrometers, array format limited by hybridization yield, and the 1,700 nanometer cutoff. Walk each and state your number. That is the clearest possible articulation of why monolithic integration is worth funding, and it uses the Navy's own framing.
Lead with operability. It is one of the five system metrics and it is exactly where monolithic integration should beat hybridization, because you are not limited by bump-bond yield. If your yield numbers are good, operability is where you convert a process advantage into a system advantage a focal plane engineer will recognize immediately.
Budget the demonstration campaign properly. Atmospheric nightglow imaging needs a genuinely dark site on a moonless night or a calibrated low-light chamber with the right spectral distribution. Obscurant testing needs a fog chamber or measured field conditions. Both are named requirements, both cost money and schedule, and both are easy to underprice. Say how you will measure the obscurant condition rather than showing a qualitative image pair.
Price the pilot lot plan as a deliverable. The Phase III transition and manufacturing plan must include a path to a pilot qualification lot on the order of tens of wafers with defined yield and performance metrics. That is manufacturing engineering, not a roadmap slide. It is also the deliverable that makes this program credible to a program office.
Lead the commercialization strategy with automotive. Short-wave infrared automotive vision is the largest market on the topic's own list and it is bounded by the same cost and pixel pitch limits the topic identifies. A cost model that closes at automotive volumes is also the thing that funds the domestic pilot line the Navy wants, which makes the defense and commercial cases mutually reinforcing rather than parallel.
Get a Naval Research Laboratory letter. The topic is written around naval seekers and naval ISR, NRL is on the encouraged letters list, and NRL is among the named evaluating organizations. It is the highest-leverage optional document here.
Model Percentage of Work before you build the team. A foundry, a graphene supplier, a university, and a camera integrator is a natural team for this work and a fast route to a POW violation that no deviation will fix.
Plan the page budget before drafting. Five pages of feasibility, thirteen of technical proposal, two of commercialization, everything counted inside, no appendices. Four risks, two tasks, a foundry integration flow, and a characterization campaign do not fit unless you decide the allocation up front.
OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR OSW26BZ06-NV026: Defect Metrology and Charge Trapping Dynamics in Transfer-Doped Diamond Transistors
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $300k
Description: Complete guide to OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR Phase I topic OSW26BZ06-NV026, defect metrology for charge trapping in hydrogen-terminated diamond transistors. $314K over 6 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26BZ06-NV026 is a Phase I SBIR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. Hydrogen-terminated diamond transistors could be a step change in high-frequency, high-power RF electronics, but they suffer from current collapse and knee walkout, and nobody has the right instrument to find out why. This topic funds building that instrument. The award is $314,363 over 6 months, with a 20-page technical volume. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
Note the period of performance. Six months is the shortest Phase I in this release and unusually short for a metrology development effort, which shapes what you can credibly promise.
The gap is stated plainly. Commercial device-characterization tools, built primarily for silicon or traditional compound semiconductor materials, lack the specialized physics and sensitivity required to isolate and characterize traps in ultra-wide bandgap diamond devices. And because hydrogen-terminated diamond relies on surface-channel p-type conduction, the topic warns that validation of new techniques cannot necessarily rely on prior validation from conventional n-type materials such as gallium nitride, gallium oxide, or aluminum nitride, because the fundamentally different physical mechanisms and device architectures may not be acceptable surrogates.
The most important practical fact about this topic: the Government supplies the devices. All primary experimental validations and core metrology capability demonstrations must be performed on Government-provided hydrogen-terminated diamond material and RF transistor devices, furnished as Government Furnished Property. That is true in Phase I as well as Phase II. Your program schedule depends on someone else's delivery.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26BZ06-NV026
Title: Defect Metrology and Charge Trapping Dynamics in Transfer-Doped Diamond Transistors
Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, administered by the OUSW(R&E) SBIR Program
Solicitation: OSW-Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Phase I
Base award: $314,363
Base period of performance: 6 months, the shortest in this release
Technical volume limit: 20 pages, with all figures, tables, charts, and references counted inside that limit
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Microelectronics
Component Technology Priority Areas: Microelectronics, Quantum Science
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, unlike NV024 and DV025 in the same release. Note that the release's Additional Information section still refers to foreign national disclosure "per the ITAR notice in the topic description," and the Phase III section notes that some technologies evaluated fall under ITAR or Commerce Control List export controls
Government Furnished Property: the Government will provide hydrogen-terminated diamond material and RF transistor devices, and representative diamond test structures in Phase I
Target defects: charge traps causing current collapse and knee walkout in surface-channel diamond transistors
Required outputs from the technique: trap density, energy levels, physical location within the device stack, and time constants
Candidate trap locations: the gate dielectric, the dielectric-to-diamond interface, the diamond epitaxial layer, the epitaxial-to-substrate interface, and the diamond bulk substrate
Method constraint: non-destructive
Phase II end state: the complete, operational prototype measurement system, hardware and software, is delivered to the Government, with an SOP manual and hands-on training
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
Cost volume: the DSIP online Cost Volume webform is required. No separate Excel template
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: diamond transistors, charge trapping, current collapse, semiconductor metrology, ultra-wide bandgap, RF power electronics, defect dynamics, surface-channel devices, hydrogen-terminated diamond
The Objective, Read Carefully
Develop an innovative, non-destructive diamond semiconductor defect metrology technique and laboratory-scale apparatus to identify, quantify, determine location in the device, and energetically characterize charge traps that cause current collapse in surface-channel diamond transistors.
Four verbs, and each is a separate capability your instrument must have. Identify, meaning distinguish one trap population from another. Quantify, meaning produce a density. Determine location in the device, meaning attribute a trap to a specific layer or interface. Energetically characterize, meaning extract an energy level. The description adds a fifth quantity, time constants.
"Non-destructive" is a constraint, not a preference, and it rules out approaches that require sectioning, delayering, or otherwise consuming the device. That matters because the devices are Government Furnished Property in limited supply and because a metrology tool that destroys the part cannot be used for production screening, which is the eventual commercial application.
"Laboratory-scale apparatus" sets the form factor expectation. You are building a benchtop instrument, not a fab tool.
Why This Problem Exists
The promise
Hydrogen-terminated, meaning surface-channel, diamond transistors hold great promise for next-generation, high-frequency, high-power RF electronics and advanced communications due to diamond's high breakdown field and superior thermal conductivity.
The obstacle
Wide-scale operational deployment is constrained by current collapse and knee walkout, phenomena where transient charges trapped at defect sites in the semiconductor prevent the transistor from operating at its full, high-frequency RF power.
Both terms are worth knowing precisely, because the topic uses them as the observable behavior your technique must explain. Current collapse is the reduction in drain current under RF or pulsed operation relative to DC characteristics, caused by trapped charge modulating the channel. Knee walkout is the shift of the knee voltage, the boundary between the linear and saturation regions, toward higher drain voltage under stress, which reduces the usable voltage swing and therefore the achievable RF power. Both are classic trapping signatures familiar from gallium nitride, and both cost you the power density that made the wide bandgap material attractive in the first place.
Why existing tools fail
Commercial device-characterization tools, built primarily for silicon or traditional compound semiconductor materials, lack the specialized physics and sensitivity required to isolate and characterize traps in ultra-wide bandgap diamond devices.
Standard capacitance-voltage or simple transient electrical analyses do not provide sufficient physical insight into trap dynamics.
Two named inadequate approaches, CV and simple transient electrical analysis. If your technique is a variation on either, you need to explain what you add that produces physical insight rather than a signature.
The five candidate locations
These performance-limiting charge traps can reside in multiple distinct, critical locations within the device stack, including the gate dielectric, the dielectric-to-diamond interface, the diamond epitaxial layer, the epitaxial-to-substrate interface, and the diamond bulk substrate.
Five locations, and location attribution is the capability the topic emphasizes most. The Phase II validation definition names it explicitly: isolating and distinguishing between different trap locations, for example the gate-dielectric interface versus the bulk epitaxial layer.
This is the technically hardest requirement in the topic. An electrical measurement at the terminals integrates contributions from everywhere in the stack. Separating five spatially distinct populations from terminal measurements requires either a physical discriminant, such as depth-sensitive optical excitation or a frequency-dependent coupling argument, or a modeling framework that inverts the measurement, or both. State which and defend it.
What the system must extract
This topic seeks the development of a comprehensive measurement system and associated methodology capable of extracting trap density, energy levels, physical location, specifically identifying the layers or interfaces where the traps reside, and time constants characterizing these defects, so that design teams can efficiently work to address them.
Specifically, a successful technique and system must be capable of resolving multiple trap populations and correlating these distinct signatures with observed current collapse behavior in diamond.
Note the last clause. It is not enough to find traps. You must correlate the trap signatures with the observed current collapse behavior, which means your instrument has to measure the RF or pulsed degradation and the trap properties on the same device and connect them causally.
The p-type surrogate warning
Because hydrogen-terminated diamond relies on unique surface-channel p-type conduction, validation of these new techniques cannot necessarily rely on prior validation from conventional n-type semiconductor materials, for example gallium nitride, gallium oxide, or aluminum nitride, as the fundamentally different physical mechanisms and device architectures may not be acceptable surrogates for the diamond device behavior.
This paragraph is aimed squarely at the most likely proposal in the pile: a company with a proven gallium nitride trap characterization tool proposing to point it at diamond. The topic is telling you in advance that a GaN validation history is not sufficient evidence, and that your physics argument has to account for surface-channel p-type conduction rather than assuming the n-type framework transfers.
If you do have GaN or gallium oxide heritage, use it, but use it as capability evidence while making an explicit argument about what changes for hydrogen-terminated diamond: the two-dimensional hole gas at the hydrogen-terminated surface, the role of the surface acceptor layer, the p-type band alignment, and why your discriminant still works.
Government Furnished Property, Which Governs Your Schedule
To meet operational requirements, all primary experimental validations and core metrology capability demonstrations under this effort must be performed specifically on Government-provided hydrogen-terminated diamond material and RF transistor devices.
The Government will provide these verified working devices and test articles as Government Furnished Property during the execution phase to anchor the research.
The public literature contains examples of hydrogen-terminated diamond RF transistors that exhibit comparable baseline characteristics. While the GFP will vary in specific design, architecture, and properties from the literature, they can provide a baseline for concept development.
It is expected that preliminary or intermediate metrology demonstrations on other wide or ultra-wide bandgap semiconductor devices may be used for initial development, but the main and final capability demonstrations must be validated directly on the specific diamond device architectures provided.
In Phase I specifically: while initial benchtop calibration may utilize other wide bandgap materials, the core Phase I feasibility demonstration must be applied specifically to hydrogen-terminated diamond architectures. To facilitate this early validation, the Government will provide representative diamond test structures as Government Furnished Property.
What this means for a 6-month Phase I
Read the two constraints together. Your core Phase I feasibility demonstration must be on hydrogen-terminated diamond. The diamond comes from the Government as GFP. And you have six months.
That is a real schedule dependency on an external party. Three practical consequences.
First, ask about GFP timing through DSIP Topic Q&A before the topic closes. When the test structures become available, what they consist of, and how they are shipped and handled are all questions that materially affect whether a 6-month plan is executable. This is the single most valuable question you can ask on this topic.
Second, structure your Phase I so the non-diamond work happens first and productively. Initial benchtop calibration on other wide bandgap materials is explicitly permitted, so the sensible plan front-loads instrument setup, calibration, and modeling on available GaN or gallium oxide parts while the diamond GFP is in transit, then applies the technique to diamond as soon as it arrives.
Third, note that all requirements for Government Furnished Equipment or other assets, and associated costs, must be determined and agreed to during Phase II contract negotiations, per the release's Phase II instructions. State your GFP requirements explicitly in your proposal, including quantity, device type, and any test structure features you need, so the negotiation has a starting point.
Also useful: the topic points you at the literature for baseline characteristics. The two cited papers, Yu and colleagues 2022 on hydrogen-terminated diamond MOSFETs with state-of-the-art high RF power density, and Yu and colleagues 2021 on 1.26 watts per millimeter at 10 gigahertz for silicon nitride passivated hydrogen-terminated diamond MOSFETs, describe device classes comparable to what you will receive. Read both and design your instrument against those device geometries and impedance levels.
What Phase I Requires
Conduct a 6-month study to establish the scientific and technical feasibility of the proposed defect metrology technique.
The performer shall describe the measurement process, provide sound scientific arguments justifying the approach's ability to meet the project objectives of trap identification and measurement, and describe the hardware equipment requirement needed to perform the measurement.
Expected means to demonstrate feasibility include preliminary experimental demonstrations, a review of relevant existing techniques used on other types of semiconductors, and supporting modeling or simulations.
Phase I deliverables, three of them
A comprehensive feasibility study report detailing the proposed metrology process, scientific justification, and measurement equipment used for the approach.
Initial feasibility data, derived from preliminary experimental demonstrations, literature review of relevant semiconductor techniques, or modeling, supporting the viability of the technique for surface-channel p-type architectures.
A detailed Phase II transition plan outlining the schedule, testing procedures, and integration strategy for validating the prototype instrument on the provided diamond devices.
Reading the Phase I scope
The three permitted sources of feasibility evidence are generous: preliminary experimental demonstrations, literature review, or modeling. The second deliverable says "or," which means a well-constructed modeling and literature argument can satisfy it without new diamond data. That is a sensible accommodation given the six-month window and the GFP dependency, and it tells you where to put your effort.
But note that the second deliverable specifies feasibility for surface-channel p-type architectures. Whatever your evidence source, it has to speak to p-type surface-channel diamond, not to wide bandgap devices generally. That is the same warning as the surrogate paragraph, restated as a deliverable requirement.
The third deliverable, a detailed Phase II transition plan with schedule, testing procedures, and integration strategy, is worth more attention than proposers usually give a planning deliverable. Since Phase II ends with delivering an instrument to the Government, the transition plan is where you show you understand what building and handing over a validated tool involves.
Phase II, For Planning Purposes
Phase II proposals under this release may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, by invitation. The Phase II scope still matters now, because your Phase I proposal is evaluated partly on whether it sets up a credible Phase II, and because Phase II here is unusual.
Develop, construct, and validate a fully functional prototype, laboratory-scale, trap metrology instrument based on the Phase I design.
The performer is expected to demonstrate the system's ability to successfully isolate and distinguish between different trap locations, for example gate-dielectric interface versus bulk epitaxial layer, and correlate these signatures with measured RF current collapse on hydrogen-terminated diamond transistors, which will continue to be provided as Government Furnished Property.
The performer is expected to continue refining the technique developed in Phase I, incorporating those refinements into the prototype.
How validation is defined
The principal milestone of the Phase II effort is the validation of the developed hardware and measurement methodology at the performer's facility. For this effort, validation is explicitly defined as the successful identification, characterization, and physical location attribution of the specific charge traps responsible for current collapse and similar detrimental effects in the provided diamond transistors.
That is a specific and demanding definition. Not "the instrument works." Not "we measured trap signatures." You must identify, characterize, and locate the specific traps responsible for the current collapse in the devices you were given. Success is defined by explaining a particular device's particular degradation.
You hand over the instrument
Following this successful demonstration, the complete, operational prototype measurement system, including all associated hardware, specialized instrumentation, and software, will be provided as a deliverable to the Government.
This is the most consequential business fact about the topic and it should shape your Phase I proposal. Phase II is not a technology development contract that leaves you owning a tool. You build the instrument and deliver it, hardware and software.
Three Phase II deliverables are named.
Prototype system validation and hardware transfer: successful demonstration of the technique and hardware's ability to identify, locate, and quantitatively characterize, specifically providing numerical values for trap density, energy levels, and time constants, the specific traps responsible for current collapse and other detrimental effects in the GFP diamond devices, plus delivery of the fully operational prototype defect metrology test instrumentation to the Government.
Documentation and training: a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure manual containing step-by-step measurement instructions tailored specifically to the provided diamond RF devices, accompanied by hands-on training for Government personnel.
Final report: a technical report detailing the identified trap signatures on the GFP devices, the methodology used to correlate these measurements to observed RF performance loss, detailed procedures by which the prototype tool can be used to reproduce the validation results on GFP devices, and details of any identified limitations of the technique or system related to the desired function, including any identified material or processing mitigation options related to those limitations.
What the delivery model implies for your business plan
Since the instrument goes to the Government, your commercial position rests on the design, the methodology, the software, and your ability to replicate and sell the system elsewhere, not on the delivered unit. That makes intellectual property strategy and data rights the center of your commercialization thinking, and it makes the Phase III commercial application the topic describes, commercializing the diagnostic system design, measurement software, and procedural methodology, the actual business.
It also means the SOP manual and the training are real deliverables with real cost. Writing a step-by-step measurement manual tailored to specific device architectures, and delivering hands-on training to Government personnel, is technical writing and instruction time that belongs in a Phase II budget.
Note as well the final report's requirement to identify material or processing mitigation options related to the technique's limitations. You are being asked to go one step past measurement and suggest what the device fabricators should do differently, which means understanding diamond device processing, not only metrology.
Phase III Dual Use
Military application
The delivered measurement technique will be used to analyze, optimize, and validate the reliability of high-power diamond transistors.
US Army DEVCOM is presently developing diamond transistor devices for the next generation of advanced military sensing, high-frequency communications, and broad-spectrum electromagnetic platforms. Successful outcomes of this research and development program will result in laboratory techniques and supporting equipment necessary to continue development of this technology.
It is expected that the technology will become a standard metrology technique within DEVCOM electronic device laboratories and among the Defense Industrial Base partners with semiconductor foundries presently being engaged in this development.
The named customer is specific and current: DEVCOM is developing diamond transistors now, which is why the GFP exists. That is a strong transition story, and "become a standard metrology technique within DEVCOM electronic device laboratories and among Defense Industrial Base partners" describes a multi-unit market rather than a single delivered instrument.
Commercial application
The performing small business can commercialize the diagnostic system design, measurement software, and procedural methodology to support the emerging domestic commercial diamond semiconductor industry.
This highly specialized metrology capability will be valuable to domestic and allied commercial foundries manufacturing advanced diamond electronics to improve device reliability and manufacturing yield for commercial 5G and 6G telecommunications, commercial satellite communications, commercial radar systems, and high-frequency communication systems requiring advanced thermal management.
Because this metrology system is designed to evaluate high-power semiconductor technologies, some of which fall under ITAR or Commerce Control List export controls, all commercialization, licensing, and replication services will need to comply with U.S. export control laws.
While this may limit certain commercial markets, it also has the potential to establish higher exclusivity within controlled markets.
That final observation is unusually candid for a solicitation and it is a good frame for your commercialization strategy. Export control narrows the market and raises the barrier to entry, which for a specialized instrument vendor can be a net advantage. Say so, rather than pretending the constraint does not exist or treating it as purely a cost.
Note that although this topic carries no ITAR restriction paragraph of its own, the Phase III text acknowledges ITAR and CCL exposure in the commercialization path. Plan for export control compliance in your business model even though the topic-level notice is absent.
Funding, Cost Structure, and OSW-Reliance 21 Mechanics
The award
$314,363 over 6 months. The Phase I base amount must not exceed the base limit set by the topic.
The short duration is the thing to plan around. Roughly $314,000 in six months is a high burn rate, which suits a focused instrument-development effort with existing hardware to build on and does not suit a program that has to buy and commission major capital equipment first.
Cost volume mechanics
OSW-Reliance 21 requires the use of the DSIP online Cost Volume webform. No separate Excel template is required. If supplementary cost detail is desired, it may be uploaded as a PDF attachment within Volume 3.
For this topic, be explicit about Government Furnished Property in your cost and facilities discussion. Requirements for government furnished equipment or other assets, and associated costs, must be determined and agreed to during Phase II contract negotiations, so stating what you need early serves you.
Percentage of Work, with no exceptions
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW solicitation. OSW-Reliance 21 will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements.
Metrology development invites university collaboration, particularly for trap physics modeling. Model your POW before you build the team.
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.
For this topic, intellectual property counsel is the standout use, because the delivery model hands the physical instrument to the Government and your commercial position depends entirely on protecting the design, methodology, and software. Export control counsel is second, given the ITAR and CCL exposure the Phase III section describes.
Page limits and the no-appendix rule
The technical volume for this topic is limited to 20 pages. All figures, tables, charts, and references must be included within the page count limit listed in the topic index. Any pages past the limit will not be considered, and no separate appendices will be evaluated.
Follow all instructions under the Phase I Proposal Instructions section in the DoW SBIR Program BAA and use the Phase I technical volume template provided as Appendix A in that BAA.
The Company Commercialization Report, and a contradiction
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required.
The Phase I Proposal Guidelines in this release state that information contained in the CCR will be considered by OSW-Reliance 21 during proposal evaluations. That is notable, since many components exclude it. The Direct to Phase II section of the same document states the opposite and attributes the statement to "SCO," which appears to be residual text from another organization's instructions.
For a Phase I proposal to NV026, the applicable statement is the one in the Phase I section: the CCR will be considered. Complete it carefully rather than perfunctorily, and raise the discrepancy through DSIP Topic Q&A if it matters to you.
Supporting documents that are optional but encouraged
Letters of Support from prospective transition stakeholders within DEVCOM C5ISR Center, PAE Maneuver Ground, PAE Maneuver Air, CPE Autonomy, the Naval Research Laboratory, or the Air Force Research Laboratory.
A Data Management Plan addressing provenance, licensing, and protection of pre-training data and government-furnished data.
The Data Management Plan is directly relevant here, and more so than on the other topics in this release, because your entire experimental program runs on government-furnished devices. A plan addressing how you handle, protect, and report data derived from GFP is a sensible inclusion.
On letters of support, note that the topic names US Army DEVCOM as the organization developing the diamond transistors. DEVCOM C5ISR Center is on the encouraged list, and DEVCOM Army Research Lab is named among the evaluating organizations. A letter from the DEVCOM element actually building these devices would be the strongest possible support document, since that element is presumably also the GFP source.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation.
Government technical evaluators from Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army DEVCOM Army Research Lab, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory may participate in the evaluation. Non-government support contractors may assist in administrative handling of proposals if the individual has signed a non-disclosure agreement, and they will not participate in selection decisions.
For this topic, DEVCOM Army Research Lab is the evaluator to write for. ARL is where diamond electronics work of this kind lives, and your reviewer may well be someone who has personally measured current collapse on one of the devices you will receive. Write with that level of specificity.
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, which is approximately January 19, 2027. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator listed on the proposal.
Protests after award should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.SBIR-STTR-Protest@mail.mil.
Tri-service coordination and the TPOC question
This topic is of joint interest to the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force and Space Force through the organizations named above. Proposers are strongly encouraged to engage the Technical Point of Contact listed in the topic description during the pre-release period to discuss technical scope and transition opportunities across the Services.
No Technical Point of Contact appears in the NV026 topic description, or in any of the four topic descriptions in this release. Use DSIP Topic Q&A, and send administrative questions to osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.communities-of-interest@mail.mil. Given the GFP dependency, using the Q&A channel before it closes on October 7 is particularly important on this topic.
Note also that Phase II efforts under this release shall include a transition plan addressing at least two of the three Services, and that Phase II contracting actions are anticipated to be firm-fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee at the Contracting Officer's discretion. For a metrology tool intended to become a standard technique across DEVCOM laboratories and Defense Industrial Base partners, the multi-service transition case is straightforward, but it must be written.
Classification
Phase I efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified and CUI level. Classified proposals are not accepted, and including classified data in an unclassified proposal may be grounds for the Agency to determine the proposal non-responsive and not evaluate it.
In some instances, work being performed on Phase II contracts will require security clearances. If a Phase II contract requires classified work, the offeror must have a facility clearance and appropriate personnel clearances.
A note on the Critical Technology Area designation
The OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area listed for this topic is Microelectronics. The release's introduction lists six Critical Technology Areas that the program prioritizes: Applied Artificial Intelligence, Biomanufacturing, Contested Logistics Technologies, Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance, Scaled Directed Energy, and Scaled Hypersonics. Microelectronics is not among those six.
The Component Technology Priority Areas listed for the topic are Microelectronics and Quantum Science, which are standard Component Technology Priority Area names. The most plausible reading is that the OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area field was populated with a Component Technology Priority Area value. It is unlikely to affect your proposal, but if you are aligning your narrative to a Critical Technology Area, note that Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance is the nearest of the six to this work, given diamond's role in quantum-adjacent and advanced RF electronics.
The References
Only two, and both are device papers rather than metrology papers.
Yu, Zhou, Guo, He, Ma, Yu, Song, Bu, and Feng, "Hydrogen-terminated diamond MOSFETs on (001) single crystal diamond with state of the art high RF power density," Functional Diamond, 2022.
Yu, Hu, Zhou, and colleagues, "1.26 W/mm Output Power Density at 10 GHz for Si3N4 Passivated H-Terminated Diamond MOSFETs," IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 2021.
The topic cites these specifically as examples of hydrogen-terminated diamond RF transistors exhibiting comparable baseline characteristics to the Government Furnished Property you will receive. That makes them functional specifications rather than background reading.
Read them for the things that determine whether your instrument can measure these devices: the gate dielectric and passivation stack, silicon nitride in the 2021 paper, the substrate orientation, (001) single crystal in the 2022 paper, the device geometry and gate dimensions, the operating voltages and currents, the frequency of operation, and the impedance environment. Then design your measurement around those parameters.
The absence of metrology references is itself informative in the same way as on DV025. The Government is stating a capability requirement and leaving the technique open, which means you carry the full burden of establishing awareness of the state of the art in trap characterization. Bring that literature yourself: deep level transient spectroscopy and its variants, drain current transient spectroscopy, pulsed IV and gate lag measurements, low-frequency noise spectroscopy, and the substantial gallium nitride trapping literature, while being explicit about what changes for p-type surface-channel diamond.
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 SBIR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027
Period of performance: 6 months from award
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Decide your physical discriminant for location attribution, because that is the hardest requirement and the one a reviewer will probe. Read both cited device papers and design your measurement around those device geometries, dielectric stacks, and operating conditions. Inventory your existing instrumentation honestly against a 6-month, $314,000 effort, since there is no time to specify, purchase, and commission major capital equipment. Line up access to wide bandgap devices for initial benchtop calibration, which is explicitly permitted, so the diamond GFP is not on your critical path from day one. Prepare your Government Furnished Property request specifically: quantity, device type, test structure features, and timing. Model your Percentage of Work before committing to university collaboration on trap physics. Approach DEVCOM about a letter of support, ideally the element developing the diamond devices. Confirm SAM registration and CMMC Level 2 self-assessment in SPRS. Download the DoW SBIR Program BAA Appendix A Phase I template.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 20-page technical volume. Structure it around the measurement physics, the location discrimination mechanism, the modeling framework that inverts the measurement, the correlation with current collapse, the hardware requirement, and the three Phase I deliverables. Make the p-type surface-channel argument explicitly rather than leaning on n-type heritage. Write the Phase II transition plan deliverable as a real plan, since Phase II ends with delivering an instrument. Draft the 3,000 character cover sheet abstract and the 3,000 character anticipated benefits and commercial applications discussion.
October 6 through October 7. Submit questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes. On this topic, the highest-value questions are about Government Furnished Property: when the Phase I diamond test structures become available, what they consist of, how many, and what the handling and shipping arrangements are. Also worth asking: the CCR evaluation discrepancy, and the Critical Technology Area designation if you are aligning your narrative to it.
October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the DSIP online webform. Price instrumentation, any hardware you must build, modeling and simulation effort, device handling and probing fixtures suited to the GFP geometry, and the technical writing effort for the feasibility report and transition plan. State GFP requirements clearly. Add supplementary cost detail as a Volume 3 PDF if useful. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form and place it in Volume 5.
October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, carefully, since the Phase I instructions state it will be considered. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form, letters of support, and a Data Management Plan addressing government-furnished data, which is particularly apt here. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering that Volume 7 must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded to Volume 5. Run compliance: 20 pages with figures, tables, charts, and references counted inside, no appendices, unclassified or CUI only.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-NV026?
OSW26BZ06-NV026 is a Phase I SBIR topic titled "Defect Metrology and Charge Trapping Dynamics in Transfer-Doped Diamond Transistors," released under the Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop an innovative, non-destructive diamond semiconductor defect metrology technique and laboratory-scale apparatus to identify, quantify, determine location in the device, and energetically characterize charge traps that cause current collapse in surface-channel diamond transistors.
How much funding is available and for how long?
$314,363 over 6 months. That is the shortest period of performance in this release. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in TABA, 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?
Twenty pages. All figures, tables, charts, and references must be included within that limit. Any pages past the limit will not be considered, and no separate appendices will be evaluated.
What is current collapse and knee walkout?
Current collapse is the reduction in drain current under RF or pulsed operation relative to DC characteristics, caused by transient charge trapped at defect sites modulating the channel. Knee walkout is the shift of the knee voltage toward higher drain voltage under stress, reducing usable voltage swing and achievable RF power. Both prevent hydrogen-terminated diamond transistors from operating at their full high-frequency RF power.
What must the technique measure?
Trap density, energy levels, physical location within the device stack, specifically identifying the layers or interfaces where the traps reside, and time constants. It must also resolve multiple trap populations and correlate those signatures with observed current collapse behavior in diamond.
Where can the traps be located?
Five named locations: the gate dielectric, the dielectric-to-diamond interface, the diamond epitaxial layer, the epitaxial-to-substrate interface, and the diamond bulk substrate. Attributing traps to a specific one of these is the capability the topic emphasizes most, and the hardest requirement in it.
Must the method be non-destructive?
Yes. Non-destructive is stated in the objective. That rules out sectioning or delayering approaches, which matters both because the devices are Government Furnished Property in limited supply and because the eventual commercial application is production screening.
Why won't commercial characterization tools work?
Commercial device-characterization tools are built primarily for silicon or traditional compound semiconductor materials and lack the specialized physics and sensitivity required for ultra-wide bandgap diamond. The topic also states that standard capacitance-voltage or simple transient electrical analyses do not provide sufficient physical insight into trap dynamics.
Can I use my gallium nitride validation history as evidence?
Not on its own. The topic warns that because hydrogen-terminated diamond relies on unique surface-channel p-type conduction, validation cannot necessarily rely on prior validation from conventional n-type materials such as GaN, Ga2O3, or AlN, since the fundamentally different physical mechanisms and device architectures may not be acceptable surrogates. Use GaN heritage as capability evidence, but make an explicit physics argument for p-type surface-channel diamond.
Who provides the diamond devices?
The Government. All primary experimental validations and core metrology capability demonstrations must be performed on Government-provided hydrogen-terminated diamond material and RF transistor devices, furnished as Government Furnished Property. In Phase I, the Government will provide representative diamond test structures as GFP.
Can I do preliminary work on other materials?
Yes. Preliminary or intermediate metrology demonstrations on other wide or ultra-wide bandgap semiconductor devices may be used for initial development, and initial benchtop calibration may utilize other wide bandgap materials. But the core Phase I feasibility demonstration must be applied specifically to hydrogen-terminated diamond architectures, and the main and final capability demonstrations must be validated directly on the provided diamond device architectures.
How do I plan a 6-month Phase I around Government Furnished Property?
Front-load the work that does not need diamond: instrument setup, calibration on other wide bandgap materials, and modeling. Then apply the technique to diamond as soon as the GFP arrives. Ask about GFP availability, quantity, device type, and shipping through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes on October 7, since that is the single most schedule-relevant unknown on this topic. State your GFP requirements explicitly in the proposal.
What are the Phase I deliverables?
Three. A comprehensive feasibility study report detailing the proposed metrology process, scientific justification, and measurement equipment. Initial feasibility data, from preliminary experimental demonstrations, literature review, or modeling, supporting viability for surface-channel p-type architectures. And a detailed Phase II transition plan outlining the schedule, testing procedures, and integration strategy for validating the prototype instrument on the provided diamond devices.
Do I need new experimental data for Phase I?
Not necessarily. The second deliverable permits feasibility data derived from preliminary experimental demonstrations, literature review of relevant semiconductor techniques, or modeling. A well-constructed modeling and literature argument can satisfy it, provided it speaks specifically to surface-channel p-type architectures.
What happens in Phase II?
Develop, construct, and validate a fully functional prototype, laboratory-scale trap metrology instrument based on the Phase I design, demonstrating the ability to isolate and distinguish between different trap locations and correlate those signatures with measured RF current collapse on hydrogen-terminated diamond transistors provided as GFP.
How is Phase II validation defined?
Explicitly, as the successful identification, characterization, and physical location attribution of the specific charge traps responsible for current collapse and similar detrimental effects in the provided diamond transistors. The principal milestone is validation of the hardware and methodology at the performer's facility.
Do I keep the instrument I build?
No. Following successful demonstration, the complete operational prototype measurement system, including all associated hardware, specialized instrumentation, and software, is provided as a deliverable to the Government. Phase II also requires a Standard Operating Procedure manual tailored to the provided diamond RF devices and hands-on training for Government personnel.
What does the delivery model mean for my business?
Your commercial position rests on the design, methodology, and software rather than on the delivered unit, which makes intellectual property strategy and data rights central. The topic's own Phase III commercial application describes commercializing the diagnostic system design, measurement software, and procedural methodology, which is the actual business.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
No topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on NV026, unlike NV024 and DV025 in the same release. However, the release's Additional Information section refers to foreign national disclosure per the ITAR notice in the topic description, and the topic's own Phase III section states that some of the technologies this system evaluates fall under ITAR or Commerce Control List export controls and that all commercialization, licensing, and replication services will need to comply with U.S. export control laws. Plan for export control compliance in your business model.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2 with self-assessment.
What Critical Technology Area does this fall under?
The topic lists Microelectronics as the OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area, which is not among the six Critical Technology Areas named in the release introduction. Its Component Technology Priority Areas are Microelectronics and Quantum Science. The field appears to have been populated with a Component Technology Priority Area value. Of the six named Critical Technology Areas, Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance is the nearest to this work.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
For Phase I under this release, yes. The Phase I Proposal Guidelines state that CCR information will be considered by OSW-Reliance 21 during proposal evaluations. The Direct to Phase II section of the same document says the opposite and attributes it to a different organization, which appears to be residual text. Complete the CCR carefully.
What cost volume format do I use?
The DSIP online Cost Volume webform. No separate Excel template is required. Supplementary cost detail may be uploaded as a PDF attachment within Volume 3.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. OSW-Reliance 21 will not accept any deviation to the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW solicitation. Model your POW before committing to university collaboration on trap physics modeling.
Who evaluates my proposal?
Government technical evaluators from Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army DEVCOM Army Research Lab, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory may participate. For this topic, DEVCOM Army Research Lab is the most likely technical reviewer, since ARL is where diamond electronics work of this kind lives.
When will I hear back?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, which is approximately January 19, 2027. Notifications go through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator listed on the proposal.
What is the commercial market?
Domestic and allied commercial foundries manufacturing advanced diamond electronics, improving device reliability and manufacturing yield for commercial 5G and 6G telecommunications, satellite communications, commercial radar, and high-frequency communication systems requiring advanced thermal management. On the defense side, the topic expects the technique to become standard within DEVCOM electronic device laboratories and among Defense Industrial Base partners with semiconductor foundries engaged in this development.
Who is the technical point of contact?
The release strongly encourages engaging the Technical Point of Contact listed in the topic description during pre-release, but no TPOC appears in the NV026 description or in any of the four topic descriptions in this release. Use DSIP Topic Q&A, which is especially important here because of the Government Furnished Property dependency, and send administrative questions to osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.communities-of-interest@mail.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Lead with your location discrimination mechanism. Five candidate trap locations, terminal measurements that integrate all of them, and a requirement to attribute traps to specific layers and interfaces. That is the hardest thing in the topic and the thing a reviewer at DEVCOM ARL will probe first. Whether your discriminant is depth-sensitive optical excitation, frequency-dependent coupling, a bias-dependent sensitivity argument, or a model inversion, name it in the first page and defend the physics.
Make the p-type surface-channel argument explicitly. The topic warns in advance that n-type wide bandgap validation may not transfer. If you have GaN or gallium oxide heritage, and most credible bidders will, present it as capability while walking through what changes for hydrogen-terminated diamond: the two-dimensional hole gas at the terminated surface, the surface acceptor layer, the band alignment, and why your method still discriminates. Skipping that argument is the most predictable weakness in this pile of proposals.
Ask about the Government Furnished Property before the Q&A closes. Your core Phase I demonstration must be on Government-supplied diamond, you have six months, and you do not control the delivery. Timing, quantity, device type, test structure features, and handling arrangements are all legitimate questions, and asking them signals that you have thought about executing rather than only about physics.
Design your Phase I schedule so diamond is not on the critical path from day one. Initial benchtop calibration on other wide bandgap materials is explicitly permitted. Use that permission structurally: instrument setup, calibration, and modeling first, diamond validation as soon as the GFP arrives. A proposal whose entire plan waits on a shipment is fragile in a way a reviewer will notice.
Design the measurement against the actual devices. The two cited papers describe device classes comparable to the GFP, including a silicon nitride passivated stack and a (001) single crystal substrate. Read them for gate geometry, dielectric stack, operating voltages, currents, frequency, and impedance, and show that your fixturing and sensitivity suit those parameters. That level of specificity is the difference between a general trap metrology pitch and a proposal for this topic.
Connect the trap signature to the current collapse, not just to the trap. The topic requires correlating distinct trap signatures with observed current collapse behavior. That means measuring the RF or pulsed degradation and the trap properties on the same device and closing the causal loop. A technique that produces a beautiful trap spectrum with no link to the device's actual performance loss has not met the requirement.
Be honest about a 6-month, $314,000 envelope. There is no room to specify, buy, and commission major capital equipment. Show what you already have. If your approach needs an instrument you do not own, explain how you access it and what that costs in schedule.
Plan for the fact that you hand over the instrument. Phase II delivers the complete hardware and software to the Government, plus an SOP manual and hands-on training. Start thinking now about what you protect and how: the methodology, the software, the design, data rights assertions. That is your business, and getting it wrong in Phase I framing is expensive later.
Budget the documentation and training as real work. A step-by-step SOP tailored to specific device architectures, plus hands-on training for Government personnel, is technical writing and instruction time. Most proposals will treat it as a line item and underprice it.
Address the mitigation question. The Phase II final report asks you to identify material or processing mitigation options related to the technique's limitations. That means understanding diamond device fabrication, not only measurement. Showing some of that understanding in Phase I positions you as a partner to the device developers rather than a vendor of a black box.
Go after a DEVCOM letter of support. The topic names US Army DEVCOM as the organization presently developing these diamond transistors, which makes it both the likely GFP source and the likely eventual customer for multiple instruments. DEVCOM C5ISR Center is on the encouraged letters list and DEVCOM ARL is among the named evaluators.
Include a Data Management Plan. It is optional but encouraged across this release, and on this topic it is genuinely apt, because your entire experimental program runs on government-furnished devices and the plan is specifically described as addressing protection of government-furnished data.
Bring the trap metrology literature yourself. The topic cites only two device papers and no metrology references, so it gives you no scaffolding and you carry the burden of demonstrating awareness of the state of the art. Deep level transient spectroscopy and its variants, drain current transient spectroscopy, pulsed IV and gate lag, low-frequency noise spectroscopy, and the GaN trapping literature all belong in your related work, with an explicit account of what changes for diamond.
Frame export control as exclusivity, following the topic's own lead. The Phase III text notes that export control may limit certain commercial markets while establishing higher exclusivity within controlled ones. That is a more sophisticated commercialization argument than a large unqualified market estimate, and it comes from the solicitation itself.
OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR OSW26BZ06-DV025: Compact Passive Radar
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $2.1m
Description: Complete guide to OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-DV025, compact attritable passive radar. Phase I $314K over 12 months or Direct to Phase II $2.1M over 24 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26BZ06-DV025 is an OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic under the 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, and it is the only topic in this release that accepts both a Phase I proposal and a Direct to Phase II proposal. Phase I is $314,363 over 12 months. Direct to Phase II is $2,095,748 over 24 months. Both cap the technical volume at 20 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The requirement is a radar that never transmits. In contested anti-access and area-denial environments, active radar emissions act as beacons for adversary electronic warfare, so the Department needs covert sensing using illuminators of opportunity. The topic is explicit: this effort requires a 100 percent receive-only payload, and the sensor shall not transmit any RF energy. That sentence appears again in the Phase II deliverable definition, which requires demonstrating detection and imaging "without emitting any RF energy from the passive sensor itself."
What makes this hard is not passive radar as a concept but the combination of capabilities at a price and size the Department is willing to throw away. Current passive systems are bulky, expensive, and primarily optimized for signals intelligence and electronic support measures rather than radar functionality. They lack the tightly synchronized, multi-channel receivers necessary for direct reference signal acquisition, spatial processing, and clutter cancellation. The Department seeks a paradigm shift toward low-cost, multi-channel attritable sensors designed specifically for high-risk deployments.
Concretely: a small form factor passive X-band radar doing both synthetic aperture imaging and ground moving target indication, light enough for a Group 1 or 2 unmanned aircraft, a loitering munition, or an unattended ground sensor, cheap enough that losing it is acceptable.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26BZ06-DV025
Title: Compact Passive Radar
Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, administered by the OUSW(R&E) SBIR Program
Solicitation: OSW-Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program types accepted: Phase I and Direct to Phase II. This is the only topic in the release offering both
Phase I award: $314,363 over 12 months, technical volume limited to 20 pages
Direct to Phase II award: $2,095,748 over 24 months, technical volume limited to 20 pages, structured as 5 pages of Phase I justification plus 15 pages of Phase II technical proposal
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance
Component Technology Priority Area: Integrating Sensing and Cyber
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)
Export control status: ITAR restricted. The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or the Export Administration Regulation, 15 CFR Parts 730-774
Absolute constraint: a 100 percent receive-only payload. The sensor shall not transmit any RF energy
Band: X-band
Required modes: synthetic aperture radar imaging and ground moving target indication
Host platforms: Group 1 or 2 unmanned aircraft systems, loitering munitions, or unattended ground sensors
Design driver: extreme size, weight, power, and cost constraints, with attritability as an explicit requirement
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
Cost volume: the DSIP online Cost Volume webform is required. No separate Excel template
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: passive radar, GMTI, SAR, bistatics
The Two Paths, and How to Choose
This topic appears in both the Phase I table and the Direct to Phase II table of the OSW-Reliance 21 Release 6 topic index. That is unusual and it is the first decision you have to make.
Phase I
$314,363 over 12 months, with a 20-page technical volume. Follow the Phase I Proposal Instructions in the DoW SBIR Program BAA and use the Phase I technical volume template provided as its Appendix A.
The Phase I objective is a feasibility study to determine the scientific, technical, and commercial merit of a small form factor, attritable passive radar architecture. The desired end product is a robust simulation and a basic laboratory prototype that validates the feasibility of detecting targets using signals of opportunity while strictly adhering to the SWaP-C metrics required for expendable systems.
Note that a 20-page Phase I technical volume is generous by SBIR standards, and twice what topic NV024 in this same release allows.
Direct to Phase II
$2,095,748 over 24 months, with a 20-page technical volume divided as follows: Part 1, Phase I Justification, 5 pages maximum, and Part 2, Phase II Technical Proposal, 15 pages maximum.
The statutory basis is 15 U.S.C. 638(cc), which allows the Department to make a Phase II award without regard to whether the concern received a Phase I award for that project.
The feasibility restriction that will disqualify many DP2 proposers
Read this carefully, because it is stricter than what most components impose and stricter than DARPA's equivalent language in the same cycle.
Each eligible topic requires that proposers provide documentation to demonstrate that the feasibility described in the Phase I section of the topic has been met. Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the principal investigator. If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property, the proposer must either own the IP or must have obtained license rights to such technology prior to proposal submission, to enable it and its subcontractors to legally carry out the proposed work.
The Volume 2 instruction repeats it: feasibility documentation must not be solely based on work performed under prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work.
Two different formulations appear in the same document, "cannot be based upon or logically extend from" in the DP2 guidelines and "must not be solely based on" in the Volume 2 instruction. The stricter reading is the first, and it is the one to plan against. If your passive radar prototype was built under a prior SBIR or STTR from any federal agency, that work may not be usable as your feasibility basis, and even work that logically extends from it may be excluded.
For a small radar company, much prior work is federally funded, and a great deal of it is SBIR-funded specifically. Before you commit to the DP2 path, audit the provenance of every result you intend to cite. Internally funded development, privately funded development, non-SBIR government contract work, and commercial product development are all cleaner ground.
And the consequence of getting it wrong is severe: if the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.
Which path fits you
Choose Direct to Phase II if you have a working multi-channel passive radar receiver with a demonstrated architecture, developed outside prior federal SBIR or STTR funding, and you can substantiate the Phase I feasibility described in the topic in five pages. Choose Phase I if your passive radar capability is at the algorithm and simulation stage, or if your existing hardware traces back to SBIR funding you cannot use as a feasibility basis.
Note that the DP2 award is roughly 6.7 times the Phase I award, which is a large ratio. If you can clear the feasibility bar honestly, the DP2 path is worth the audit effort.
What the Requirement Actually Is
The objective
Develop a low-cost, small form factor, attritable passive radar sensor capable of detecting and tracking targets using external RF signals for tactical unmanned and expendable platforms.
The operational driver
In contested anti-access and area-denial environments, active radar emissions act as beacons for adversary electronic warfare. To ensure survivability, the Department requires covert sensing utilizing illuminators of opportunity.
This effort requires a 100 percent receive-only payload. The sensor shall not transmit any RF energy.
That last requirement is absolute and it is repeated in the Phase II deliverable definition. It has design consequences beyond the obvious. A receive-only system has no control over its illumination geometry, waveform, timing, or power, which means everything conventional radar gets for free must be recovered from the environment. It also means no active calibration, no transmitted reference, and no ability to choose a favorable pulse repetition frequency. And practically, "shall not transmit any RF energy" is worth interpreting conservatively: unintentional emissions from local oscillators, clocks, and digital processing are worth addressing in your design discussion, since an attritable sensor whose digital section radiates is not actually covert.
What is wrong with existing systems
Current passive systems are bulky, expensive, and primarily optimized for signals intelligence and electronic support measures rather than radar functionality. They lack the tightly synchronized, multi-channel receivers necessary for direct reference signal acquisition, spatial processing, and clutter cancellation.
The Department seeks a paradigm shift toward low-cost, multi-channel attritable, meaning expendable, sensors designed specifically for high-risk deployments.
The critique names three specific capabilities that SIGINT-derived hardware lacks: direct reference signal acquisition, spatial processing, and clutter cancellation, all of which depend on tight synchronization across multiple channels. Channel-to-channel phase coherence at low cost is the engineering crux of this topic, and a proposal that treats it casually has missed the point of the paragraph.
The system being sought
This topic seeks the development of a small form factor passive X-band radar featuring both synthetic aperture radar imaging and ground moving target indicator capabilities.
Optimized for extreme size, weight, power, and cost constraints, the payload must be light enough for integration onto Group 1 or 2 unmanned aircraft systems, loitering munitions, or unattended ground sensors.
Three things to notice.
X-band specifically. Passive radar research has historically leaned on VHF and UHF broadcast illuminators, FM radio and digital television, because they are powerful, continuous, and everywhere. X-band illuminators of opportunity are a different and harder problem: the available sources are other radars, satellite downlinks, and communications systems rather than broadcast transmitters. Your proposal has to identify which X-band illuminators you intend to exploit and what their availability and geometry look like in a contested environment. This is arguably the single most important technical judgment in the proposal.
Both SAR and GMTI. These place opposite demands on the collection. Synthetic aperture imaging needs coherent integration over a long aperture with precise platform motion knowledge. Moving target indication needs Doppler discrimination against clutter. Doing both from a bistatic or multistatic passive geometry, on a small platform, is a substantial signal processing burden, and the Phase I language acknowledges it by asking for algorithms that work "under constrained computational limits."
Group 1 or 2 UAS. Group 1 is under 20 pounds gross takeoff weight and Group 2 runs to 55 pounds. That is the payload envelope, and it is severe for a multi-channel coherent receiver plus antennas plus edge processing. Loitering munitions and unattended ground sensors imply the same or tighter.
Phase I Requirements
The objective of Phase I is to conduct a feasibility study to determine the scientific, technical, and commercial merit of a small form factor, attritable passive radar architecture.
Offerors are expected to define a comprehensive system architecture, identifying critical low-cost receiver components, antenna configurations suitable for small form factor platforms, and highly efficient edge-processing hardware.
The effort will include developing proof-of-concept signal processing algorithms for reference signal isolation, clutter cancellation, and target detection and tracking under constrained computational limits.
The desired end product is a robust simulation and a basic laboratory prototype that validates the feasibility of detecting targets using signals of opportunity while strictly adhering to the SWaP-C metrics required for expendable systems.
Reading the Phase I scope
Four architecture elements are named: low-cost receiver components, antenna configurations for small platforms, edge-processing hardware, and three specific algorithms. The three algorithms are reference signal isolation, clutter cancellation, and target detection and tracking, and they correspond directly to the three capabilities the topic says existing SIGINT hardware lacks.
The end product is a robust simulation plus a basic laboratory prototype. Both, not either. And the phrase "strictly adhering to the SWaP-C metrics required for expendable systems" means your Phase I has to commit to numbers: mass, volume, power, and unit cost. A feasibility study that establishes technical performance without bounding cost has not addressed attritability, which is the topic's defining constraint.
Phase II Requirements
Phase II culminates in the delivery of a viable hardware prototype.
Offerors are expected to transition their Phase I concepts into a physical, highly miniaturized sensor prototype suitable for integration onto a small unmanned aircraft system or expendable ground node.
The minimum required deliverable is a functional prototype that successfully demonstrates passive stationary and moving target detection, tracking, and imaging in a realistic outdoor environment utilizing RF illumination, cooperative or non-cooperative signals of opportunity, without emitting any RF energy from the passive sensor itself.
The performer must characterize system performance, demonstrate real-time edge processing that outputs actionable products, and validate that the unit cost and SWaP footprint meet the criteria for a truly attritable tactical asset.
Unpacking the minimum deliverable
Six things are packed into that one sentence, and each is a separate test.
Stationary target detection. Moving target detection. Tracking. Imaging. In a realistic outdoor environment. Without transmitting.
Note "cooperative or non-cooperative signals of opportunity." Cooperative illumination is permitted for the demonstration, which is an important allowance: you may use a known, controlled X-band source rather than depending on whatever happens to be radiating over your test range. That said, the operational value of the system depends on non-cooperative sources, so a demonstration that only works with a cooperative illuminator should be framed honestly as a step, with the non-cooperative case addressed in your risk discussion.
Three additional validation requirements follow. Characterize system performance, which means quantitative detection, resolution, and accuracy figures rather than imagery alone. Demonstrate real-time edge processing that outputs actionable products, meaning the processing happens on the platform and produces something a user can act on, not a raw data dump for later analysis. And validate that the unit cost and SWaP footprint meet the criteria for a truly attritable tactical asset, which is a cost claim you must substantiate, not assert.
That last one deserves emphasis. "Validate that the unit cost meets the criteria for a truly attritable tactical asset" is a bill of materials and manufacturing cost analysis, delivered as part of a technical program. Build the cost model early and update it as the design matures.
Phase III Dual Use
In Phase III, the expendable passive radar sensor is expected to transition into operational military platforms and commercial markets, supported by non-SBIR and non-STTR funding.
For Department applications, the technology will be integrated into launched effects, loitering munitions, and distributed unattended ground sensor networks.
In the commercial sector, potential applications include low-cost air traffic monitoring, counter-unmanned aircraft surveillance for critical infrastructure, and general airspace monitoring where adding active RF spectrum clutter is undesirable or prohibited.
The commercial case here is stronger than it first appears, and the reason is spectrum. A receive-only sensor needs no transmit authorization, which removes the regulatory obstacle that limits deployment of active radar for counter-drone and airspace monitoring at airports, stadiums, prisons, substations, and data centers. The topic names that advantage directly: environments "where adding active RF spectrum clutter is undesirable or prohibited." For a commercialization strategy, that is a concrete, defensible market entry argument rather than a generic dual-use paragraph.
Launched effects is worth noting on the military side. It is a current Army program area with active procurement, and a passive sensing payload for launched effects has an identifiable transition path.
Funding, Cost Structure, and OSW-Reliance 21 Mechanics
The awards
Phase I: $314,363 over 12 months. The Phase I base amount must not exceed the base limit set by the topic.
Direct to Phase II: $2,095,748 over 24 months.
Both figures are oddly precise, which usually indicates a specific funding line rather than a round programmatic allocation. Treat them as ceilings, not targets, and build a budget that fits.
Cost volume mechanics
OSW-Reliance 21 requires the use of the DSIP online Cost Volume webform. No separate Excel template is required. If supplementary cost detail is desired, it may be uploaded as a PDF attachment within Volume 3.
For Direct to Phase II, a detailed cost volume must be submitted online in the proper format shown in the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA. Provide enough information to allow evaluators to assess your plans to use the requested funds.
Percentage of Work, with no exceptions
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW solicitation. OSW-Reliance 21 will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements.
This matters on a radar topic, where the temptation is to subcontract RF front-end design, antenna design, or embedded processing. Model the POW before you assemble the team.
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 $50,000 Phase II figure is at the high end across components in this cycle, and for this topic the highest-value uses are export control counsel, given the ITAR restriction, and manufacturing cost engineering, since validating attritable unit cost is a contract deliverable.
Page limits and the no-appendix rule
For Phase I, the technical volume must follow the DoW SBIR solicitation formatting requirements except that all figures, tables, charts, and references must be included within the page count limit listed in the topic index. Any pages past the technical volume limit will not be considered, and no separate appendices will be evaluated.
For Direct to Phase II, the technical volume is 20 pages maximum: Part 1 Phase I Justification at 5 pages maximum, and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal at 15 pages maximum. Within that 15 pages, the Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy is not to exceed 2 pages and counts toward the 15-page limit.
So a DP2 proposer has 5 pages to establish feasibility, 13 pages of technical proposal, and 2 pages of commercialization strategy. That is tight for a system with two radar modes, a multi-channel receiver, an antenna, edge processing, and a cost model. Plan the page budget before drafting.
What the DP2 technical proposal must contain
The Phase II Technical Objectives and Approach section must list specific technical objectives and provide a detailed technical approach, and it must include the following named subsections.
Phase II Work Plan, with an explicit, detailed description of the approach, indicating what is planned, how and where the work will be carried out, a schedule of major events, and the final product to be developed.
Related Work, describing significant activities directly related to the effort including those of the Principal Investigator, the firm, consultants, or others, and demonstrating the proposers' awareness of the state of the art.
Relationship with Future Research or Research and Development, stating anticipated results and discussing the significance of the Phase II effort as a foundation for Phase III.
Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy, not to exceed 2 pages and counting toward the 15-page limit, addressing five specific questions: what is the first product this technology will go into; who will be your customers and what is your estimate of the market size; how much funding will you need to bring the technology to market and how will you raise it; does your company contain marketing expertise and if not how will you bring it in; and who are your competitors and what is your price or quality advantage.
Key Personnel, including the Principal Investigator, with directly related education, experience, and relevant publications, and a concise resume of the PI.
Facilities and Equipment, describing available instrumentation and physical facilities, justifying equipment to be purchased including Government Furnished Equipment, and stating whether the facilities meet federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations across the named groupings. All requirements for government furnished equipment or other assets, and associated costs, must be determined and agreed to during Phase II contract negotiations.
Consultants, describing in detail any involvement of universities, academic institutions, or other consultants and identifying them in the Cost Volume.
Those five commercialization questions are literal and a reviewer will look for all five. Answer them as five answers, not as a narrative that touches on them.
The Company Commercialization Report, and a contradiction
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required.
The Phase I Proposal Guidelines state that information contained in the CCR will be considered by OSW-Reliance 21 during proposal evaluations. The Direct to Phase II Proposal Guidelines in the same document state that the information contained in the CCR will not be considered by "SCO" during proposal evaluations.
The two statements conflict, and the reference to SCO appears to be residual text from another organization's instructions. The safe approach for either path is to complete the CCR carefully and completely, since at least one section of the governing document says it is scored. If the answer materially affects your proposal, raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes.
Note also that the commercialization strategy in Volume 2 is separate from the CCR. The strategy addresses how you propose to commercialize this research; the CCR covers what you have done to commercialize the results of past Phase II awards.
Supporting documents that are optional but encouraged
Letters of Support from prospective transition stakeholders within DEVCOM C5ISR Center, PAE Maneuver Ground, PAE Maneuver Air, CPE Autonomy, the Naval Research Laboratory, or the Air Force Research Laboratory.
A Data Management Plan addressing provenance, licensing, and protection of pre-training data and government-furnished data.
For this topic the named list is unusually well matched. DEVCOM C5ISR Center is the Army's sensors and electronic warfare organization and is the natural home for a passive radar payload. PAE Maneuver Air and CPE Autonomy connect to the unmanned platform side. A letter from C5ISR is the highest-value optional document here.
If your signal processing uses machine learning trained on RF data, the Data Management Plan is directly relevant rather than boilerplate, and addressing provenance and licensing of your training data is worth doing.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation.
Government technical evaluators from Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army DEVCOM Army Research Lab, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory may participate in the evaluation. Non-government support contractors may assist in administrative handling of proposals if the individual has signed a non-disclosure agreement, and they will not participate in selection decisions.
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, which is approximately January 19, 2027. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator listed on the proposal.
Protests after award should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.SBIR-STTR-Protest@mail.mil. Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement itself.
Tri-service coordination and the TPOC question
This topic is of joint interest to the U.S. Army, meaning DEVCOM C5ISR Center and DEVCOM ARL, the U.S. Navy, meaning the Naval Research Laboratory, and the U.S. Air Force and Space Force, meaning the Air Force Research Laboratory. Proposers are strongly encouraged to engage the Technical Point of Contact listed in the topic description during the pre-release period to discuss technical scope and transition opportunities across the Services.
No Technical Point of Contact appears in the DV025 topic description, or in any of the four topic descriptions in this release. Use DSIP Topic Q&A, and send administrative questions to osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.communities-of-interest@mail.mil.
Note that Phase II efforts under this release shall include a transition plan addressing at least two of the three Services. On this topic that is a natural fit, since passive radar payloads have Army, Navy, and Air Force applications, but it is a stated requirement rather than a suggestion.
Classification
Phase I efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified and CUI level. Classified proposals are not accepted, and including classified data in an unclassified proposal may be grounds for the Agency to determine the proposal non-responsive and not evaluate it.
In some instances, work being performed on Phase II contracts will require security clearances. If a Phase II contract requires classified work, the offeror must have a facility clearance and appropriate personnel clearances.
For a passive radar topic touching electronic warfare survivability and specific illuminators of opportunity, this possibility is real. Be careful about what you write in an unclassified proposal regarding adversary systems and specific X-band sources, and understand that a facility clearance may become necessary.
Export control and foreign nationals
The technology within this topic is restricted under ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774.
Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work tasks intended for accomplishment by the foreign nationals, in accordance with the Announcement. Foreign national participation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may be restricted due to U.S. export control laws.
Radar signal processing talent is internationally distributed and small radar firms often employ foreign nationals on visas. Resolve this before submitting, with named individuals, countries, visa types, and specific task assignments. Note that the case-by-case language is more accommodating than a flat bar, but the disclosure has to be specific to be evaluated.
The References
Only two, and both are textbooks rather than papers.
Melvin and Scheer, editors, "Principles of Modern Radar: Radar Applications," Volume 3, SciTech Publishing and IET, 2014.
Moo and Ding, "Adaptive Radar Resource Management," Academic Press and Elsevier, 2015.
The brevity is itself informative. Unlike the DARPA topics in this cycle, which cite recent primary literature to point at a specific technical approach, this topic cites the standard reference works. The Government is not steering you toward a particular passive radar technique. It is stating a system requirement and leaving the architecture open.
That has a practical consequence: you will not gain credit for aligning with a cited approach, and you carry the full burden of justifying your architecture from first principles. It also means the "Related Work" section of a DP2 proposal, where you must demonstrate awareness of the state of the art, is doing more work than usual, since the topic gives you no scaffolding. Cite the real passive radar and bistatic literature yourself.
The Moo and Ding reference on adaptive radar resource management is a slightly curious inclusion for a receive-only system, since resource management usually concerns allocating transmit resources. The plausible reading is that it points at managing limited receive and computational resources under constraint, which is consistent with the Phase I emphasis on algorithms that work under constrained computational limits.
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 SBIR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027
Phase I period: 12 months from award
Direct to Phase II period: 24 months from award
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Decide Phase I or Direct to Phase II. If DP2, audit the funding provenance of every result you intend to cite as feasibility evidence, because work based upon or logically extending from prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work is excluded, and failing the feasibility bar means the proposal is not evaluated at all. Confirm the work was substantially performed by your firm or your PI, and resolve IP ownership or licensing. Identify which X-band illuminators of opportunity you intend to exploit and be ready to defend their availability and geometry. Build a preliminary bill of materials and unit cost model, since attritability is the defining requirement. Model your Percentage of Work before finalizing subcontracts. Reach out to DEVCOM C5ISR Center and the other named organizations about a letter of support. Resolve foreign national participation questions with named individuals, countries, visas, and tasks. Confirm SAM registration and CMMC Level 2 self-assessment in SPRS. Download the DoW SBIR Program BAA and its Appendix A Phase I template if bidding Phase I.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the technical volume. For Phase I, 20 pages against the DoW Appendix A template covering the system architecture, low-cost receiver components, antenna configurations, edge processing hardware, the three named algorithms, the simulation plan, the laboratory prototype plan, and the SWaP-C metrics. For DP2, 5 pages of feasibility justification, 13 pages of technical proposal covering the work plan, related work, and future research relationship, and 2 pages of commercialization strategy answering all five named questions. Address the multi-channel synchronization problem explicitly, since it is the capability the topic says existing systems lack. Draft the 3,000 character cover sheet abstract and the 3,000 character anticipated benefits and commercial applications discussion.
October 6 through October 7. Submit remaining questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes, including the CCR evaluation discrepancy if it affects you.
October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the DSIP online webform, following the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA. Price receiver hardware, antenna fabrication, edge processing hardware, anechoic or outdoor test range access, and for DP2 the realistic outdoor demonstration campaign. Identify any Government Furnished Equipment requirements, remembering those must be determined and agreed during contract negotiations. Add supplementary cost detail as a Volume 3 PDF if useful. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form and place it in Volume 5.
October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, carefully. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form, letters of support, and a Data Management Plan if your processing uses trained models. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering that Volume 7 must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions should be uploaded to Volume 5. Run compliance: page limits with figures, tables, charts, and references counted inside, no appendices, unclassified or CUI only, no classified data.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-DV025?
OSW26BZ06-DV025 is an OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic titled "Compact Passive Radar," released under the 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop a low-cost, small form factor, attritable passive radar sensor capable of detecting and tracking targets using external RF signals for tactical unmanned and expendable platforms.
Can I submit either a Phase I or a Direct to Phase II proposal?
Yes. DV025 is the only topic in this release that appears in both the Phase I table and the Direct to Phase II table of the topic index. Phase I is $314,363 over 12 months. Direct to Phase II is $2,095,748 over 24 months. Both have a 20-page technical volume limit.
How much funding is available?
Phase I is $314,363 over 12 months. Direct to Phase II is $2,095,748 over 24 months. Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500 in TABA and Phase II awardees up to $50,000 per project, both in addition to the cost ceilings 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.
Can my feasibility evidence come from a prior SBIR award?
No, and this is the most consequential restriction on the DP2 path. Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. Work submitted must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. If the technology is subject to intellectual property, you must own the IP or have obtained license rights prior to proposal submission. Note that the Volume 2 instruction phrases this as "must not be solely based on" prior SBIR or STTR work, which is a weaker formulation than the DP2 guidelines language; plan against the stricter reading.
What happens if my feasibility documentation is inadequate?
If the proposer fails to demonstrate technical merit and feasibility equivalent to the Phase I level as described in the topic, the related Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.
How is the Direct to Phase II technical volume structured?
Twenty pages maximum, divided into Part 1 Phase I Justification at 5 pages maximum and Part 2 Phase II Technical Proposal at 15 pages maximum. Within the 15 pages, the Technology Transition and Commercialization Strategy is not to exceed 2 pages and counts toward that limit.
Can the sensor transmit at all?
No. The topic states that this effort requires a 100 percent receive-only payload and that the sensor shall not transmit any RF energy. The Phase II deliverable definition repeats the constraint, requiring demonstration without emitting any RF energy from the passive sensor itself.
What band is required?
X-band. This is a meaningful constraint, since much passive radar work relies on VHF and UHF broadcast illuminators. X-band illuminators of opportunity are other radars, satellite downlinks, and communications systems rather than broadcast transmitters, so identifying and justifying your illuminator set is a central part of the proposal.
What radar modes are required?
Both synthetic aperture radar imaging and ground moving target indication. These place different demands on the collection and processing, and the Phase I language asks for algorithms that work under constrained computational limits.
What platforms must the payload fit?
Group 1 or 2 unmanned aircraft systems, loitering munitions, or unattended ground sensors. Group 1 is under 20 pounds gross takeoff weight and Group 2 runs to 55 pounds, which sets a severe envelope for a multi-channel coherent receiver plus antennas plus edge processing.
What is wrong with existing passive radar systems?
They are bulky, expensive, and primarily optimized for SIGINT and electronic support measures rather than radar functionality. Specifically, they lack the tightly synchronized, multi-channel receivers necessary for direct reference signal acquisition, spatial processing, and clutter cancellation. Low-cost channel-to-channel phase coherence is the engineering crux of the topic.
What does Phase I have to deliver?
A comprehensive system architecture identifying critical low-cost receiver components, antenna configurations suitable for small form factor platforms, and highly efficient edge-processing hardware. Proof-of-concept signal processing algorithms for reference signal isolation, clutter cancellation, and target detection and tracking under constrained computational limits. And an end product consisting of a robust simulation plus a basic laboratory prototype that validates feasibility while strictly adhering to the SWaP-C metrics required for expendable systems.
What does Phase II have to deliver?
A functional, highly miniaturized hardware prototype demonstrating passive stationary and moving target detection, tracking, and imaging in a realistic outdoor environment using cooperative or non-cooperative signals of opportunity, without emitting any RF energy. The performer must also characterize system performance, demonstrate real-time edge processing that outputs actionable products, and validate that the unit cost and SWaP footprint meet the criteria for a truly attritable tactical asset.
Can I use a cooperative illuminator for the demonstration?
Yes. The Phase II deliverable permits cooperative or non-cooperative signals of opportunity. Since operational value depends on non-cooperative sources, a demonstration relying on cooperative illumination should be framed as a step, with the non-cooperative case addressed in your risk discussion.
Do I have to prove the cost?
Yes. Validating that the unit cost and SWaP footprint meet the criteria for a truly attritable tactical asset is a stated Phase II requirement. That is a bill of materials and manufacturing cost analysis delivered as part of a technical program, so build the cost model early.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and the specific statement of work tasks assigned to each. Foreign national participation is evaluated case by case and may be restricted.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2 with self-assessment.
What cost volume format do I use?
The DSIP online Cost Volume webform. OSW-Reliance 21 does not require a separate Excel template. Supplementary cost detail may be uploaded as a PDF attachment within Volume 3. For Direct to Phase II, follow the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes. OSW-Reliance 21 will not accept any deviation to the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW solicitation. Model your POW before subcontracting RF front-end, antenna, or embedded processing work.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
The document conflicts with itself. The Phase I Proposal Guidelines state that CCR information will be considered by OSW-Reliance 21 during proposal evaluations. The Direct to Phase II Proposal Guidelines state that it will not be considered by "SCO," which appears to be residual text from another organization's instructions. Complete the CCR carefully either way, and raise the discrepancy through DSIP Topic Q&A if it matters to you.
What must the commercialization strategy address?
Five specific questions, in no more than 2 pages counting toward the 15-page Phase II technical proposal limit. What is the first product this technology will go into. Who will be your customers and what is your estimate of the market size. How much funding will you need to bring the technology to market and how will you raise those funds. Does your company contain marketing expertise and if not how do you intend to bring it in. Who are your competitors and what is your price or quality advantage.
How do I request TABA?
Using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, included in Volume 5 of the DSIP submission. OSW will not accept TABA requests that do not use the form or that are not submitted in Volume 5.
What optional documents help?
Letters of support from prospective transition stakeholders within DEVCOM C5ISR Center, PAE Maneuver Ground, PAE Maneuver Air, CPE Autonomy, the Naval Research Laboratory, or the Air Force Research Laboratory. For this topic DEVCOM C5ISR Center is the most natural fit. A Data Management Plan addressing provenance, licensing, and protection of pre-training and government-furnished data is also encouraged and is directly relevant if your signal processing uses trained models.
Who evaluates my proposal?
Government technical evaluators from Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army DEVCOM Army Research Lab, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory may participate. Non-government support contractors may assist with administrative handling under a non-disclosure agreement but do not participate in selection decisions.
When will I hear back?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, which is approximately January 19, 2027. Notifications go through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator listed on the proposal.
Does Phase II require a multi-service transition plan?
Yes. Phase II efforts under this release shall include a transition plan addressing at least two of the three Services. Phase II contracting actions are anticipated to be firm-fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.
Who is the technical point of contact?
The release strongly encourages engaging the Technical Point of Contact listed in the topic description during pre-release, but no TPOC appears in the DV025 description or in any of the four topic descriptions in this release. Use DSIP Topic Q&A, and send administrative questions to osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.communities-of-interest@mail.mil.
What is the commercial market?
Low-cost air traffic monitoring, counter-unmanned aircraft surveillance for critical infrastructure, and general airspace monitoring where adding active RF spectrum clutter is undesirable or prohibited. The regulatory advantage is real: a receive-only sensor needs no transmit authorization, which removes the main obstacle to deploying radar at airports, stadiums, substations, and similar sites.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Audit your feasibility provenance before you decide on the DP2 path. This is the single most important thing on this topic. Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and a proposal that fails the feasibility bar is not evaluated at all. Trace every result you intend to cite. Internally funded, privately funded, non-SBIR government contract, and commercial product work are all cleaner ground. If your passive radar hardware came out of a prior SBIR, seriously consider the Phase I path instead.
Make multi-channel synchronization the centerpiece. The topic tells you exactly what existing systems lack: tightly synchronized, multi-channel receivers for direct reference signal acquisition, spatial processing, and clutter cancellation. Achieving channel-to-channel phase coherence at attritable cost is the hard problem. Lead with your approach to it, with numbers on phase stability and the cost of the components that deliver it.
Name your X-band illuminators and defend them. This is where most proposals will be weakest. X-band is not the broadcast-illuminator regime, so you must say what you intend to exploit, whether other radars, satellite downlinks, or communications systems, and address availability, geometry, bandwidth, and what happens in a contested environment where the adversary's emissions are both your illuminator and a thing they may turn off. Treating illuminator availability as an assumption rather than an analysis is the most likely fatal weakness.
Take "shall not transmit any RF energy" literally and completely. Address unintentional emissions from local oscillators, clocks, and digital processing, not just the absence of a transmitter. An attritable sensor whose digital section radiates is not covert, and a reviewer thinking about survivability in an electronic warfare environment will notice if you only address the obvious reading.
Show the cost model, not a cost claim. Validating attritable unit cost is a stated Phase II requirement. A bill of materials at projected volume, with the receiver, antenna, and processing broken out, is far more persuasive than a target price. It also forces the design discipline the topic is asking for.
Budget the SAR and GMTI processing honestly against the platform. Both modes on Group 1 or 2 power and thermal budgets, in real time, producing actionable outputs, is a demanding computational claim. State your processing architecture, the operations per second, the power draw, and what you trade to fit. The Phase I language explicitly asks for algorithms that work under constrained computational limits, so acknowledging the constraint is expected rather than a weakness.
Write the platform integration story concretely. Group 1 or 2 UAS, loitering munitions, and unattended ground sensors are three different mechanical, thermal, and interface problems. Pick a primary and name it, ideally an actual platform, and show the mass, volume, and power budget against it.
Lead the commercial case with spectrum regulation. A receive-only sensor needs no transmit authorization. That single fact is why counter-drone and airspace monitoring at airports, stadiums, prisons, substations, and data centers is a reachable market for this technology and not for active radar. The topic names the advantage itself. Build the market size estimate on it.
Get a DEVCOM C5ISR letter of support. Letters are optional but encouraged, C5ISR is on the named list, it is the Army's sensors and electronic warfare organization, and its evaluators may be reviewing your proposal. Launched effects is a named Phase III transition target with an actual program behind it.
Plan the DP2 page budget before drafting. Five pages of feasibility, thirteen pages of technical proposal, two pages of commercialization, with all figures, tables, charts, and references inside the limits and no appendices evaluated. For a system with two radar modes, a coherent receiver, an antenna, edge processing, and a cost model, page discipline is a real design task.
Answer the five commercialization questions as five answers. They are enumerated in the instructions and a reviewer will look for each. First product, customers and market size, funding required and how raised, marketing expertise, competitors and your advantage. Do not bury them in a narrative.
Cite the real passive radar literature yourself. The topic cites only two textbooks, which means it gives you no scaffolding and you carry the full burden of demonstrating awareness of the state of the art, which the Related Work section explicitly requires. Bring the bistatic and passive coherent location literature to the proposal.
Be careful what you write about adversary systems. Classified proposals are not accepted and including classified data may make your proposal non-responsive. On a topic about surviving adversary electronic warfare and exploiting specific X-band sources, keep the unclassified proposal unclassified and note where a classified annex or a cleared discussion would follow in Phase II.
Model Percentage of Work first. No deviations are accepted, and radar development invites subcontracting the RF front end, the antenna, or the embedded software. Run the calculation before you commit to a team structure.
OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR OSW26BZ06-NV024: Engineered Microstructures for Enhanced IR Aperture Performance
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $300k
Description: Complete guide to OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR Phase I topic OSW26BZ06-NV024, engineered microstructures for IR-transparent composite ceramic apertures. $300K over 12 months. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
OSW26BZ06-NV024 is a Phase I SBIR topic under the Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The Navy has already made an IR-transparent composite ceramic with sub-100 nanometer features in every phase and porosity below 0.1 percent, but only on parts about 0.4 inch across. This topic funds the scale-up: the same material properties on samples larger than 2 by 4 by 0.5 inches, with an industrial path to 3 by 9 inches or larger. The award is $300,000 over 12 months, and the technical volume is capped at 10 pages. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The core difficulty is stated plainly in the topic. Conventional ceramic processing routes that rely on mechanical mixing or co-precipitation of constituent phases typically result in microstructural coarsening during densification that precludes achieving sub-100 nm feature sizes in all phases. In other words, the standard way to make a dense ceramic destroys the nanostructure that makes this material valuable. Innovative powder synthesis and consolidation approaches are what the Navy is buying.
Note the 10-page technical volume. That is the tightest page limit across the four topics in this release and among the tightest in the entire 2026 cycle, and figures, tables, charts, and references all count inside it. No separate appendices will be evaluated. This is a materials science pitch that has to fit in ten pages including your micrographs.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: OSW26BZ06-NV024
Title: Engineered Microstructures for Enhanced IR Aperture Performance
Agency: Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, administered by the OUSW(R&E) SBIR Program
Solicitation: OSW-Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Phase I
Base award: $300,000
Base period of performance: 12 months
Technical volume limit: 10 pages, with all figures, tables, charts, and references counted inside that limit
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Scaled Hypersonics
Component Technology Priority Area: Hypersonics
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1
Export control status: ITAR restricted. The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or the Export Administration Regulation, 15 CFR Parts 730-774
Target sample size: exceeding 2 by 4 by 0.5 inches, with a path toward 3 by 9 inches or larger
Microstructure requirement: sub-100 nanometer features in all phases
Porosity requirement: below 0.1 percent
Optical requirement: SWIR and MWIR transparency of at least 80 percent
Thermal stability requirement: retained microstructure and IR transparency after exposure to 1200 degrees C for 10 minutes
Thermal figure of merit: alpha over k at or below 1.0 micrometers per watt at 1000 degrees C, threshold, with a target of 0.5
Technical and Business Assistance: Phase I awardees may request up to $6,500, in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee, using the mandatory SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5
Cost volume: the DSIP online Cost Volume webform is required. No separate Excel template
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: composite ceramic, infrared transparent, nanoscale microstructure, ceramic scale-up, IR window, nanocomposite, thermal stability, thermal shock resistance
The Technical Problem, Stated Precisely
What the Navy has already done
The Navy has demonstrated within its laboratories that a composite ceramic exhibiting IR transparency can be produced with distinct phases, microstructural feature sizes below 100 nanometers in all phases, and porosity content below 0.1 percent on component parts as large as 0.4 inch in lateral dimension.
Phase identity, crystal structure, phase chemistry, microstructure feature size, and porosity content were established via X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy cross-sections with energy dispersive spectroscopy analysis.
Two things follow from that paragraph. First, this is not a speculative material. It exists at small scale in a Navy laboratory, which means a reviewer has a physical reference point for what "good" looks like. Second, the characterization suite is named: XRD, plus SEM cross-sections with EDS. Use the same methods and report the same quantities, because that is how your result will be compared to theirs.
Why the properties matter
Retention of sub-100 nanometer feature sizes across all phases is critical to achieving the desired mechanical and thermal properties of the composite. Porosity above 0.1 percent similarly degrades mechanical performance.
All three specifications, meaning sub-100 nanometer microstructural features in all phases, porosity below 0.1 percent, and short-wave to mid-wave infrared transparency of at least 80 percent, must be achieved at scale for the material to be suitable for transition.
Read "all three" as a conjunction with no partial credit. A proposal that achieves the nanostructure but at 0.5 percent porosity, or achieves density but with coarsened grains in the second phase, has not met the requirement. The phrase "in all phases" appears repeatedly and is the specific thing that makes this hard: it is comparatively easy to keep one phase fine and much harder to keep every phase fine through densification.
The central obstacle
Producing IR-transparent composite ceramics meeting these specifications at sample sizes relevant to aperture applications is a significant technical challenge.
Conventional ceramic processing routes that rely on mechanical mixing or co-precipitation of constituent phases typically result in microstructural coarsening during densification that precludes achieving sub-100 nanometer feature sizes in all phases.
Innovative powder synthesis and consolidation approaches capable of satisfying all microstructural, porosity, and optical transparency requirements at sample sizes exceeding 2 by 4 by 0.5 inches are sought.
Two named villains, mechanical mixing and co-precipitation, and one named failure mechanism, coarsening during densification. Your proposal should say explicitly which of those you avoid and how. The reference list points at two routes worth knowing: Chaim and colleagues on sintering and densification of nanocrystalline ceramic oxide powders, which is the coarsening physics, and Katsui and Goto on coating ceramic powders by rotary chemical vapor deposition and sintering the coated powders, which is a specific synthesis strategy for keeping phases separated and fine.
Scalability, stated as a requirement rather than a hope
Furthermore, the proposed processes should be industrially scalable in both capacity and final component size, with a path towards producing components in the 3 by 9 inch range or larger.
Note both dimensions of scalability: capacity, meaning throughput, and final component size. A process that makes one good 2 by 4 inch plate per month is not industrially scalable in capacity, even if the part passes every specification. Address both.
Thermal requirements
In addition to these requirements, the composite ceramic must retain its microstructure and IR transparency after exposure to temperatures up to 1200 degrees C for 10 minutes. Phase transformation or grain growth during high-temperature service would degrade both mechanical and optical performance.
The composite must also exhibit a low ratio of thermal expansion coefficient, alpha, to thermal conductivity, k. The threshold requirement for alpha over k is 1.0 micrometers per watt and the target is 0.5 micrometers per watt at 1000 degrees C.
The alpha over k figure of merit is the thermal shock parameter in disguise. A low ratio means the material expands little for the heat it carries away, which is what keeps an aperture from fracturing when it heats rapidly. Since the Critical Technology Area is Scaled Hypersonics, the operative scenario is a window or dome on a vehicle experiencing severe aerothermal heating. Framing your material's alpha over k in those terms, rather than as an abstract ratio, connects your chemistry to the mission.
Note also that the 1200 degrees C exposure is specified as 10 minutes. That is a short-duration thermal excursion, not a soak, which again is consistent with a hypersonic flight profile rather than a furnace application.
What Phase I Requires
Phase I efforts should focus on research to establish the feasibility of a proposed material system and processing approach.
Proposals should outline a plan to investigate and demonstrate the potential to produce the target IR-transparent composite ceramic with sub-100 nanometer microstructural features in all phases and porosity below 0.1 percent.
The research should address initial process tuning, explore pathways to scalability, demonstrating the approach can plausibly be extended to industrially relevant sample sizes, and provide a scientific basis for meeting the optical and thermal property goals.
The applicant should also investigate the anticipated thermal stability of the proposed composition to 1200 degrees C and provide an estimate or measurement of the alpha over k ratio.
Reading the Phase I scope realistically
Note the verbs. Phase I asks you to investigate, explore, and provide a scientific basis. It asks for an estimate or measurement of alpha over k, which explicitly permits a calculated or literature-based estimate rather than a measured value. It asks you to demonstrate that scalability is plausible, not to demonstrate scale.
That is a well-scoped 12-month, $300,000 effort, and it tells you what not to over-promise. A Phase I proposal claiming it will deliver a 2 by 4 inch part meeting all specifications is not more competitive, it is less credible. The deliverable Phase I is buying is a defensible material system and process route with evidence that the nanostructure survives densification and a scientific argument that it scales.
One inconsistency in the source document
The Phase I section closes with this sentence: "For Direct to Phase II (D2P2) proposals, the applicant is required to provide details and documentation demonstrating accomplishments of a Phase I-type effort."
However, OSW26BZ06-NV024 appears only in the Phase I table of the topic index, at $300,000 over 12 months with a 10-page technical volume. It does not appear in the Direct to Phase II table, which lists only DV025 and DV027. The topic number itself carries the NV prefix that this release uses for Phase I topics.
The most likely explanation is that the D2P2 sentence is residual boilerplate. Anyone who believes they have Phase I-equivalent accomplishments and wants to pursue a Direct to Phase II award on this scope should confirm with the program office through DSIP Topic Q&A before investing in that path, because the topic index does not establish a DP2 award amount, duration, or page limit for this topic.
Phase II, For Planning Purposes
Phase II proposals under this release may only be submitted by Phase I awardees, by invitation. Understanding the Phase II scope now still matters, because your Phase I proposal is evaluated partly on whether it sets up a credible Phase II.
The Phase II effort should mature the proposed technology through focused research and development aimed at scaling the process and optimizing the material. Seven key research objectives are named, explicitly not limited to these.
Developing and refining a novel composition and process route with the goal of achieving sub-100 nanometer microstructural features in all phases, porosity below 0.1 percent, and SWIR and MWIR transparency of at least 80 percent on samples exceeding 2 by 4 by 0.5 inches.
Investigating and verifying the retention of nanoscale microstructural features, critical to the target mechanical and thermal properties, via SEM and EDS cross-section analysis.
Researching and demonstrating the industrial scalability of the process, including establishing a clear path towards producing components in the 3 by 9 inch range or larger.
Validating microstructural and optical stability, including maintained SWIR and MWIR transparency and retained sub-100 nanometer features without deleterious phase transformation, after exposure to 1200 degrees C.
Measuring key thermomechanical properties, specifically targeting an alpha over k ratio at or below the 1.0 micrometers per watt threshold, with a target of 0.5, at 1000 degrees C.
Performing and reporting initial mechanical property characterization, including hardness, flexural strength, and fracture toughness testing at ambient temperature.
Providing representative samples to the Navy for independent characterization, alongside a final cost estimate for continued scale-up and per-unit material cost.
Two Phase II items worth planning for now
Independent Navy characterization is the seventh objective and it changes how you should think about the whole program. Your samples will be measured by someone else with their own instruments. That argues for conservative claims, well-documented measurement conditions, and enough sample volume to send parts away without exhausting your inventory.
The cost estimate is also a named deliverable: a final cost estimate for continued scale-up and per-unit material cost. Aperture materials live or die on cost per part, and being asked for a per-unit number as a formal deliverable tells you the Navy is thinking about procurement, not just properties. Start tracking process cost in Phase I.
Note also that Phase II efforts under this release shall include a transition plan addressing at least two of the three Services, and that Phase II contracting actions are anticipated to be firm-fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.
Phase III Dual Use
The contractor will pursue commercialization of the materials and processes developed during Phase II with ITAR and CUI-eligible organizations.
IR-transparent composite ceramics with refined nanostructure have broad potential for dual-use applications including electro-optical and infrared sensor windows and domes for airborne and maritime platforms, hypersonic vehicle apertures, and commercial thermal imaging systems.
The technologies may be transitioned by expanding mission capabilities across a broad range of government users including directed energy, EO and IR sensing, and hypersonic systems programs.
Direct procurement of IR-transparent composite ceramic components in coordination with the government program manager may be part of a Phase III program.
Two observations. First, "with ITAR and CUI-eligible organizations" is a real constraint on your commercialization narrative. The natural customers for this material are export controlled, which narrows the addressable market but also raises barriers to entry, and a candid treatment of that tradeoff is more persuasive than a market size claim that ignores it.
Second, directed energy appears in the list of government users. Beam director windows for high-energy laser systems have the same combination of optical transmission, thermal shock, and large-aperture requirements, and Scaled Directed Energy is one of the six OSW-Reliance 21 Critical Technology Areas. If your material transmits usefully at directed energy wavelengths as well as SWIR and MWIR, that is a second transition path worth a sentence.
The Ten-Page Problem
This deserves its own section because it is the practical constraint that will shape your proposal more than anything else.
The technical volume for this topic is limited to 10 pages. Under the OSW-Reliance 21 instructions, all figures, tables, charts, and references must be included within the page count limits listed in the topic index. Any pages past the technical volume limit will not be considered, and no separate appendices will be evaluated.
Ten pages including micrographs, XRD patterns, property tables, and citations, for a materials proposal that must cover a composition, a synthesis route, a consolidation route, an optical property argument, a thermal property argument, a scalability argument, key personnel, and facilities.
Practical consequences. Every figure has to earn its space, which in practice means composite figures with multiple panels rather than one micrograph per page. Reference lists should be short and load-bearing rather than comprehensive. The scientific basis for optical transparency and for alpha over k can often be made in a paragraph with a citation rather than a derivation. And the Phase I work plan, which is what the Government is actually buying, should not be the section you compress to make room for background.
Follow all instructions under the Phase I Proposal Instructions section in the DoW SBIR Program BAA, and use the Phase I technical volume template provided as Appendix A in that BAA, since the OSW-Reliance 21 instructions defer to it on formatting apart from the figures-count-inside rule.
Funding, Cost Structure, and OSW-Reliance 21 Mechanics
The award
$300,000 over 12 months. The Phase I base amount must not exceed the base limit set by the topic.
Worth noting that the other two Phase I topics in this release are funded at $314,363, and NV024 at $300,000 is slightly lower. There is no stated reason for the difference. Do not read anything into it beyond the ceiling itself.
Cost volume mechanics, which differ from most components
OSW-Reliance 21 requires the use of the DSIP online Cost Volume webform. No separate Excel template is required. If supplementary cost detail is desired, it may be uploaded as a PDF attachment within Volume 3.
This is a genuine difference from components that mandate a downloadable spreadsheet, and it simplifies preparation. Provide enough information to allow evaluators to assess your plans to use the requested funds, following the Cost Breakdown Guidance in the DoW 2026 SBIR BAA.
Percentage of Work, with no exceptions
Review the updated Percentage of Work calculation details included in the DoW solicitation. OSW-Reliance 21 will not accept any deviation to the POW requirements.
That sentence is unusually flat. For a ceramics topic, the temptation is to subcontract powder synthesis, hot pressing or spark plasma sintering, or optical characterization to a university or a commercial lab. Model your POW before you build the team, because a plan that puts too much of the work outside your firm cannot be fixed by negotiation.
Technical and Business Assistance, which is unusually generous
The OSW SBIR/STTR Program will consider TABA requests in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 638(q). 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.
The $50,000 Phase II figure is double what DARPA offers in the same cycle and is at the high end across components. If you expect to reach Phase II, that is a meaningful amount of non-dilutive assistance funding to plan around.
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.
Read that twice if you intend to request TABA. The form is mandatory and it must be in Volume 5. A TABA request made any other way is not accepted.
Supporting documents that are optional but encouraged
Letters of Support from prospective transition stakeholders within DEVCOM C5ISR Center, PAE Maneuver Ground, PAE Maneuver Air, CPE Autonomy, the Naval Research Laboratory, or the Air Force Research Laboratory.
A Data Management Plan addressing provenance, licensing, and protection of pre-training data and government-furnished data.
The named organization list is worth reading as a map of who this program office talks to. For an IR aperture material, the Naval Research Laboratory is the obvious fit, and the topic description itself refers to Navy laboratory work and Navy independent characterization. A letter from an NRL stakeholder is the single highest-value optional document available on this topic.
The Data Management Plan language reads as written for artificial intelligence topics rather than for ceramics, but the underlying concerns still apply if your effort will handle government-furnished data or materials data with licensing constraints.
The Company Commercialization Report, and a contradiction worth knowing about
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 is required.
The Phase I Proposal Guidelines section of this document states that information contained in the CCR will be considered by OSW-Reliance 21 during proposal evaluations. That is unusual. Many components, DARPA among them, explicitly exclude the CCR from evaluation. Here it counts, which means your prior Phase II commercialization history is part of your Phase I score.
Note that the Direct to Phase II Proposal Guidelines section of the same document says the opposite, stating that CCR information will not be considered by "SCO" during proposal evaluations. The reference to SCO appears to be residual text from another organization's instructions. For a Phase I proposal to NV024, the applicable statement is the one in the Phase I section: the CCR will be considered. Fill it out carefully and completely rather than treating it as a formality, and if the discrepancy matters to you, raise it through DSIP Topic Q&A.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW solicitation.
Government technical evaluators from Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army DEVCOM Army Research Lab, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory may participate in the evaluation. Non-government support contractors may assist in administrative handling of proposals if the individual has signed a non-disclosure agreement, and they will not participate in selection decisions.
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 days of the closing date of the topic. Notifications will be issued through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator listed on the proposal.
Ninety days from October 21, 2026 is approximately January 19, 2027.
That evaluator list is tri-service and it tells you something about how to write. Your reviewer may be an Army materials scientist or an Air Force sensor engineer rather than a Navy ceramist, even though the topic originates in Navy work. Do not assume familiarity with the specific Navy laboratory result, and do not write only to a naval use case.
Protests after award should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to osd.ncr.ousd-r-e.mbx.SBIR-STTR-Protest@mail.mil. Refer to the DoW solicitation for procedures to protest the announcement itself.
Tri-service coordination and the TPOC question
This topic is of joint interest to the U.S. Army, meaning DEVCOM C5ISR Center and DEVCOM ARL, the U.S. Navy, meaning the Naval Research Laboratory, and the U.S. Air Force and Space Force, meaning the Air Force Research Laboratory. Proposers are strongly encouraged to engage the Technical Point of Contact listed in the topic description during the pre-release period to discuss technical scope and transition opportunities across the Services.
One practical problem: no Technical Point of Contact appears in the NV024 topic description, or in any of the four topic descriptions in this release. Use DSIP Topic Q&A during the pre-release and open periods, and direct administrative questions about the program and these instructions to osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.communities-of-interest@mail.mil.
Classification
Phase I efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified and CUI level. Classified proposals are not accepted. The inclusion of classified data in an unclassified proposal may be grounds for the Agency to determine the proposal non-responsive and not evaluate it.
In some instances, work being performed on Phase II contracts will require security clearances. If a Phase II contract requires classified work, the offeror must have a facility clearance and appropriate personnel clearances to perform the classified work.
For a hypersonic aperture material, that Phase II possibility is not remote. If you do not hold a facility clearance, understand that it is a long lead item and start thinking about sponsorship early.
Export control and foreign nationals
The technology within this topic is restricted under ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, or EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items.
Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work tasks intended for accomplishment by the foreign nationals, in accordance with the Announcement.
Foreign national participation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and may be restricted due to U.S. export control laws.
Note the "case-by-case basis" language in the release's Additional Information section. That is more accommodating than a flat prohibition, but it means disclosure has to be specific: which person, which country, which visa, which tasks. If your ceramics expertise sits with a foreign national researcher or a university collaborator, resolve this before submitting rather than hoping it goes unexamined.
The References
Only four, and each maps to a distinct part of the technical problem.
Chaim, Levin, Shlayer, and Estournes, "Sintering and densification of nanocrystalline ceramic oxide powders: a current understanding," Advances in Applied Ceramics, 2008. This is the coarsening problem itself, and it is the paper that explains why the topic exists.
Goldstein, "Correlation between MgAl2O4-spinel structure, properties and scale-up product performance in IR-windows and domes," Optical Materials, 2012. Spinel is the incumbent transparent ceramic for IR windows and domes, and this reference is about scale-up performance specifically. Treat spinel as the baseline your material must beat, and say how.
Nordahl, Hartnett, Gattuso, and Gentilman, "Optical and Mechanical Properties of Nano-Composite Optical Ceramics," Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, DTIC accession ADA527006, 2009. This is prior nanocomposite optical ceramic work from a defense prime, retrievable from DTIC, and it is the closest published precedent to what the Navy has demonstrated.
Katsui and Goto, "Coatings on ceramic powders by rotary chemical vapor deposition and sintering of the coated powders," Journal of the Ceramic Society of Japan, 2018. This is a specific synthesis strategy for the exact problem: coat the powder so the phases stay separated and fine through densification.
The set is short enough that all four are worth reading before you write. The Katsui and Goto route in particular is a strong hint about the kind of powder synthesis approach that would satisfy the "innovative powder synthesis and consolidation" language, and positioning your route relative to it, whether you use it, improve on it, or reject it, shows a reviewer you know the space.
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 SBIR Program BAA
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026
Selection notification: within 90 days of the closing date, approximately January 19, 2027
Period of performance: 12 months from award
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Identify your material system and be able to defend the composition choice against spinel as the incumbent. Assemble your existing micrographs, XRD patterns, and any porosity or transparency data, and select the few figures that will fit in ten pages. Confirm access to XRD and to SEM with EDS, since those are the named characterization methods. Estimate or find alpha and k for your composition and compute the ratio at 1000 degrees C, since Phase I explicitly accepts an estimate. Model your Percentage of Work before finalizing subcontracts, because no POW deviations are accepted. Read the four references. Reach out to Naval Research Laboratory and other named stakeholder organizations about a letter of support, which is optional but is the highest-value optional document here. Resolve any foreign national participation questions. Confirm SAM registration and your CMMC Level 1 posture. Download the DoW SBIR Program BAA Appendix A Phase I technical volume template.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 10-page technical volume against the DoW Appendix A template. Structure it around the material system, the synthesis and consolidation route that avoids coarsening, the scientific basis for 80 percent SWIR and MWIR transmission, the thermal stability argument to 1200 degrees C, the alpha over k estimate, and the scalability pathway addressing both capacity and component size. Keep the Phase I work plan substantial rather than compressing it for background. Draft the 3,000 character cover sheet abstract and the 3,000 character anticipated benefits and commercial applications discussion.
October 6 through October 7. Submit any remaining questions through DSIP Topic Q&A before it closes, including the Direct to Phase II ambiguity if that path interests you and the CCR evaluation discrepancy if it affects you.
October 8 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the DSIP online webform. Price powder synthesis, consolidation runs, XRD and SEM with EDS characterization time, optical transmission measurement, thermal property measurement or modeling, and high-temperature exposure testing. Add supplementary cost detail as a PDF in Volume 3 if useful. Complete the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form if you want the $6,500 and put it in Volume 5.
October 15 through October 18. Complete Volume 4, the Company Commercialization Report, carefully rather than perfunctorily, since the Phase I instructions state it will be considered during evaluations. Assemble Volume 5 with the TABA form, any letters of support, and a Data Management Plan if applicable. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering that Volume 7 must be the webform and will not be accepted as a PDF in Volume 5, and that no previous versions of the form should be uploaded to Volume 5. Run compliance: 10 pages maximum with figures, tables, charts, and references counted inside, unclassified or CUI only, no classified data, no separate appendices.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is OSW-Reliance 21 SBIR topic OSW26BZ06-NV024?
OSW26BZ06-NV024 is a Phase I SBIR topic titled "Engineered Microstructures for Enhanced IR Aperture Performance," released under the Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to spur research into industrially scalable production methods for an IR-transparent composite ceramic exhibiting sub-100 nanometer microstructural features in all phases on samples larger than 2 by 4 by 0.5 inches, porosity below 0.1 percent, microstructural and optical stability to 1200 degrees C, and a thermal expansion to thermal conductivity ratio at or below 1.0 micrometers per watt at 1000 degrees C.
How much funding is available?
$300,000 over 12 months for Phase I. Phase I awardees may also request up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance, which is 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?
Ten pages. That is the shortest limit of the four topics in this release. All figures, tables, charts, and references must be included within the page count. Any pages past the limit will not be considered, and no separate appendices will be evaluated.
What are the four hard specifications?
Sub-100 nanometer microstructural features in all phases. Porosity below 0.1 percent. Short-wave to mid-wave infrared transparency of at least 80 percent. And samples exceeding 2 by 4 by 0.5 inches. The topic states that all three of the microstructure, porosity, and transparency specifications must be achieved at scale for the material to be suitable for transition.
What has the Navy already demonstrated?
A composite ceramic with IR transparency, distinct phases, microstructural feature sizes below 100 nanometers in all phases, and porosity below 0.1 percent, on component parts as large as 0.4 inch in lateral dimension. Characterization was by X-ray diffraction and SEM cross-sections with EDS analysis. The gap this topic addresses is scale, not existence.
Why is scale-up hard?
Conventional ceramic processing routes relying on mechanical mixing or co-precipitation of constituent phases typically cause microstructural coarsening during densification, which precludes achieving sub-100 nanometer feature sizes in all phases. The topic seeks innovative powder synthesis and consolidation approaches that avoid that mechanism.
What size components does the Navy ultimately want?
The proposed processes should be industrially scalable in both capacity and final component size, with a path towards producing components in the 3 by 9 inch range or larger. Phase II targets samples exceeding 2 by 4 by 0.5 inches.
What is the thermal stability requirement?
The composite must retain its microstructure and IR transparency after exposure to temperatures up to 1200 degrees C for 10 minutes, without phase transformation or grain growth.
What is the alpha over k requirement?
A low ratio of thermal expansion coefficient to thermal conductivity. The threshold is 1.0 micrometers per watt and the target is 0.5 micrometers per watt at 1000 degrees C. This is effectively a thermal shock figure of merit for an aperture experiencing rapid aerothermal heating.
Do I have to measure alpha over k in Phase I?
No. Phase I asks the applicant to provide an estimate or measurement of the alpha over k ratio, which explicitly permits a calculated or literature-based estimate.
What is Phase I actually buying?
Feasibility of a material system and processing approach. Phase I asks you to investigate and demonstrate the potential to hit the microstructure and porosity targets, address initial process tuning, explore pathways to scalability by showing the approach can plausibly be extended to industrially relevant sizes, and provide a scientific basis for the optical and thermal property goals. It does not ask you to deliver a full-size part.
Can I submit a Direct to Phase II proposal for this topic?
The Phase I section of the topic contains a sentence referring to Direct to Phase II proposals, but NV024 appears only in the Phase I table of the topic index and not in the Direct to Phase II table, which lists only DV025 and DV027. No DP2 award amount, duration, or page limit is established for this topic. The D2P2 sentence appears to be residual boilerplate. Confirm through DSIP Topic Q&A before pursuing that path.
What does Phase II involve?
Scaling the process and optimizing the material, across seven named objectives: refining the composition and process route to hit all specifications on samples exceeding 2 by 4 by 0.5 inches; verifying nanoscale feature retention via SEM and EDS cross-sections; demonstrating industrial scalability with a path to 3 by 9 inches or larger; validating microstructural and optical stability after 1200 degrees C exposure; measuring alpha over k against the 1.0 threshold and 0.5 target at 1000 degrees C; initial mechanical characterization including hardness, flexural strength, and fracture toughness at ambient temperature; and providing representative samples to the Navy for independent characterization along with a final cost estimate for scale-up and per-unit material cost.
How do I get a Phase II award?
Phase II proposals may only be submitted by Phase I awardees. Submission notices are issued by the OSW SBIR/STTR Program Office to eligible Phase I performers through DSIP, with submission windows announced individually following Phase I final review. Notices go to the Corporate Official and Principal Investigator listed on the Phase I award. Phase II efforts shall include a transition plan addressing at least two of the three Services, and contracting actions are anticipated to be firm-fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee at the Contracting Officer's discretion.
Will the Navy test my samples themselves?
Yes, in Phase II. Providing representative samples to the Navy for independent characterization is a named Phase II objective. Plan for conservative claims, well-documented measurement conditions, and enough sample volume to send parts out.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and the specific statement of work tasks assigned to each. Foreign national participation is evaluated case by case and may be restricted.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1.
Is the Company Commercialization Report evaluated?
For Phase I under this release, yes. The Phase I Proposal Guidelines state that information contained in the CCR will be considered by OSW-Reliance 21 during proposal evaluations. Note that the Direct to Phase II section of the same document states the opposite and refers to a different organization, which appears to be residual text. Treat the CCR as scored and complete it carefully.
What cost volume format do I use?
The DSIP online Cost Volume webform. OSW-Reliance 21 does not require a separate Excel template. Supplementary cost detail may be uploaded as a PDF attachment within Volume 3.
Are there Percentage of Work restrictions?
Yes, and they are strict. OSW-Reliance 21 will not accept any deviation to the Percentage of Work requirements described in the DoW solicitation. Model your POW before finalizing subcontracts for powder synthesis, consolidation, or characterization.
How do I request TABA?
Using the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form, included in Volume 5 of the DSIP submission. OSW will not accept TABA requests that do not use the form or that are not submitted in Volume 5. Phase I is up to $6,500 and Phase II is up to $50,000 per project, both in addition to the cost ceilings and not subject to profit or fee.
What optional documents help?
Letters of support from prospective transition stakeholders within DEVCOM C5ISR Center, PAE Maneuver Ground, PAE Maneuver Air, CPE Autonomy, the Naval Research Laboratory, or the Air Force Research Laboratory. For this topic the Naval Research Laboratory is the most natural fit. A Data Management Plan addressing provenance, licensing, and protection of pre-training and government-furnished data is also encouraged.
Who evaluates my proposal?
Government technical evaluators from Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army DEVCOM Army Research Lab, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory may participate. Non-government support contractors may assist with administrative handling under a non-disclosure agreement but do not participate in selection decisions.
When will I hear back?
Within 90 days of the closing date of the topic, which is approximately January 19, 2027. Notifications go through DSIP to both the Corporate Official and the Principal Investigator listed on the proposal.
Can I submit a classified proposal?
No. Phase I efforts are expected to be performed at the Unclassified and CUI level, and classified proposals are not accepted. Including classified data in an unclassified proposal may make the proposal non-responsive. Some Phase II contracts may require facility and personnel clearances.
Who is the technical point of contact?
The release strongly encourages engaging the Technical Point of Contact listed in the topic description during the pre-release period, but no TPOC appears in the NV024 description or in any of the four topic descriptions in this release. Use DSIP Topic Q&A, and send administrative questions to osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.communities-of-interest@mail.mil.
What is the commercial market?
Electro-optical and infrared sensor windows and domes for airborne and maritime platforms, hypersonic vehicle apertures, and commercial thermal imaging systems. Government users named include directed energy, EO and IR sensing, and hypersonic systems programs. Note that commercialization is to be pursued with ITAR and CUI-eligible organizations, which constrains the market but also raises barriers to entry.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Beat spinel explicitly. Magnesium aluminate spinel is the incumbent transparent ceramic for IR windows and domes, and the topic cites a paper specifically about spinel scale-up product performance. A reviewer will be holding spinel in mind whether you mention it or not. Say what your composite does that spinel cannot, in the specific terms the topic uses: feature size, porosity, transmission, thermal stability, and alpha over k.
Name your coarsening defense in the first page. The topic identifies mechanical mixing and co-precipitation as the routes that fail and coarsening during densification as the mechanism. Whatever your approach is, powder coating, in situ phase formation, field-assisted sintering, a second phase that pins boundaries, state it early and explain the physics. That single argument is the topic's whole technical premise.
Say "in all phases" as often as the topic does. Keeping one phase below 100 nanometers is achievable. Keeping every phase there through full densification is the hard requirement, and it is stated four separate times. A proposal that presents an average grain size rather than per-phase data has answered a different question.
Report porosity like it is a specification, not a byproduct. Below 0.1 percent is a demanding density target for a nanostructured multiphase ceramic. State the measurement method, whether Archimedes, image analysis, or another approach, and be candid about its resolution near 0.1 percent, because that is exactly where measurement uncertainty starts to matter.
Address scalability in both dimensions. Capacity and final component size are both named. A single-part-per-month process that makes beautiful plates fails the capacity half. Give a throughput estimate and a route to 3 by 9 inches or larger, including what equipment scale-up requires and what it costs.
Connect alpha over k to the mission. The Critical Technology Area is Scaled Hypersonics and the thermal exposure is 1200 degrees C for 10 minutes. That is a flight thermal transient, not a furnace soak. Framing your thermal shock argument against an aerothermal profile rather than as an abstract ratio shows you understand why the requirement exists.
Fit in ten pages by cutting background, not the work plan. Every figure, table, chart, and reference counts inside the limit and no appendices are evaluated. Use multi-panel composite figures, keep the reference list short and load-bearing, and protect the space for the Phase I research plan, which is what the Government is buying.
Get a Naval Research Laboratory letter if you can. Letters of support are optional but encouraged, NRL is on the named list, and this topic originates in Navy laboratory work with Navy independent characterization built into Phase II. It is the single highest-leverage optional document available here.
Write for a tri-service reviewer. Evaluators may come from Army DEVCOM C5ISR, DEVCOM ARL, NRL, or AFRL. Do not assume your reviewer knows the specific Navy result, and do not write only to a naval application when directed energy and hypersonic systems programs are both named as government users.
Fill out the Company Commercialization Report properly. The Phase I instructions say it will be considered during evaluations, which is not true of every component. If you have prior Phase II awards, their commercialization outcomes are part of your score here.
Model Percentage of Work before you build the team. No deviations are accepted, and ceramics work invites subcontracting synthesis, consolidation, and characterization. Run the calculation first.
Use the TABA form or lose the TABA. Six thousand five hundred dollars in Phase I and fifty thousand in Phase II are both meaningful, and both require the SBIR/STTR TABA Request Form in Volume 5. A request made any other way is not accepted.
Do not over-promise Phase I. The Phase I verbs are investigate, explore, and provide a scientific basis, and an estimate of alpha over k is acceptable. Claiming you will deliver a full-size qualified part in 12 months on $300,000 reads as inexperience rather than ambition.
Start the clearance conversation if you might need one. Phase II contracts under this release may require classified work with a facility clearance and cleared personnel. For a hypersonic aperture material, that is a plausible outcome, and a facility clearance is a long lead item.
DARPA STTR DPA26TZ06-DV006: Localization, Characterization, and Modeling of Freestream Disturbances in Hypersonic Wind Tunnels
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $2m
Description: Complete guide to DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic DPA26TZ06-DV006, localizing and modeling freestream disturbances in hypersonic wind tunnels. $750K plus $1.25M option. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
DPA26TZ06-DV006 is a DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. DARPA wants diagnostics that can measure flow and acoustic disturbances in the parts of a hypersonic wind tunnel where you cannot put a window: the driver, the reservoir, and the nozzle throat. Then it wants those measurements tied, through multi-fidelity simulation, to the freestream noise that contaminates the test section downstream. The award is $750,000 over 12 months with a $1,250,000 option over 12 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The scientific problem is old and specific. Laufer established in 1964 that nozzle-wall turbulent boundary layers radiate downstream-directed Mach waves, making them a principal source of freestream noise. But in high-enthalpy and hypervelocity impulse facilities the noise field may be further enhanced by complex upstream dynamics that are not optically accessible. Standard optical techniques such as FLEET, focused laser differential interferometry, and Rayleigh scattering all require optical-grade line-of-sight window access, which may not withstand the extreme pressures, temperatures, or geometric constraints of the driver, reservoir, or nozzle throat.
Why it matters operationally: hypersonic ground test data is only as good as the tunnel's noise floor, and boundary-layer transition on a test article is exquisitely sensitive to freestream disturbance. If you cannot say where the noise comes from, you cannot correct for it, and every transition measurement carries an unquantified facility signature.
This topic is unusual in the release for two reasons. It is the only one with an OUSW Research and Engineering Critical Technology Area designation, Scaled Hypersonics. And its option period is larger than its base, $1,250,000 against $750,000, which means the majority of the money is behind a facility integration campaign that DARPA can decline to fund.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: DPA26TZ06-DV006
Title: Localization, Characterization, and Modeling of Freestream Disturbances in Hypersonic Wind Tunnels
Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2). This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only
Technical volume format: Standard, 35 pages. Feasibility documentation is a 10-page volume, the technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed 5 pages
Base award: $750,000
Base period of performance: 12 months
Option: $1,250,000 over 12 months
OUSW (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Scaled Hypersonics
Component Technology Priority Area: Hypersonics
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1
Export control status: ITAR restricted. The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or the Export Administration Regulation, 15 CFR Parts 730-774
Feasibility gate: a 10-page volume providing written evidence of upstream flow and acoustic modeling, plus a proof-of-concept or benchtop demonstration of a confined-space diagnostic
Target regions: driver, reservoir, nozzle throat and walls, meaning the locations where optical access is restricted or unavailable
Base end state: Critical Design Review, with a benchtop diagnostic demonstrated at 100 kHz frequency response and structural and thermal certification by the target facility operators
Option end state: diagnostic suite integrated in a live facility at minimum Mach 5, with upstream fluctuations correlated to downstream freestream noise and a notional mitigation plan
Technical and Business Assistance: DARPA will provide up to $25,000 for the Direct to Phase II
Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: hypersonics, wind tunnel noise, upstream disturbances, nozzle throat, driver-gas acoustics, non-optical diagnostics, high-frequency sensors, acoustic mitigation, fiber-optic probes, reflected-shock tunnels, expansion tubes
The Feasibility Bar, Which Is the First Thing to Check
This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only. Proposers must submit a 10-page feasibility volume providing written evidence of two things.
Upstream flow and acoustic modeling
Successful modeling of upstream disturbance generation and propagation, for example driver-gas acoustic focusing, shock-tube boundary layer interactions, or nozzle throat shear layer acoustics.
Three example phenomena are named, and they correspond to three different facility classes. Driver-gas acoustic focusing is an expansion tube and tunnel problem. Shock-tube boundary layer interaction is a reflected-shock tunnel problem. Nozzle throat shear layer acoustics applies to all tunnels. Pick the phenomenon you have actually modeled, and be clear which facility class your model addresses, because that choice constrains the facility you will target in Phase II.
Confined-space diagnostic feasibility
Proof-of-concept or benchtop demonstration of a diagnostic method, for example fiber-optic-coupled probes, ultra-high-frequency flush-mounted sensors, acoustic emissions arrays, or shear sensors, demonstrating a frequency response and the physical ruggedness required to operate in high-pressure and high-temperature or non-optically accessible environments.
Note the two attributes: frequency response and physical ruggedness. Both must be demonstrated, not asserted. The Month 8 base milestone sets the specific bar at 100 kHz, which is a reasonable indication of what "high-frequency" means here, so a diagnostic with a few tens of kilohertz response has a gap to close.
What the gate screens for, and what makes this topic different
Notice what the gate does not require. There is no facility integration, no Mach number, no tunnel data. It asks for a model and a benchtop diagnostic. Compared to the other two topics in this STTR release, this is the most accessible feasibility bar, and it is well matched to a small diagnostics company partnered with a university hypersonics group.
The document also says the modeling and diagnostics work should come from "Collaborative proposals from Small Business Concerns," which is consistent with the STTR structure: the disturbance physics and simulation naturally sit with the research institution, and the sensor hardware with the small business.
Two Appendix A rules apply. Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator, which on a university-partnered proposal means being careful about whose modeling results you are submitting and confirming that the arrangement satisfies the rule. And if the technology is subject to intellectual property, you must own the IP or have obtained license rights prior to proposal submission, with documentation in the Technical Volume.
What DARPA Is Actually Looking For
The objective
Develop and demonstrate a robust methodology to localize, characterize, and model upstream noise and flow disturbances in hypersonic wind tunnels, specifically targeting high-risk, hard-to-access regions upstream of the test section, for example the driver, reservoir, nozzle throat and walls, where traditional optical access is restricted or unavailable.
Performers must implement novel non-intrusive or minimally intrusive diagnostics coupled with multi-fidelity simulation strategies to accurately trace the evolution of unwanted thermo-fluid-dynamic disturbances from their point of origin to the test section.
The phrase "from their point of origin to the test section" is the whole topic in six words. This is a source localization and propagation tracing problem, not a noise measurement problem. Measuring test section noise is already routine. Saying which upstream feature produced it is not.
The problem
Hypersonic ground-test facilities are critical for evaluating aerodynamic forces, aerothermodynamic heating, and boundary-layer transition behavior on high-speed flight vehicles. However, conventional hypersonic wind tunnels are plagued by high-intensity freestream noise present in the test section.
Because these disturbances build, focus, and propagate downstream, the fundamental understanding of their evolution may require a potentially deep analysis within the upstream components of the facility.
Historically, Laufer established that nozzle-wall turbulent boundary layers radiate downstream-directed Mach waves, making them a principal source of freestream noise. However, especially in high-enthalpy and hypervelocity impulse facilities, the noise field may be further enhanced by complex upstream dynamics that are not optically accessible.
The three named focus areas
DARPA lists examples of focus areas, explicitly not limited to these, organized by facility type.
Nozzle throats and walls, in all tunnels. The extreme thermal and velocity gradients in the nozzle throat pose an opportunity for disturbance generation and initiation of turbulence over the nozzle walls. However, severely restricted throat geometry and high heat flux make optical diagnostic access virtually impossible. Diagnostics on tunnel walls are also very challenging, although there are examples of previous successful attempts.
Reflected-shock tunnels. Reservoir entropy, pressure fluctuations, and driver-gas contamination originate from the complex interaction between the reflected shock wave and the shock tube wall boundary layer. Furthermore, upstream diaphragm particulate-laden flow acts as a continuous source of premature model transition downstream.
Expansion tubes and tunnels. These are subject to driver-gas acoustic focusing, where upstream driver unsteadiness is focused directly into the test gas when sound speed ratios fall into unfavorable ranges. This is exacerbated by secondary diaphragm rupture wave systems propagating from upstream.
Read this list as a menu with consequences. Each focus area implies a different target facility, a different sensor environment, and a different partner. The nozzle throat is the universal option and the most brutal environment. The reflected-shock reservoir problem is the most well-characterized in the literature and the one with the most existing collaborators. The expansion tube acoustic focusing problem is the most specialized and has the fewest candidate facilities in the country.
Note also the particulate point in the reflected-shock bullet. Diaphragm particulate-laden flow causing premature model transition is a contamination problem rather than an acoustic one, and it is cited to a specific paper on shock-tube cleanliness. If your diagnostic can detect or characterize particulate, that is a differentiated capability worth calling out, since the topic frames it as a continuous source of downstream transition.
Why optical diagnostics do not solve this
Characterizing these regions is exceptionally difficult because standard optical diagnostic techniques such as Femtosecond Laser Electronic Excitation Tagging, Focused Laser Differential Interferometry, and Rayleigh scattering require optical-grade line-of-sight window access, which may not withstand the extreme pressures, temperatures, or geometric constraints of regions such as the driver, reservoir, or nozzle throat.
This is the market gap and you should state it in these terms. The hypersonics diagnostics community has excellent optical tools and no way to use them where the noise is born.
The two technical pillars
To bridge this gap, this STTR topic focuses on the development of specialized diagnostics, informed by multi-fidelity computational flow models ranging in scope from system-scale to component-specific. Collaborative proposals from Small Business Concerns must address the following technical pillars.
Upstream noise characterization and modeling. Modeling facility-specific noise generation phenomena such as transient or statistically steady boundary-layer effects, driver-gas acoustic focusing, and diaphragm bursting, starting from the most upstream location ultimately responsible for noise contamination of the test section.
Diagnostics for non-optical zones. Developing and demonstrating novel non-intrusive or minimally intrusive diagnostic systems for flow and acoustic characterization, capable of operating without traditional optical windows. Promising approaches include but are not limited to flush-mounted high-frequency pressure and thermal sensor arrays, micro-bore fiber-optic probes, laser-based acoustic sensing, and hybrid data-assimilation techniques that computationally reconstruct upstream flow states from sparse wall measurements.
The last item on that list is worth attention. Hybrid data-assimilation techniques that reconstruct upstream flow states from sparse wall measurements is a fundamentally different approach from putting a better sensor in a harder place: it accepts that you can only measure at the wall and uses the model to infer the interior. Both routes are invited. A proposal that combines them, using sparse rugged wall sensors plus assimilation into a component-scale model, sits exactly where the two pillars meet, and the topic's framing of diagnostics "informed by multi-fidelity computational flow models" suggests that is the intended shape.
Phase II Requirements
The Phase II effort will be divided into three key tasks.
Task 1: Upstream Noise Modeling and Source Characterization. Refine computational models of the targeted wind tunnel's upstream environment, focusing on detailing how disturbances generate in the driver and reservoir and focus and propagate through the throat.
Task 2: Upstream Diagnostic Suite Development. Build and calibrate a rugged, high-frequency flow and acoustic diagnostic system tailored for non-optical or highly confined spaces, for example micro-fiberoptic probes or flush-mounted acoustic arrays. Compare the novel diagnostic system developed for this task against low-order system-scale or component-specific high-fidelity predictive models.
Task 3: Facility Integration and Baseline Upstream Characterization. Deploy the diagnostic suite developed in Task 2 on the targeted wind tunnel to map baseline fluctuations directly within the upstream driver, reservoir, or throat. The measurements will correlate and support the refinement of Task 1 efforts.
Note that "the targeted wind tunnel" appears in Tasks 1 and 3, definite article. This is a facility-specific program. You are not building a general-purpose product in Phase II, you are instrumenting one tunnel, and the selection of that tunnel is a Month 4 milestone criterion. Which facility you name, and whether its operators have agreed, is likely the single most consequential decision in your proposal.
The Milestone Schedule
Phase II Base Period, 12 months
The Phase II base effort will focus on designing and validating the laboratory-scale prototype of the upstream diagnostic system and completing the engineering and integration plans for the upstream noise-mitigation hardware.
Month 4: Diagnostic System Architecture and Preliminary Design. Deliverable: Preliminary Design Review document and Upstream Diagnostic Specification Report. Criteria: selection of target wind tunnel facility completed; integration layout for upstream diagnostics, for example sensor ports and fiber-optic bypasses, finalized; preliminary numerical models of upstream mitigation hardware and observed environment completed. Associated tasks: 1 and 2.
Month 8: Diagnostic Calibration and Component Assembly. Deliverable: Confined-Space Diagnostic Calibration and Benchtop Testing Report. Criteria: successful benchtop demonstration of the diagnostic tool under simulated high-pressure and high-temperature conditions, showing a frequency response of at least 100 kHz and the ability to capture fluctuations through restricted-access ports. Associated task: 2.
Month 12: Baseline Diagnostic System Critical Design Review. Deliverable: CDR document, Upstream Structural and Thermal Safety Analysis, and Final Base Report. Criteria: final engineering drawings for upstream noise-mitigation hardware approved; structural and thermal safety and tunnel compatibility certified by target facility operators for high-pressure zones; integration interface finalized. Associated tasks: 1 and 2.
Phase II Option Period, 12 months
The Phase II option will focus on facility integration, mapping the baseline noise directly from the upstream components, and demonstrating a quantifiable reduction in freestream noise downstream.
Month 18: Facility Installation and Baseline Mapping. Deliverable: Baseline Upstream Characterization and Integration Report. Criteria: successful integration of the diagnostic suite into the target facility's upstream components, meaning reservoir, throat, or driver; baseline fluctuation measurements completed under nominal run conditions at minimum Mach 5, with and without existing noise mitigation strategies if present in the selected tunnel. Associated task: 3.
Month 24: Upstream-to-Downstream Noise Source Correlation. Deliverable: Upstream Source Localization and Propagation Analysis Report. Criteria: detailed spatial and temporal mapping of the flow path completed, successfully correlating fluctuations measured upstream, for example driver-gas acoustic focusing or throat shear-layer noise, with the resulting freestream acoustic noise in the downstream test section. Notional mitigation plan developed for observed flow characteristics.
Reading the schedule, including the thing that will decide your fate
The Month 12 criterion is the one to organize your entire base year around: structural and thermal safety and tunnel compatibility certified by target facility operators for high-pressure zones.
That is a third-party approval you do not control, for hardware you propose to install in a high-pressure section of someone else's national test asset. Facility operators at a major range or a university hypersonics laboratory are appropriately conservative about penetrations and instrumentation in the driver or reservoir, and the certification depends on their structural analysis review cycle, their safety board, and their run schedule.
The practical implication is that your target facility relationship must exist before you submit, not be developed during the base year. An existing collaboration agreement, a letter of intent from the facility, or a research institution partner who operates the tunnel is worth more than any technical claim in your proposal. If your research institution partner owns and operates the target facility, you have solved the hardest problem in the program on day one, and you should say so in the first page of your technical volume.
Note also a scope item that appears in the milestones but not in the three tasks: "upstream noise-mitigation hardware." Month 4 requires preliminary numerical models of it, and Month 12 requires final engineering drawings for it approved. The three Phase II tasks describe modeling, diagnostics, and facility integration, with no mitigation hardware task, and the option period objective mentions "demonstrating a quantifiable reduction in freestream noise downstream" while the Month 18 and Month 24 criteria ask only for measurement, correlation, and a notional mitigation plan.
So the document points in two directions on mitigation: engineering drawings for mitigation hardware are a base deliverable, but no task funds its design and no milestone requires demonstrating that it reduces noise. This is worth a question to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil before October 14. In the meantime, the defensible approach is to scope mitigation as design and analysis only, consistent with the Month 12 drawings deliverable and the Month 24 notional plan, and to state that reading explicitly so a reviewer knows you saw the tension rather than missed it.
One more detail: the base period milestones fall at Months 4, 8, and 12, and the option milestones at Months 18 and 24. There is no Month 15 milestone, so the option period effectively runs Months 13 through 24 with reporting at its midpoint and end.
Phase III Dual Use
Military applications
High-fidelity aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic characterization of hypersonic weapons systems, glide vehicles, and interceptors across Major Range and Test Facility Bases, such as the Arnold Engineering Development Complex.
Understanding the mechanisms for tunnel noise generation directly translates to higher-fidelity ground-test data, more accurate boundary-layer transition prediction, and accelerated flight-test qualification.
The named customer is useful. AEDC and the broader MRTFB enterprise are identifiable organizations with test and evaluation budgets, and "accelerated flight-test qualification" is the benefit statement a program office responds to, because flight test is the expensive alternative to trustworthy ground test.
Commercial applications
Commercial space launch vehicle design, thermal protection system testing, and academic and commercial aerospace wind tunnel facility diagnostic upgrades.
The rugged, non-optical high-frequency diagnostic systems developed under this topic have immediate commercial application in monitoring turbulent combustion chambers, gas turbine engines, and high-pressure chemical reactors where optical access is similarly restricted.
That second paragraph is the more valuable commercial story and it is easy to skim past. The transferable product is not the hypersonics methodology, it is the sensor: a rugged, high-frequency, non-optical diagnostic that works in hot, high-pressure, optically inaccessible volumes. Combustion chambers, gas turbines, and chemical reactors are large, non-defense, recurring-revenue markets with the same physical constraint. If your commercialization strategy leads with tunnel diagnostic upgrades alone, you are describing a market of a few dozen facilities worldwide. Leading with industrial high-temperature sensing is a materially bigger case.
Export Control and the University Partnership
The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation, 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items.
Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work tasks intended for accomplishment by the foreign nationals, in accordance with the Announcement.
Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US export control laws.
Why this needs early attention
Hypersonics is among the most export-controlled technical areas in aerospace, and university hypersonics laboratories are staffed substantially by international graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. This is an STTR, so a single partnering research institution must perform at least 30 percent of the work.
Resolve this before you submit. Identify which institution personnel will perform which tasks and their citizenship or visa status, since Appendix A requires that disclosure in the technical volume. Engage the institution's export control and research compliance office in the first week. Settle the Fundamental Research determination, since DARPA requires you to either separate Fundamental Research tasks into their own statement of work or identify them within the prime statement of work, and that determination interacts directly with the ITAR restriction and with DARPA's stated right to impose publication restrictions.
A note on the CMMC designation
The projected CMMC requirement for this topic is Level 1, which sits oddly beside the ITAR restriction. The DARPA STTR front matter states that firms engaging in Controlled Unclassified Information, Export Controlled, or ITAR work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 self-assessment certification, and Appendix A states that those engaging in ITAR or CUI work must have Level 2 CMMC certification.
Compare topic DV005 in this same release, which is also ITAR restricted and carries a projected CMMC Level 2 (Self) requirement. The Level 1 projection on an ITAR-restricted topic is worth clarifying with DARPA. The prudent planning assumption is Level 2 self-assessment, since that is what the general CMMC language requires for ITAR work regardless of the topic-level projection, and a Level 2 posture satisfies both readings.
Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics
The award
$750,000 over a 12 month base, plus a $1,250,000 option over 12 months, for $2,000,000 across 24 months if the option is exercised.
This is the only topic in either DARPA Release 6 document where the option is larger than the base, and it is a 62 percent share. The structure follows the technical logic: the base is design and benchtop work, the option is a live facility campaign that costs real tunnel run time. But it also means the Government reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance, and in this case that decision governs most of the program value and all of the interesting data.
Two implications. Design the base year so the option decision is easy, which here means hitting the 100 kHz benchtop demonstration cleanly and, above all, delivering the facility operators' structural and thermal certification on time. And be realistic that $750,000 over 12 months for two tasks plus a facility relationship is a modest budget, so the base year plan should be lean and focused rather than exploratory.
The resources made available under each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.
Contract type
Multiple awards are anticipated. DARPA may award FAR-based Government contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototypes agreements under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4022, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively. Note that the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions cite 10 U.S.C. 4021 for the same instrument type.
The Government Contracting Officer reserves the right to select award instrument type regardless of what was proposed and to negotiate all terms. DARPA reserves the right to remove a proposal from award consideration if the parties fail to reach agreement within a reasonable time or if the proposer fails to provide requested additional information within three business days. Complete the DARPA SBIR/STTR Pre-Award Checklist before selection.
DARPA will apply publication or other restrictions if it determines the research presents a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies unique and critical to defense, and any such award will require DARPA permission before publishing. On a hypersonics topic with a university partner, treat this as likely rather than hypothetical and raise it with your institution early.
Templates are mandatory
Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments to the announcement at dodsbirsttr.mil, and use of these templates is mandatory. The Volume 3 Direct to Phase II Cost Proposal Template is an Excel spreadsheet on the DARPA Small Business site.
Cost substantiation
All proposed costs should be accompanied by documentation substantiating how the cost was derived: paystubs or a DCMA rate agreement for direct labor, historical invoices or a current contract for consultants, and historical invoices, current quotes, or market research for materials and equipment. You need not propose the cheapest supplier but should explain the choice.
All subcontractor and consultant costs must be detailed at the same level as prime contractor costs and substantiated with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations under FAR 15.404-3(b), entered in the Explanatory Material section of the cost proposal form. Subcontractors should send unsanitized cost proposals directly to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
Three cost centers on this topic deserve documented rates. The research institution subaward, since it performs at least 30 percent of the work. Tunnel run time in the option period, which is billed by the shot or by the day depending on the facility and needs a rate basis from the operator. And high-bandwidth data acquisition, since 100 kHz-class measurements across a sensor array generate a real instrumentation and storage requirement.
If subcontractors will be performing Fundamental Research, you must either provide a separate statement of work for that work or identify those tasks within the prime statement of work. Cost sharing is permitted but not required and is not an evaluation factor. Title to property acquired with Government funds vests with DARPA unless transfer is determined more cost effective, which matters if your plan includes purchasing significant sensor or acquisition hardware.
Technical and Business Assistance
The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act Section 7 mandates agencies to offer TABA. DARPA will provide up to $25,000 for the Direct to Phase II.
Note what this document does not say. Unlike the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions, it does not state that TABA is in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee. Do not assume the SBIR language transfers. TABA requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award.
For this topic, export control counsel and industrial market development are the two highest-value uses, the latter because the commercial case runs through combustion, turbine, and reactor sensing rather than through wind tunnels.
Questions and the FAQ
DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, including the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. All questions must be in English.
Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated Frequently Asked Questions document under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.
DSIP technical support is available Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern, at DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
DARPA will not accept any late proposals.
Proposal format details
The Technical Volume must be a single PDF including graphics. Virus check before uploading. Do not lock or encrypt. Do not embed active graphics such as videos or moving pictures. Number all pages consecutively. Font no smaller than 10-point on 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. The header on each page should contain your company name, the topic number, and the DSIP-assigned proposal number, and may sit in the one-inch margin.
The Proposal Cover Sheet must include a technical abstract of no more than 3000 characters. Do not include marketing material, which will not be evaluated.
Classification, marking, and registrations
All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. No classified information. No proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1, which may be released publicly if selected for award. Proprietary or CUI content may go in the Technical Volume, marked with the appropriate CUI Control Block on the first page. The Cost Volume should be marked CUI for PROPIN. Volumes 4 through 7 marked as appropriate based on content.
Titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of selected proposals undergo DARPA Policy and Security Review and may be revised or redacted, with final versions potentially appearing on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and sbir.gov/awards.
Maintain an accurate and active SAM.gov entity registration. Given the ITAR restriction, confirm your CMMC posture in SPRS as discussed above. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io.
On venture capital ownership
The DARPA STTR Release 6 instructions contain no provision addressing majority ownership by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms. The companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions do include such a provision, explicitly permitting it under three conditions.
Do not read the SBIR provision across to this document. Eligibility for STTR awards is governed by the DoW STTR Program BAA and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive. If your ownership structure raises the question, resolve it before investing in a proposal.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and will not be evaluated nor considered for award.
Appendix A adds a second trap: proposals that do not adequately substantiate prior Phase I-equivalent feasibility for the components addressed will be deemed non-responsive and will not be evaluated for award.
The Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting strengths and weaknesses against each criterion, and determine overall selectability. Proposals are not evaluated against each other but on their own individual merit. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal.
Awards will be made to proposers whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government, consistent with the DoW STTR Program BAA criteria and availability of funding.
Notification of selection or non-selection within 90 calendar days of BAA close, by email to the Corporate Official on the Proposal Cover Sheet. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative for each proposal, and an informal feedback session may be requested at sbir@darpa.mil at DARPA's sole discretion.
Company Commercialization Report information will not be considered during evaluations.
Protests regarding the selection decision go, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.
Post-award support
DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II awardees upon contract execution at no cost. Awardees may also be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, invitation-only at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, supporting a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy. Your commercialization strategy section is used to assess EEI suitability, and EEI selection happens independently after award selection.
The References
Twelve, and they are the most demanding reading list in either DARPA Release 6 document. They also sort neatly into the three focus areas, which tells you how to read them.
The foundation. Laufer, "Some Statistical Properties of the Fluctuations in the Boundary Layer of a Supersonic Nozzle," Physics of Fluids, 1964. This is the nozzle-wall Mach wave radiation result that the topic description builds on.
Quiet tunnels and the state of the art. Schneider, "The Development of Hypersonic Quiet Tunnels," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2008. Hornung, "Performance of and Noise in High-Enthalpy Wind Tunnels," AIAA Paper 93-0185, 1993.
Transition in impulse facilities. Parziale, Shepherd, and Hornung, "Observations of Hypervelocity Boundary Layer Transition on a Cone in a Shock Tunnel," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2014.
Reflected-shock tunnel physics. Davies, "The Interaction of the Reflected Shock with the Boundary Layer in a Shock Tube and its Influence on the Duration of Hot Flow in the Reservoir," Aeronautical Research Council CP-881, 1966. Hannemann, Schnieder, Reimann, and Martine Schramm, "The influence and the delay of driver gas contamination in HEG," AIAA 2000-2593.
Particulate contamination. Jewell, Parziale, Leyva, and Shepherd, "Effects of Shock-Tube Cleanliness on Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition at High Enthalpy," AIAA Journal, 2017.
Expansion tube physics. Trimpi, "A Preliminary Theoretical Study of the Expansion Tube," NASA Technical Report, 1962. Paull and Stalker, "Acoustic waves in shock tunnels and expansion tubes," 18th International Symposium on Shock Waves, 1991. Dufrene, Sharma, and Austin, "Design and Characterization of a Hypervelocity Expansion Tube Facility," Journal of Propulsion and Power, 2007. Furukawa et al., "Visualizing the Secondary Diaphragm Rupture in an Expansion Tube," Shock Waves, 2007.
Wall diagnostics precedent. Kasper et al., "Pressure fluctuations beneath instability wavepackets and turbulent spots in a hypersonic boundary layer," Journal of Fluid Mechanics.
Two observations. First, the Kasper reference is the one the topic points to when it says diagnostics on tunnel walls are challenging "although there are examples of previous successful attempts." That is your precedent for flush-mounted wall sensing, and citing it while explaining what you add is a strong opening for the diagnostics pillar. Second, Paull and Stalker 1991 is the acoustic focusing mechanism, and the sound speed ratio condition it identifies is the physics behind the expansion tube focus area. If you target that focus area, that paper is load-bearing.
Timeline and What to Do When
The dates
Topic opens: September 23, 2026
Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals
Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close
Base period: 12 months from award
Option: 12 additional months if exercised
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Choose your focus area and your target facility, in that order, and secure the facility relationship in writing. This is the highest-value pre-submission action available on this topic, because the Month 12 criterion requires certification by the facility operators and the option period requires physical integration into their tunnel. Commit your research institution partner, ideally one that operates the target facility. Work the ITAR and export control question with their compliance office immediately, identifying personnel, citizenship or visa status, and assigned tasks. Settle the Fundamental Research determination and raise DARPA's publication restriction language. Verify your benchtop diagnostic's frequency response against the 100 kHz Month 8 bar and its ruggedness under simulated high-pressure and high-temperature conditions. Assemble your upstream modeling evidence for the specific phenomenon you will target. Resolve IP ownership or licensing, since documentation goes in the Technical Volume. Confirm your CMMC posture, planning to Level 2 self-assessment given the ITAR restriction. Download the mandatory Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ and keep rechecking it. Read Laufer 1964, Kasper, and the references for your chosen focus area. Decide your contract type. Confirm SAM registration.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 10 page feasibility volume first, covering both required elements: the upstream modeling evidence and the confined-space diagnostic demonstration. Include the reference list on the last page, counting toward the limit, and the one-page commercialization potential summary. Then draft the 20 page technical proposal against Appendix A's sections, with the statement of work as a substantial portion, organized around Tasks 1 through 3 and the five milestones. Name your target facility and its operator agreement early and prominently. Address the mitigation hardware scope question explicitly. Include the foreign citizens disclosure. Send your questions to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil, including the mitigation scope question and the CMMC level question.
October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory Excel template across the 12 month base and 12 month option. Get the research institution's budget at prime-level detail with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations. Get a documented rate basis for tunnel run time in the option period from the facility operator. Price high-bandwidth data acquisition, sensor fabrication, the benchtop high-pressure and high-temperature test rig, structural and thermal analysis labor for the certification package, and computational resources for the multi-fidelity modeling. Draft the 5 page transition and commercialization strategy against Appendix A's nine elements, leading with industrial high-temperature sensing rather than tunnel upgrades alone.
October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with data rights assertions, IP documentation, CVs, subcontractor pricing considerations, and any optional letters of intent, particularly from the target facility operator, AEDC, or an MRTFB organization, to substantiate specific transition claims. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, which the Corporate Official must submit before certification is possible. Run compliance: single unlocked PDF, no embedded video, 10-point minimum font, consecutive page numbers, correct header, 3000 character abstract, CUI marking, mandatory Excel cost template, no marketing material.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP, and confirm the mandatory supporting documents actually uploaded, since a completed submission in DSIP does not indicate that they did.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is DARPA STTR topic DPA26TZ06-DV006?
DPA26TZ06-DV006 is a DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Localization, Characterization, and Modeling of Freestream Disturbances in Hypersonic Wind Tunnels," released under the DoW 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop and demonstrate a robust methodology to localize, characterize, and model upstream noise and flow disturbances in hypersonic wind tunnels, targeting hard-to-access regions upstream of the test section such as the driver, reservoir, and nozzle throat and walls, where traditional optical access is restricted or unavailable.
How much funding is available?
The base award is $750,000 over 12 months, with a $1,250,000 option over 12 months, for a maximum of $2,000,000 across 24 months if the option is exercised. This is the only topic in either DARPA Release 6 document where the option is larger than the base. DARPA will also provide up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance for the Direct to Phase II.
When is the proposal deadline?
The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil. DARPA will not accept late proposals.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal?
No. This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only.
What must my feasibility volume show?
Two things, in a 10-page volume. Successful modeling of upstream disturbance generation and propagation, for example driver-gas acoustic focusing, shock-tube boundary layer interactions, or nozzle throat shear layer acoustics. And a proof-of-concept or benchtop demonstration of a diagnostic method, for example fiber-optic-coupled probes, ultra-high-frequency flush-mounted sensors, acoustic emissions arrays, or shear sensors, demonstrating the frequency response and physical ruggedness required for high-pressure, high-temperature, or non-optically accessible environments.
What frequency response do I need?
The feasibility requirement does not state a number, but the Month 8 base milestone requires a benchtop demonstration showing a frequency response of at least 100 kHz along with the ability to capture fluctuations through restricted-access ports. Plan against 100 kHz.
Why can't optical diagnostics do this already?
Standard techniques such as FLEET, focused laser differential interferometry, and Rayleigh scattering all require optical-grade line-of-sight window access, which may not withstand the extreme pressures, temperatures, or geometric constraints of the driver, reservoir, or nozzle throat. That is the gap the topic exists to fill.
Which upstream regions does DARPA care about?
Three focus areas are named as examples, not limits. Nozzle throats and walls in all tunnels, where extreme thermal and velocity gradients generate disturbance and initiate wall turbulence but restricted geometry and high heat flux make optical access virtually impossible. Reflected-shock tunnels, where reservoir entropy, pressure fluctuations, and driver-gas contamination arise from reflected shock interaction with the shock tube wall boundary layer, and where diaphragm particulate-laden flow causes premature model transition. And expansion tubes and tunnels, subject to driver-gas acoustic focusing when sound speed ratios fall into unfavorable ranges, exacerbated by secondary diaphragm rupture wave systems.
What are the three Phase II tasks?
Task 1, upstream noise modeling and source characterization, refining computational models of the targeted tunnel's upstream environment. Task 2, upstream diagnostic suite development, building and calibrating a rugged high-frequency diagnostic for non-optical confined spaces and comparing it against low-order system-scale or component-specific high-fidelity predictive models. Task 3, facility integration and baseline upstream characterization, deploying the suite on the targeted tunnel to map baseline fluctuations in the driver, reservoir, or throat.
Do I have to name a specific wind tunnel?
Effectively yes. Selection of the target wind tunnel facility is a Month 4 milestone criterion, and Tasks 1 and 3 both refer to "the targeted wind tunnel." More importantly, the Month 12 criterion requires structural and thermal safety and tunnel compatibility certified by the target facility operators for high-pressure zones, which is a third-party approval you cannot obtain without an existing relationship.
What is the hardest milestone?
Month 12, because it requires certification by facility operators of structural and thermal safety and tunnel compatibility for high-pressure zones. That approval depends on someone else's safety review process and run schedule. A proposal whose research institution partner operates the target facility has a decisive advantage here.
What does the option period require?
Integration of the diagnostic suite into the target facility's upstream components with baseline fluctuation measurements at minimum Mach 5, with and without existing noise mitigation strategies if present in the selected tunnel, by Month 18. Then by Month 24, detailed spatial and temporal mapping correlating upstream fluctuations with the resulting downstream freestream acoustic noise, plus a notional mitigation plan.
Am I expected to build noise mitigation hardware?
The document is not fully consistent on this. The Month 4 criterion requires preliminary numerical models of upstream mitigation hardware, and Month 12 requires final engineering drawings for it approved. But none of the three Phase II tasks covers mitigation hardware design, and the Month 18 and Month 24 criteria ask only for measurement, correlation, and a notional mitigation plan, even though the option period objective mentions demonstrating a quantifiable reduction in freestream noise. Ask DARPA at SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil before October 14. The defensible reading is design and analysis only, consistent with the drawings deliverable and the notional plan.
Do I need a research institution partner?
Yes. STTR awards require a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with the small business performing at least 40 percent of the work and the research institution at least 30 percent. The DARPA instructions direct proposers to the DoW STTR Program BAA for these general requirements. This topic does not prescribe the role split, but the natural division puts the disturbance physics and multi-fidelity modeling with the institution and the sensor hardware with the small business.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
Yes. The topic states the technology is restricted under ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and the statement of work tasks they will perform. Foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted.
How does ITAR interact with a university hypersonics lab?
This is the practical problem to solve first. Hypersonics is heavily export controlled and university hypersonics groups are typically staffed substantially by international students and postdocs, while the institution must perform at least 30 percent of the work. Identify personnel and status, assign tasks accordingly, engage the institution's export control office immediately, and settle the Fundamental Research determination, which interacts with both the ITAR restriction and DARPA's stated right to impose publication restrictions.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement stated for this topic is Level 1, which sits oddly beside the ITAR restriction, since both the DARPA STTR front matter and Appendix A state that firms engaging in ITAR, Export Controlled, or CUI work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 certification. The comparable ITAR-restricted topic in this release, DV005, carries a projected Level 2 (Self) requirement. Worth clarifying with DARPA; the prudent planning assumption is Level 2 self-assessment.
How long can my technical volume be?
The standard format is 35 pages. The feasibility volume is 10 pages, the technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed 5 pages and should be the last section of the Technical Volume. Appendix A states the commercialization strategy will not count against the proposal page limit, so confirm with DARPA how the three numbers combine if it affects your layout. Font must be at least 10-point.
Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?
No. DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026, with the topic number in the subject line and a point of contact name, email, and phone number. DARPA maintains a consolidated FAQ on its Small Business site.
What contract types can DARPA award?
FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototypes agreements under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4022. Note that the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions cite 10 U.S.C. 4021 for the same instrument type.
Will DARPA restrict publication?
Possibly, and on a hypersonics topic it is worth planning for. DARPA states it will apply publication or other restrictions if it determines the research presents a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies unique and critical to defense, and that any such award will require DARPA permission before publishing. Raise this with your university partner early.
Are venture capital backed companies eligible?
The DARPA STTR Release 6 instructions contain no provision on majority ownership by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms, unlike the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions, which explicitly permit it under three conditions. Do not assume the SBIR provision applies here. Check the DoW STTR Program BAA and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, or ask DARPA before October 14.
How much cost documentation do I need?
All proposed costs should be accompanied by documentation substantiating how the cost was derived, such as paystubs or a DCMA rate agreement for labor, contracts or historical invoices for consultants, and quotes, invoices, or market research for materials and equipment. Subcontractor and consultant costs must be detailed at prime-level and substantiated with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations under FAR 15.404-3(b). Subcontractors send unsanitized cost proposals to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. For this topic, get a documented rate basis for tunnel run time from the facility operator.
How will my proposal be evaluated?
Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Proposals are evaluated individually on their own merit rather than against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiation or resubmission. Non-conforming proposals, and proposals that do not adequately substantiate prior Phase I-equivalent feasibility, are not evaluated at all.
Will I get feedback if not selected?
Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative for each proposal submitted, and an informal feedback session may be requested by email at sbir@darpa.mil, granted at DARPA's sole discretion.
What is the commercial market?
Commercial space launch vehicle design, thermal protection system testing, and academic and commercial wind tunnel diagnostic upgrades. More significantly, the rugged non-optical high-frequency diagnostic systems have immediate application in monitoring turbulent combustion chambers, gas turbine engines, and high-pressure chemical reactors where optical access is similarly restricted, which is a much larger market than wind tunnels.
Who do I contact with questions?
Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, by October 14, 2026. Administrative questions about the DARPA program and these instructions also go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. DSIP technical support is DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. Feedback session requests go to sbir@darpa.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Secure the target facility before you write a word. The Month 12 criterion requires structural and thermal safety and tunnel compatibility certified by the facility operators for high-pressure zones, and the entire option period is a campaign inside their tunnel. This is the one thing in the program you cannot buy with technical excellence. A signed collaboration agreement, a facility letter of intent, or a research institution partner that operates the tunnel is worth more than any diagnostic claim. Name the facility on page one.
Pick one focus area and commit. Nozzle throat, reflected-shock reservoir, or expansion tube driver acoustics are three different physics problems in three different facility classes with three different sensor environments. A proposal that gestures at all three reads as unfocused and, worse, cannot name a single target facility credibly. Choose the one where you have both modeling evidence and a facility relationship.
Bring the sensor and the model together, not separately. The topic frames diagnostics as "informed by multi-fidelity computational flow models," and it explicitly invites hybrid data-assimilation techniques that reconstruct upstream flow states from sparse wall measurements. That combination, rugged sparse wall sensing plus assimilation into a component-scale model, sits exactly where the two technical pillars meet and is the most defensible answer to a problem where you fundamentally cannot instrument the interior.
Demonstrate ruggedness, not just bandwidth. Two attributes are required at the gate and at Month 8: frequency response and physical ruggedness under simulated high-pressure and high-temperature conditions. Most sensor proposals will lead with bandwidth. Showing survival data, thermal drift characterization, and a mounting concept that a facility safety board would accept is the differentiator, and it happens to be exactly what the Month 12 certification will hinge on.
Budget the certification package as real engineering. Structural and thermal safety analysis for a penetration into a high-pressure driver or reservoir is a stress and thermal analysis deliverable reviewed by a third party, not a paperwork item. Staff it, price it, and schedule it against the facility's review cycle rather than against your own calendar.
Design the base year for the option decision. Sixty-two percent of the money is in the option, and DARPA can decline it. The base year has three milestones and two of them, the 100 kHz benchtop demonstration and the operator-certified CDR, are the option decision. Keep the base plan lean and focused on those two things rather than exploring the design space.
Ask the mitigation hardware question. The milestones require preliminary models and then approved final engineering drawings for upstream noise-mitigation hardware, while no task funds its design and no milestone requires proving it reduces noise. Send the question to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil, scope it as design and analysis in your proposal, and say plainly that this is your reading. Showing that you read the document carefully is itself a signal.
Lead your commercialization strategy with industrial sensing, not wind tunnels. There are a few dozen relevant hypersonic facilities worldwide. There are thousands of combustion chambers, gas turbines, and high-pressure reactors with the same optical access problem, and DARPA named them itself. That inversion turns a niche instrumentation product into a real market, which is what the commercialization strategy is scored on.
Solve the ITAR and university problem in week one. Hypersonics plus a foreign national disclosure requirement plus a university performing at least 30 percent of the work is the most likely reason a strong team here fails to submit. Personnel, status, task assignment, compliance office, Fundamental Research determination, publication restrictions. Do it first.
Cite Kasper and Laufer, and the references for your focus area. Laufer 1964 is the foundation the topic builds on and Kasper is the wall-diagnostics precedent the topic alludes to when it says there have been previous successful attempts. Positioning your approach against those two, then against the specific references for your chosen focus area, demonstrates the awareness of the state of the art that Appendix A explicitly requires you to persuade reviewers of.
Say what "localization" means quantitatively. The topic asks you to trace disturbances from their point of origin to the test section. A proposal that states a spatial resolution or a source discrimination capability, even approximately, is making a testable claim. One that promises to "correlate upstream and downstream measurements" is not. The Month 24 criterion asks for detailed spatial and temporal mapping, so define what detail you expect to achieve.
Do not import the SBIR document's provisions. Three concrete differences matter: the OT authority citation is 4022 here rather than 4021, there is no venture capital ownership provision, and the TABA language omits the statement that TABA sits on top of the cost ceiling. If you are bidding both programs this cycle, read both documents.
DARPA STTR DPA26TZ06-DV005: Fuel-Flexible Spacecraft Electric Propulsion System
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $2m
Description: Complete guide to DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic DPA26TZ06-DV005, fuel-flexible spacecraft electric propulsion running on air, water, and chemical exhaust. $1M plus $1M option. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
DPA26TZ06-DV005 is a DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. DARPA wants one electric propulsion product line that runs on air, water, water and carbon dioxide mixtures, or nitrogen and hydrogen mixtures, at better than 30 percent electrical efficiency, using as much shared componentry as possible. The award is $1,000,000 over 12 months with a $1,000,000 option over 12 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The business case is stated in the topic itself and it is unusually explicit for a DARPA description. Thruster development to date has been highly specific to individual fuels, requiring costly development of entirely new systems for new propellants. A flexible fuel electric propulsion system capable of accepting a variety of molecular propellants offers a unique capability for a single product line to serve a significantly larger mission space and total addressable market. DARPA is funding product-line consolidation, not a new thruster physics result.
The feasibility gate is short, hard, and numerical: greater than 30 percent anode thruster efficiency on air or water, greater than 100 hours of cumulative operation on a single test article at that performance level, and vacuum thrust stand data taken in a facility below 3 by 10 to the minus 5 Torr background pressure at full power with in-situ calibrated thrust stands. Three requirements, no partial credit.
This topic carries an ITAR restriction, a projected CMMC Level 2 self-assessment requirement, and an explicit division of labor between the small business and the STTR research institution. All three shape who can realistically bid.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: DPA26TZ06-DV005
Title: Fuel-Flexible Spacecraft Electric Propulsion System
Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2)
Technical volume format: Standard, 35 pages. Feasibility documentation shall not exceed 10 pages, technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed 5 pages
Base award: $1,000,000
Base period of performance: 12 months
Option: $1,000,000 over 12 months
Component Technology Priority Area: Space Technology
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)
Export control status: ITAR restricted. The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or the Export Administration Regulation, 15 CFR Parts 730-774
Target fuels: air (20 to 50 percent O2, balance N2), water, water and CO2 mixtures derived from combusted hydrocarbons, and nitrogen and hydrogen mixtures derived from decomposed ammonia or hydrazine
Efficiency target: greater than 30 percent electrical efficiency across fuels
Feasibility gate: greater than 30 percent anode thruster efficiency on air or water, greater than 100 hours cumulative operation on a single test article at that level, with vacuum thrust stand data taken below 3 by 10 to the minus 5 Torr at full power using in-situ calibrated thrust stands
Phase II end state: TRL 6 hardware including thruster head, flow systems, and power processing unit
Research institution role: prescribed by DARPA. The research institution leads gas species-specific fundamental research; the small business focuses on productization, system integration, and robustness
Technical and Business Assistance: DARPA will provide up to $25,000 for the Direct to Phase II
Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: spacecraft propulsion, Hall thruster, fuel-flexible, air-breathing, VLEO, in-situ resource utilization, ISRU, oxygenic propellants, multimode propulsion
The Feasibility Bar, Which Is the First Thing to Check
To qualify for this Direct to Phase II topic, applicants must provide concrete evidence of prior Phase I-equivalent capability. Specifically, the applicant must have demonstrated three things.
Performance. Greater than 30 percent anode thruster efficiency on air or water.
Durability. Greater than 100 hours of cumulative operation on a single test article on air or water, demonstrated at the performance level above.
Evidence required. Vacuum thrust stand test data validating thrust, mass flow, power, efficiency, and duration claims. Testing must have been conducted in a facility operating at a background pressure below 3 by 10 to the minus 5 Torr during full-power operation, using thrust stands calibrated in-situ.
Why each clause matters
"Anode thruster efficiency" is a specific figure of merit, not total system efficiency and not thrust efficiency. Report it the way DARPA named it, and show the derivation from measured thrust, mass flow, and discharge power so a reviewer can check the arithmetic.
"On air or water" means you need only one of the two oxygenic propellants demonstrated to qualify. Air is the harder oxidizing environment for cathodes and channel walls; water brings condensation, feed system, and start-up complications. Whichever you have, the Phase II job is extending across the full set, and your proposal should be honest about which transition is the risky one.
"On a single test article" is the sentence that eliminates a lot of otherwise credible data. One hundred cumulative hours accumulated across three rebuilt thrusters does not satisfy it. DARPA is asking about erosion and lifetime on one unit, at the efficiency level claimed, which is a materials question as much as a performance one.
The pressure requirement is a facility gate. Background pressure below 3 by 10 to the minus 5 Torr during full-power operation on an air or water thruster means real pumping capacity against a condensable or oxidizing gas load. Name the facility, state the measured background pressure at full power, and describe the pumping arrangement. Elevated background pressure inflates apparent thrust through entrainment, which is exactly the artifact this requirement exists to exclude.
"Thrust stands calibrated in-situ" means calibration under vacuum in the test configuration, not a bench calibration transferred in. Document the calibration method and the uncertainty.
What the gate screens for
Taken together: an operating electric propulsion company with a real vacuum facility, a thruster that has survived a hundred hours on an aggressive propellant, and the instrumentation discipline to prove it. This is a small population of firms worldwide, and DARPA knows it. If you clear the gate, your competition is other firms that also clear it, which makes the Phase II plan and the research institution partnership the real differentiators.
Two Appendix A rules apply and are worth restating here. Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. And if the technology is subject to intellectual property, the proposer must own the IP or have obtained license rights prior to proposal submission, with documentation of ownership or license rights included in the Technical Volume.
What DARPA Is Actually Looking For
The objective
Develop a fuel-flexible spacecraft electric propulsion system capable of operating efficiently on air, water, or mixtures of water and carbon dioxide or nitrogen and hydrogen, at greater than 30 percent electrical efficiency.
The problem with the status quo
Spacecraft electric propulsion systems typically rely on noble gas fuels, xenon, krypton, and argon, stored in high pressure tanks. These fuels are unattractive for sustained ambient-air operation in very Low Earth Orbit, or for liquid refueling operations in higher orbits using water or chemical rocket fuels as output propellants.
Thruster development to date has been highly specific to individual fuels, requiring costly development of entirely new systems for new propellants. For example, optimizing for air in a vLEO environment versus water in a possible future higher orbit refueling architecture. These dependencies limit total propulsive capability and overall mission flexibility and responsiveness.
The four fuel classes
This topic seeks a system able to operate on the following, using as much shared componentry as possible.
Air, specified as 20 to 50 percent O2 with the balance N2.
Water, H2O.
Mixtures of water and carbon dioxide derived from combusted hydrocarbons.
Nitrogen and hydrogen mixtures derived from decomposed ammonia or hydrazine.
Read the derivations, not just the molecules. Two of the four fuel classes are exhaust products: combustion exhaust from a hydrocarbon chemical rocket, and decomposition exhaust from a hydrazine or ammonia system. That is the multimode propulsion concept, where a chemical stage's byproducts become electric propulsion propellant, and it is why the milestone schedule asks you to identify standard physical and fluidic interfaces to connect to external hydrocarbon and hydrazine chemical systems.
The mixture ranges also matter. Air at 20 to 50 percent oxygen spans a wide oxidizing severity, and a cathode and channel design that tolerates the top of that range is a different design than one tuned for the bottom.
The commercial framing
Developing a flexible fuel electric propulsion system capable of accepting a variety of molecular propellants offers a unique capability for a single product line to serve a significantly larger mission space and total addressable market.
This STTR topic seeks to develop a complete, integrated fuel-flexible propulsion system that bridges the gap between laboratory demonstration and fieldable spacecraft technology capable of utilizing in-situ resources.
Both sentences point the same direction. This is a productization topic. "Bridges the gap between laboratory demonstration and fieldable spacecraft technology" and the TRL 6 end state tell you the technical risk DARPA is buying down is integration and qualification, not thruster invention.
Phase II Requirements
The Phase II effort will focus on developing a complete, integrated fuel-flexible propulsion system capable of operating across air, water, and nitrogen and hydrogen species.
The product will undergo envelope qualification for vibration, shock, and thermal cycling.
The system components will include a fully integrated system including the thruster, power processing unit, flow control system, and a standardized bus control interface and protocol, for example RS485-based or similar, allowing demonstrated operation via the bus control.
The prescribed division of labor
The STTR research institution will lead the gas species-specific fundamental research to improve and extend efficient operation across all critical gas species.
The STTR small business will focus on productization, system integration, and robustness.
This is the only topic in the DARPA STTR Release 6 release that prescribes the roles, and you should follow it rather than reinventing it. The consequence for your statement of work is concrete: the university tasks are the physics of operating across gas species, meaning ionization, cathode chemistry, wall interactions, and species-dependent performance mapping. The small business tasks are the thruster head, the power processing unit, the flow control system, the bus interface, and the environmental qualification.
That split also maps onto the STTR statutory work-share minimums cleanly. The small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution at least 30 percent. Because DARPA has named the institution's scope as leading the gas species research across all critical species, a 30 percent institution share is credible on its face here in a way it often is not.
Notes on the system requirements
The bus control interface requirement is easy to underweight. "Allowing demonstrated operation via the bus control" means an end-to-end demonstration where the spacecraft bus commands the propulsion system through a standardized protocol, which is a software, electrical, and interface-documentation deliverable, not just a connector.
Envelope qualification for vibration, shock, and thermal cycling is a real cost line. Shaker table and thermal-vacuum time, plus fixture design for a thruster with a flow system attached, should be priced explicitly.
The phrase "across air, water, and nitrogen and hydrogen species" in the Phase II opening lists three, while the objective and the milestone schedule include water and CO2 mixtures as a fourth. Treat all four fuel classes as in scope, since the Month 6 and Month 12 milestones both name CO2 explicitly.
The Milestone Schedule
DARPA structures the effort as two years. The award table specifies a 12 month base and a 12 month option, so Year 1 maps to the base period and Year 2 to the option period.
Year 1: System Design, Interface Definition, and Prototyping
Month 1. Kickoff meeting presenting program schedule plans for Year 1.
Month 3. Finalize system requirements. Review university-led research on performance using air, water, and chemical exhaust mixtures. Identify standard physical and fluidic interfaces to connect to external hydrocarbon and hydrazine chemical systems.
Month 6. Review design for the integrated thruster system. University-led laboratory demonstration and technical report validating efficient performance transfer mechanisms across gas species, air, water, CO2, and N2 plus H2. Present conceptual design for gas generation and conversion mechanisms that will accept and regulate the hydrocarbon combustion and hydrazine decomposition feeds.
Month 9. Engineering model prototype design complete for thruster and supporting systems. Presentation of final test plans.
Month 12. Delivery of technical report on integrated engineering model prototype system design. Delivery of technical report on vacuum test results for prototype hardware across all gas species, including functional demonstration of gas feed systems.
Year 2: Qualification, Life Testing, and Design Iteration
Month 1. Kickoff meeting presenting program schedule plans. Note that the source document says "plans for Year 1" here, which appears to be a copy error from the Year 1 kickoff; the intent is plainly the Year 2 plan.
Month 3. Updated system design based on Year 1 test results, initial environmental testing covering vibration, shock, and thermal-vacuum, and other lessons learned.
Month 6. Written report on updated performance testing across all gas species.
Month 9. Complete 200-hour short duration wear tests on all gas species, or minimal time to evaluate wear rate following thruster burn-in. Identify preferred gas species for the 1000-hour wear test based on initial results and business case.
Final deliverables. TRL 6 hardware including thruster head, flow systems, and power processing unit. Final test report on system design and performance results including thrust, specific impulse, and overall thruster efficiency, and summarizing completed 1,000-hour and 200-hour wear tests. Technology Transition and Spaceflight Integration Plan.
Reading the schedule, including one tight spot
The base period is a design and integration year that ends with an engineering model tested across all gas species. Note that Month 6 of Year 1 requires the university's validated performance transfer mechanisms across all four gas species, which means the institution's work is front-loaded and its subaward has to be executable in the first weeks of the award.
The option year is qualification and life testing, and it contains a schedule tension worth planning for. The 1000-hour wear test species is identified at Year 2 Month 9, and the final deliverables summarize a completed 1,000-hour wear test. A thousand hours is roughly 42 days of continuous operation, which fits inside the last three months only with a facility dedicated to it and no significant interruptions. Two consequences for your proposal. First, you need continuous, uninterrupted access to a vacuum facility for that window, so name it and show the schedule. Second, the sensible approach is to start the 1000-hour test earlier than Month 9 on the species you expect to select, and to say so in your option statement of work, rather than accepting a serialized reading of the milestone that leaves no margin.
Note also the escape clause in the Month 9 wear test language: "or minimal time to evaluate wear rate following thruster burn-in." DARPA has left room for a shorter test that still characterizes the wear rate. If your erosion measurement approach can establish a wear rate in less than 200 hours per species, propose it explicitly and justify the methodology, because the alternative is 200 hours times four species inside a 12 month option.
The "business case" criterion at Year 2 Month 9 is worth noticing too. DARPA asks you to select the 1000-hour test species partly on commercial grounds, which is consistent with the topic's product-line framing. Say which species you expect to select and why, in market terms.
Phase III Dual Use
Phase III efforts will focus on flight qualification, scaling, and transition to acquisition for operational spacecraft.
The transition target is versatile use across three architectures. Very low Earth orbit satellites for air-breathing propulsion. Rideshare-compatible inert water-fueled satellites with no pressurant tanks required. Multimode propulsion systems capable of high specific impulse electric propulsion using combustion exhaust, water plus CO2, from hydrocarbon-based chemical rocket fuels, or decomposition exhaust, N2 plus H2, from hydrazine-based chemical rocket fuels.
Target military transition includes Space Development Agency or DARPA vLEO constellations.
Target commercial transition includes imagery, communication, and satellite servicing vehicles, or deep-space In-Situ Resource Utilization architectures.
The rideshare point deserves emphasis because it is the clearest near-term commercial argument. A water-fueled satellite carries no high-pressure noble gas tank, which removes a significant rideshare range-safety and integration obstacle. That is a procurement-relevant advantage today, independent of the vLEO or ISRU cases, and it is worth quantifying in your commercialization strategy.
The named military customer, Space Development Agency or DARPA vLEO constellations, is specific enough to act on. If you have any engagement with either, or with a prime building toward vLEO, that belongs in your transition strategy and possibly in an optional letter of intent.
Export Control, Which Constrains Your Team
The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation, 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items.
Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work tasks intended for accomplishment by the foreign nationals, in accordance with the Announcement.
Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US export control laws.
Why this is a bigger issue on this topic than on most
This is an STTR with a research institution performing at least 30 percent of the work, and university propulsion laboratories are typically staffed substantially by international graduate students and postdocs. An ITAR restriction plus a foreign national disclosure requirement plus a 30 percent university work share is a combination you need to resolve before submission, not during negotiation.
Concretely: identify which institution personnel will perform the work, their citizenship or visa status, and the specific tasks assigned, since Appendix A requires that disclosure in the technical volume. Discuss the export control posture with the institution's research compliance office early, because some universities will not accept ITAR-restricted work under their standard publication and open-research policies. If the university's participation depends on the work qualifying as Fundamental Research, that determination interacts directly with the ITAR restriction and needs to be settled up front. DARPA's own cost instructions require you to either separate Fundamental Research tasks into their own statement of work or identify them within the prime statement of work.
A note on the source document
The ITAR paragraph appears twice in this topic: once as a standalone block before the objective, stating the technology "is restricted," and again appended to the end of the objective sentence, stating it "may be restricted" and citing section 3.5 of the Announcement rather than the Announcement generally. The two versions differ in wording. The conservative reading, and the one to plan against, is the stronger of the two: treat the topic as ITAR restricted. If the distinction matters to your teaming plan, it is a reasonable question for SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
Note also that the projected CMMC requirement for this topic is Level 2 with self-assessment, consistent with the ITAR restriction, and higher than the Level 1 projected for the other two topics in this release. Firms engaging in Controlled Unclassified Information, Export Controlled, or ITAR work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 self-assessment certification, so confirm your SPRS posture before you submit.
Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics
The award
$1,000,000 over a 12 month base, plus a $1,000,000 option over 12 months, for $2,000,000 across 24 months if the option is exercised.
The even split is unusual and informative. Half the money is behind the option, and the option is where the life testing and qualification live. The Government reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance, which means the qualification work is genuinely contingent on your base year results. Structure the base year to make the option decision easy.
The resources made available under each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.
Contract type
Multiple awards are anticipated. DARPA may award FAR-based Government contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototypes agreements under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4022, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively.
Note that the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions cite 10 U.S.C. 4021 for the same instrument type. If you are preparing proposals to both programs this cycle, do not assume identical OT paperwork.
In all cases, the Government Contracting Officer reserves the right to select award instrument type regardless of what was proposed, and to negotiate all terms with selectees. DARPA reserves the right to remove a proposal from award consideration if the parties fail to reach agreement within a reasonable time or if the proposer fails to provide requested additional information within three business days. Complete the DARPA SBIR/STTR Pre-Award Checklist on the DARPA Small Business website before selection.
DARPA also notes it will apply publication or other restrictions if it determines the research presents a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies unique and critical to defense, and that any resulting award will require DARPA permission before publishing. On an ITAR-restricted topic with a university partner, flag this to your institution's compliance office alongside the export control discussion.
Templates are mandatory
Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments to the announcement at dodsbirsttr.mil. Use of these templates is mandatory. The Volume 3 Direct to Phase II Cost Proposal Template is an Excel spreadsheet on the DARPA Small Business site.
Cost substantiation
All proposed costs should be accompanied by documentation to substantiate how the cost was derived: paystubs or a DCMA rate agreement for direct labor, historical invoices or a current contract for consultants, and historical invoices, current quotes, or market research for materials and equipment. You do not have to propose the cheapest supplier, but you should explain the choice.
All subcontractor and consultant costs must be detailed at the same level as prime contractor costs and substantiated with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations under FAR 15.404-3(b), entered in the Explanatory Material section of the cost proposal form. Subcontractors should send unsanitized cost proposals directly to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
For this topic the substantiation burden is concentrated in three places. The university subaward, which is a large fraction of the work. Vacuum facility time, which is the dominant direct cost for a 200-hour and 1000-hour wear test campaign and needs a rate basis. And environmental qualification, meaning shaker, shock, and thermal-vacuum time plus fixtures.
Title to property furnished by the Government or acquired with Government funds vests with DARPA unless transfer of title is determined more cost effective, which is worth reading if your plan includes buying significant test equipment. Cost sharing is permitted but not required and is not an evaluation factor.
Technical and Business Assistance
The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act Section 7 mandates agencies to offer TABA. DARPA will provide up to $25,000 for the Direct to Phase II.
Note precisely what this document does and does not say. It states the $25,000 figure, but unlike the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions it does not state that TABA sits in addition to the cost ceiling and is not subject to profit or fee. Do not assume the SBIR language transfers. TABA requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award to ensure compliance with TABA requirements.
For this topic, export control and ITAR compliance counsel is the standout TABA use, followed by space industry business development given the topic's explicit product-line and total-addressable-market framing.
Questions and the FAQ
DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, including the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. All questions must be in English.
Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated Frequently Asked Questions document under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.
DSIP technical support is available Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern, at DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
DARPA will not accept any late proposals.
Proposal format details
The Technical Volume must be a single PDF including graphics. Virus check before uploading. Do not lock or encrypt the file. Do not embed active graphics such as videos or moving pictures. Number all pages consecutively. Font no smaller than 10-point on 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. The header on each page should contain your company name, the topic number, and the DSIP-assigned proposal number, and may sit in the one-inch margin.
The Proposal Cover Sheet must include a technical abstract of no more than 3000 characters. Do not include marketing material, which will not be evaluated.
Classification, marking, and registrations
All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. No classified information. No proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1, which may be released publicly if selected for award. Proprietary or CUI content may go in the Technical Volume, marked with the appropriate CUI Control Block on the first page. The Cost Volume should be marked CUI for PROPIN. Volumes 4 through 7 marked as appropriate.
Titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of selected proposals undergo DARPA Policy and Security Review and may be revised or redacted, with final versions potentially appearing on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and sbir.gov/awards.
Maintain an accurate and active SAM.gov entity registration. Confirm CMMC Level 2 self-assessment in SPRS, given both the projected topic requirement and the ITAR restriction. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io.
On venture capital ownership
The DARPA STTR Release 6 instructions contain no provision addressing majority ownership by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms. The companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions do contain such a provision, explicitly permitting it under three conditions.
This is a meaningful gap for this topic in particular, because electric propulsion companies capable of clearing the feasibility gate are frequently venture funded. Do not read the SBIR provision across. Eligibility is governed by the DoW STTR Program BAA and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, and if your ownership structure raises the question, resolve it before investing in a proposal.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and will not be evaluated nor considered for award.
Appendix A adds a second trap: proposals that do not adequately substantiate prior Phase I-equivalent feasibility for the components addressed will be deemed non-responsive and will not be evaluated for award.
The Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting strengths and weaknesses against each criterion, and determine overall selectability. Proposals are not evaluated against each other but on their own individual merit. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal.
Awards will be made to proposers whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government, consistent with the DoW STTR Program BAA criteria and availability of funding.
Notification of selection or non-selection within 90 calendar days of BAA close, by email to the Corporate Official on the Proposal Cover Sheet. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative for each proposal, and an informal feedback session may be requested at sbir@darpa.mil at DARPA's sole discretion.
Company Commercialization Report information will not be considered during evaluations.
Protests regarding the selection decision go, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.
Post-award support
DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II awardees upon contract execution at no cost. Awardees may also be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, invitation-only at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, supporting a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy. Your commercialization strategy section is used to assess EEI suitability, and EEI selection happens independently after award selection.
The References
Only three, which is the shortest reference list in either DARPA Release 6 document, and each one marks a distinct piece of the argument.
Rovey, Lyne, Mundahl, Rasmont, Glascock, Wainwright, and Berg, "Review of chemical-electric multimode space propulsion," Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2020. This is the multimode propulsion foundation, and it is the framework behind the two exhaust-derived fuel classes.
Bendimerad, Savransky, and Petro, "Optimization of refueling strategies for electric propulsion space missions," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 2024. This is the orbital refueling case, which is why water matters.
Andreussi et al., "A review of air-breathing electric propulsion: from mission studies to technology verification," Journal of Electric Propulsion, 2022. This is the vLEO air-breathing case.
The short list is itself a signal. DARPA is not asking you to survey a literature. The three references define three mission architectures, and the topic's premise is that one product should serve all three. A proposal that maps its fuel flexibility onto these three architectures explicitly is speaking the topic's language.
Timeline and What to Do When
The dates
Topic opens: September 23, 2026
Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals
Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close
Base period: 12 months from award
Option: 12 additional months if exercised
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Verify the three feasibility requirements against your actual records: anode efficiency above 30 percent on air or water, more than 100 cumulative hours on a single test article at that efficiency, and thrust stand data from a facility measured below 3 by 10 to the minus 5 Torr at full power with in-situ calibration. Pull the raw thrust, mass flow, and power data and confirm you can show the efficiency derivation. Confirm the 100 hours are on one article. Resolve IP ownership or licensing, since documentation must be in the Technical Volume. Commit your research institution partner and, critically, work the export control question with their research compliance office now, since an ITAR-restricted topic with foreign national graduate students is the single most likely thing to derail this teaming arrangement. Identify institution personnel, citizenship or visa status, and assigned tasks for the required disclosure. Settle the Fundamental Research determination. Confirm CMMC Level 2 self-assessment is current in SPRS. Reserve vacuum facility windows for the wear test campaign, including the 1000-hour run. Download the mandatory Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ and keep rechecking it. Decide your contract type. Confirm SAM registration.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 10 page feasibility documentation first, since inadequate substantiation makes the proposal non-responsive. Include the reference list on its last page, counting toward the limit, and the one-page commercialization potential summary. Then draft the 20 page technical proposal against Appendix A's required sections, with the statement of work as a substantial portion, structured around the two-year milestone set. Address the fuel transition risk honestly: which species you have, which is hardest, and how the university's species-specific research de-risks it. Include the foreign citizens disclosure section. Send questions to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil early.
October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory Excel template across the 12 month base and 12 month option. Get the university's budget at prime-level detail with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations, and remember its Month 6 deliverable means its work starts immediately. Price vacuum facility time for testing across four gas species, the 200-hour wear tests, and the 1000-hour wear test. Price environmental qualification: vibration, shock, thermal-vacuum, and fixtures. Price the power processing unit and the bus interface development. Draft the 5 page transition and commercialization strategy against Appendix A's nine elements, using the rideshare and SDA vLEO angles.
October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with data rights assertions, IP documentation, CVs, subcontractor pricing considerations, and any optional letters of intent from spacecraft integrators or vLEO programs that substantiate specific claims. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, which the Corporate Official must submit before certification is possible. Run compliance: single unlocked PDF, no embedded video, 10-point minimum font, consecutive page numbers, correct header, 3000 character abstract, CUI marking, mandatory Excel cost template, no marketing material.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP, and confirm the mandatory supporting documents actually uploaded, since a completed submission in DSIP does not indicate that they did.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is DARPA STTR topic DPA26TZ06-DV005?
DPA26TZ06-DV005 is a DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Fuel-Flexible Spacecraft Electric Propulsion System," released under the DoW 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop a fuel-flexible spacecraft electric propulsion system capable of operating efficiently on air, water, or mixtures of water and carbon dioxide or nitrogen and hydrogen, at greater than 30 percent electrical efficiency.
How much funding is available?
The base award is $1,000,000 over 12 months, with a $1,000,000 option over 12 months, for a maximum of $2,000,000 across 24 months if the option is exercised. DARPA will also provide up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance for the Direct to Phase II.
When is the proposal deadline?
The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil. DARPA will not accept late proposals.
What must my prior work already demonstrate?
Three things. Greater than 30 percent anode thruster efficiency on air or water. Greater than 100 hours of cumulative operation on a single test article on air or water at that performance level. And vacuum thrust stand test data validating thrust, mass flow, power, efficiency, and duration claims, taken in a facility operating below 3 by 10 to the minus 5 Torr background pressure during full-power operation, using thrust stands calibrated in-situ.
Do I need to have demonstrated on both air and water?
No. The feasibility requirement says air or water. Extending across the full set of fuels is the Phase II job.
Can I combine hours across multiple test articles?
No. The requirement specifies greater than 100 hours of cumulative operation on a single test article, which makes it an erosion and lifetime demonstration on one unit rather than an aggregate operating total.
Why does the background pressure requirement matter?
Elevated background pressure in a vacuum facility inflates apparent thrust through gas entrainment. Requiring below 3 by 10 to the minus 5 Torr at full power, with in-situ calibrated thrust stands, is how DARPA excludes that artifact. Name your facility, state the measured background pressure at full power, and document the calibration method and uncertainty.
What fuels must the Phase II system handle?
Air specified as 20 to 50 percent O2 with the balance N2; water; mixtures of water and carbon dioxide derived from combusted hydrocarbons; and nitrogen and hydrogen mixtures derived from decomposed ammonia or hydrazine. The system should use as much shared componentry as possible across them.
What is the Phase II end state?
TRL 6 hardware including the thruster head, flow systems, and power processing unit, plus a final test report covering thrust, specific impulse, and overall thruster efficiency and summarizing completed 1,000-hour and 200-hour wear tests, plus a Technology Transition and Spaceflight Integration Plan. The system also undergoes envelope qualification for vibration, shock, and thermal cycling, and must demonstrate operation via a standardized bus control interface such as RS485 or similar.
How are the research institution and small business roles divided?
DARPA prescribes them for this topic. The STTR research institution will lead the gas species-specific fundamental research to improve and extend efficient operation across all critical gas species. The STTR small business will focus on productization, system integration, and robustness. This is the only topic in this STTR release that specifies the split.
What are the STTR work-share requirements?
STTR awards require a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with the small business performing at least 40 percent of the work and the research institution at least 30 percent. The DARPA instructions direct proposers to the DoW STTR Program BAA for these general requirements.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
Yes. The topic states that the technology is restricted under ITAR, 22 CFR Parts 120-130, or EAR, 15 CFR Parts 730-774. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and the statement of work tasks they will perform. Foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted.
How does ITAR interact with the university partnership?
This is the practical issue to resolve before submitting. University propulsion laboratories are often staffed substantially by international students and postdocs, and the institution must perform at least 30 percent of the work. Identify institution personnel and their citizenship or visa status, assign tasks accordingly, and work the question with the institution's research compliance office early, since some universities will not accept ITAR-restricted work under standard open-research policies. The Fundamental Research determination interacts directly with this.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 2 with self-assessment, higher than the Level 1 projected for the other two topics in this STTR release. Firms engaging in Controlled Unclassified Information, Export Controlled, or ITAR work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 self-assessment certification.
How long can my technical volume be?
The standard format is 35 pages. Feasibility documentation shall not exceed 10 pages, the technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed 5 pages and should be the last section of the Technical Volume. Appendix A states the commercialization strategy will not count against the proposal page limit, so confirm with DARPA how the three numbers combine if it affects your layout. Font must be at least 10-point.
Is the 1000-hour wear test feasible inside the option year?
It is tight. The species for the 1000-hour test is identified at Year 2 Month 9, and a thousand hours is roughly 42 days of continuous operation. The practical approach is to begin the test earlier on the species you expect to select, secure uninterrupted facility access, and say so explicitly in your option statement of work. Note also that DARPA allows "minimal time to evaluate wear rate following thruster burn-in" as an alternative to the full 200-hour tests, so a justified shorter-duration wear rate methodology is worth proposing.
Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?
No. DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026, with the topic number in the subject line and a point of contact name, email, and phone number. DARPA maintains a consolidated FAQ on its Small Business site.
What contract types can DARPA award?
FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototypes agreements under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4022. Note that the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions cite 10 U.S.C. 4021 for the same instrument type.
Are the templates mandatory?
Yes. Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are attachments to the announcement, and use of these templates is mandatory. The Volume 3 template is an Excel spreadsheet.
Are venture capital backed companies eligible?
The DARPA STTR Release 6 instructions contain no provision on majority ownership by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms, unlike the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions, which explicitly permit it under three conditions. Do not assume the SBIR provision applies here. Check the DoW STTR Program BAA and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, or ask DARPA before October 14.
Will DARPA restrict publication?
Possibly. DARPA states it will apply publication or other restrictions if it determines the research presents a high likelihood of disclosing performance characteristics of military systems or manufacturing technologies unique and critical to defense, and that any such award will require DARPA permission before publishing. Raise this with your university partner alongside the export control discussion.
How will my proposal be evaluated?
Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Proposals are evaluated individually on their own merit rather than against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiation or resubmission. Non-conforming proposals, and proposals that do not adequately substantiate prior Phase I-equivalent feasibility, are not evaluated at all.
Will I get feedback if not selected?
Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative for each proposal submitted, and an informal feedback session may be requested by email at sbir@darpa.mil, granted at DARPA's sole discretion.
What is the commercial market?
Rideshare-compatible water-fueled satellites with no pressurant tanks required, imagery and communication satellites, satellite servicing vehicles, and deep-space in-situ resource utilization architectures. The named military transition targets are Space Development Agency or DARPA vLEO constellations.
Who do I contact with questions?
Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, by October 14, 2026. Administrative questions about the DARPA program and these instructions also go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. DSIP technical support is DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. Feedback session requests go to sbir@darpa.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Prove the three feasibility numbers before you write anything else. Anode efficiency above 30 percent, more than 100 hours on one article, and thrust stand data from a facility below 3 by 10 to the minus 5 Torr with in-situ calibration. Pull the raw data and rebuild the efficiency calculation. If the 100 hours were accumulated across rebuilt units, or the background pressure was higher than specified, you do not clear the gate and the proposal is non-responsive rather than merely weak.
Solve the ITAR and university problem first. This is the most likely reason a strong team fails to submit. An ITAR-restricted topic requires a foreign national disclosure, the institution must perform at least 30 percent of the work, and propulsion labs are internationally staffed. Talk to the institution's research compliance office in the first week, name the personnel and their status, assign tasks accordingly, and settle the Fundamental Research determination. Do not discover this in November.
Follow DARPA's prescribed role split rather than inventing your own. The institution leads gas species-specific fundamental research; you lead productization, integration, and robustness. That mapping makes a 30 percent institution share credible and gives you a clean statement of work structure. Deviating from it invites a reviewer to ask why.
Be honest about which fuel transition is hard. You qualified on air or water. Getting to all four classes is the technical risk, and the two exhaust-derived classes, water plus CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion and N2 plus H2 from hydrazine decomposition, bring feed system and gas conditioning problems that are different in kind from the thruster problem. The Month 6 milestone asks for a conceptual design for the gas generation and conversion mechanisms that accept and regulate those feeds. Do not leave that as an integration detail.
Treat "as much shared componentry as possible" as a scored design principle. The entire commercial premise is one product line serving multiple missions. Show a component-level table of what is common across all four fuels and what must change, because that table is the argument for the topic's own thesis.
Design the base year to make the option decision easy. Half the money is behind the option, and DARPA reserves the right to exercise all, some, or none based on technical performance. The base year ends with an engineering model tested across all gas species. Make the Month 12 deliverables unambiguous evidence that qualification is worth funding.
Get ahead of the 1000-hour test schedule. The species is nominally selected at Year 2 Month 9, and a thousand hours is about six weeks of continuous operation. Propose starting earlier on your expected species, name the facility, show the dedicated window, and use DARPA's own "minimal time to evaluate wear rate" language to justify a defensible shorter methodology for the other species if you have one.
Do not skip the bus control interface. "Demonstrated operation via the bus control" through a standardized protocol is a real deliverable with software, electrical, and documentation content. It is also the requirement most relevant to a spacecraft integrator reading your transition plan, so it is worth more proposal space than its one sentence in the topic suggests.
Lead your commercialization strategy with rideshare. A water-fueled satellite with no high-pressure noble gas tank removes a genuine range-safety and integration obstacle for rideshare payloads today. That is a nearer-term, more concrete market argument than vLEO air-breathing or deep-space ISRU, and it is the one a commercial buyer will recognize immediately. Then layer the SDA and DARPA vLEO constellation targets and the multimode architectures on top.
Map your proposal onto the three references. Rovey 2020 for multimode, Bendimerad 2024 for refueling, Andreussi 2022 for air-breathing. Three references define three mission architectures, and the topic's thesis is that one product serves all three. Saying that explicitly, architecture by architecture, is speaking the topic's language.
Price the facility time properly. Testing four gas species, running 200-hour wear tests, running a 1000-hour wear test, and doing vibration, shock, and thermal-vacuum qualification is a facility-hours problem more than a labor problem. All costs must be substantiated, so get rate documentation for the facility and the environmental test house early.
Note the document differences if you are also bidding DARPA SBIR this cycle. The OT authority citation differs, there is no venture capital ownership provision here, and the TABA language does not include the SBIR document's statement that TABA sits on top of the cost ceiling. Read both documents rather than assuming they match.
DARPA STTR DPA26TZ06-DV004: SHIELDER, Scalable Hard-Mask Materials with Improved Etch Resistance for Extreme-Aspect-Ratio Fabrication
Deadline: October 21, 2026
Funding Award Size: $2m
Description: Complete guide to DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic DPA26TZ06-DV004, SHIELDER scalable hard-mask materials for extreme-aspect-ratio nanofabrication. $1.5M plus $450K option. Closes October 21, 2026.
Quick Answer
DPA26TZ06-DV004 is a DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic under the DoW 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. DARPA wants a fundamentally new class of nanofabrication hard mask, one that survives aggressive plasma etching well enough to enable 100:1 aspect ratio structures with sidewall roughness under 2 nanometers. The award is $1,500,000 over 24 months with a $450,000 option over 12 months. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
The problem statement is a manufacturing bottleneck, not a science project. Current hard masks are thick CVD inorganic films such as silicon dioxide and silicon nitride, or sputtered metals. To get enough etch resistance they must be deposited thick, which induces high stress, structural instability, pattern distortion, and reduced feature fidelity during the etch. Conventional metal masks are polycrystalline, and their grain boundaries erode unevenly under ion bombardment, propagating severe line-edge and sidewall roughness into the finished device.
DARPA is explicit about the kind of answer it wants. Proposed approaches should bypass those degradation mechanisms by using low-dimensional, continuously ordered, inherently grain-free, or self-regenerating structures. That phrase is the design brief. If your material is polycrystalline and thick, you are proposing an incremental improvement to the thing DARPA said is broken.
Because this is an STTR, you must team with a research institution, and the small business and the institution each have statutory minimum shares of the work. That partnership is not optional packaging, it is an eligibility requirement.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: DPA26TZ06-DV004
Title: Scalable Hard-mask materials with Improved Etch resistance and Low Degradation for Extreme-aspect-Ratio fabrication (SHIELDER)
Agency: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Solicitation: DoW 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6, DARPA Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Direct to Phase II (DP2). This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only
Technical volume format: Standard, 35 pages. Feasibility documentation shall not exceed 10 pages, technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed 5 pages
Base award: $1,500,000
Base period of performance: 24 months
Option: $450,000 over 12 months
Component Technology Priority Areas: Advanced Materials, Microelectronics
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 1
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic, which distinguishes it from the other two topics in this STTR release
Feasibility gate: measured etch selectivity exceeding 50:1, demonstrated aspect ratio greater than 25:1, and sidewall roughness under 5 nm RMS, all with metrology data
Phase II end state: etch selectivity greater than 150:1, aspect ratio 100:1, line-edge and sidewall roughness under 2 nm RMS
Research institution partner: required, as with all STTR awards
Technical and Business Assistance: DARPA will provide up to $25,000 for the Direct to Phase II
Topic Q&A: DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: nanofabrication, dry etching, hard mask, etching selectivity, high-aspect-ratio, pattern transfer
The Feasibility Bar, Which Is the First Thing to Check
This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only. Proposals will be considered for DP2 funding for teams that provide compelling evidence of the feasibility of their novel hard-mask materials at a laboratory or R&D fabrication facility. Proposers must provide data showing that Phase I feasibility has been achieved through prior work. Four categories of documentation are required.
Etch selectivity data
Experimental data demonstrating the successful deposition, synthesis, or transfer of low-stress mask films, alongside measured etch selectivity exceeding 50:1 against target substrates such as silicon or complex oxides, under aggressive dry plasma conditions.
Note the two halves. You need the film, made by a real process, and you need a measured selectivity number above 50:1 in aggressive conditions. "Low-stress" is in the requirement, which means film stress is a reported quantity, not an afterthought.
High-aspect-ratio pattern transfer
Proof-of-concept fabrication data showing deep pattern transfer into a substrate, achieving an aspect ratio greater than 25:1 without significant mask degradation, faceting, or critical dimension loss.
The three named failure modes are the vocabulary DARPA will use to read your data. Show cross sections that let a reviewer confirm the absence of mask erosion, top-corner faceting, and CD loss, and label them in those terms.
Edge fidelity and roughness verification
High-resolution metrology data, for example cross-sectional SEM, TEM, or AFM, verifying pristine pattern transfer, specifically demonstrating etched structures with nanometer-scale sidewall roughness under 5 nm RMS.
RMS is specified. Report the measurement method, the sampling length, and the instrument, because roughness numbers are meaningless without them and a reviewer in this field knows it.
Scalability and integration pathway
Initial feasibility data or a substantiated extrapolation demonstrating a viable pathway to scale the masking technology from lab-scale prototypes to wafer-level dimensions, for example via CVD, ALD, or scalable continuous transfer methods.
Proposers must document how their proposed materials and process flows align with standard commercial fabrication or DoW constraints, specifically addressing CMOS compatibility, thermal budget, vendor and foundry transferability, and any additional constraints imposed by the application of interest.
This fourth item is the one most likely to be underwritten by a strong materials team, and it is the one where "a substantiated extrapolation" is explicitly allowed in place of data. Take the invitation, but substantiate it. Four named constraints are listed, and each deserves an explicit answer: is the material CMOS-compatible, what is the thermal budget, can a foundry or vendor actually run it, and what does your target application add.
What the gate screens for
Read the four together and the intended team becomes clear: a small business with a working deposition or transfer process and real etch data, partnered with a research institution that understands the erosion physics. Selectivity above 50:1 with sub-5 nm sidewalls at better than 25:1 aspect ratio is not a paper result. It is a measured result from a cleanroom.
Note also the standard Appendix A rule that applies here: work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. Data from a collaborator you have not yet teamed with does not satisfy the gate. And if the technology in your feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property, you must either own that IP or have obtained license rights prior to proposal submission, with documentation of ownership or license rights included in the Technical Volume.
What DARPA Is Actually Looking For
The objective
Develop and demonstrate novel nanofabrication hard-mask materials that exhibit substantially improved plasma etch resistance, enabling the implementation of extreme high-aspect-ratio structures with excellent pattern-transfer fidelity, minimal sidewall roughness, and precise dimensional control.
Proposed solutions should overcome the fundamental limitations of conventional lithography masks in a scalable fabrication environment by creating next-generation technologies capable of delivering high-resolution nanoscale features encountered across semiconductor, photonic, MEMS, and quantum device platforms.
Why DARPA cares
Next-generation defense-relevant microsystem technologies, such as 3D integrated circuits, high-density memory arrays, MEMS inertial sensors and RF filters, and integrated photonic devices, rely on the precise manufacturing of extreme high-aspect-ratio features within a chip.
Emerging architectures for multiferroic memory and logic components, such as those being pioneered under DARPA's Fast and Curious program, stand to benefit immensely from novel process flows capable of delivering deep trenches with ultra-low line-edge roughness.
As critical dimensions of these devices continue to shrink to improve performance or reduce size and cost, the ability to accurately transfer lithographic patterns into underlying substrates such as silicon via aggressive plasma etching has become a primary manufacturing bottleneck.
The named reference to DARPA's Fast and Curious program is a signal worth following. If your mask enables deep, ultra-smooth trenches in multiferroic stacks, saying so in the program's own terms gives a reviewer an immediate transition story.
What is wrong with the state of the art
Current state-of-the-art hard masks predominantly utilize thick chemical vapor deposition inorganic films, for example silicon dioxide and silicon nitride, or sputtered metals. These conventional technologies face fundamental physical limitations at extreme scales.
To achieve the necessary etch resistance, standard masks must be deposited with significant thickness, which induces high stress, structural instability, pattern distortion, and reduced feature fidelity during the etch process.
Conventional metal masks exhibit polycrystalline structures. Their inherent grain boundaries erode unevenly under ion bombardment, propagating severe line-edge and sidewall roughness that degrades the electrical and structural integrity of the final device.
The design brief
This STTR topic seeks highly innovative masking materials that disrupt the current paradigm. The goal is to identify and develop solutions that deliver ultra-high etch selectivity while addressing the weaknesses of current state-of-the-art solutions.
Proposed approaches should inherently bypass the degradation mechanisms of traditional masks by utilizing low-dimensional, continuously ordered, inherently grain-free, or self-regenerating structures to ensure pristine pattern transferring with low line-edge roughness even when subjected to aggressive, high-density plasma.
Four structural strategies are named. Low-dimensional points at two-dimensional crystalline materials, and DARPA cites a 2026 Nature Materials paper on two-dimensional crystalline hard masks for high-aspect-ratio nanofabrication. Continuously ordered and inherently grain-free both point away from polycrystalline films. Self-regenerating is the most unusual of the four and the most open: a mask that replenishes itself during the etch is a different failure model entirely. Pick your mechanism, name it in DARPA's vocabulary, and explain the physics.
Substrates and tools
Solutions do not have to be limited to silicon processing and may target compound semiconductors, wide-bandgap materials, piezoelectric substrates, ceramics, heterogeneous material stacks, or any other microsystems platform relevant to the Department of War.
Compatibility with existing or minimally-modified reactive ion etching, inductively coupled plasma, Bosch Deep RIE, or related plasma fabrication tools is strongly preferred.
That preference matters commercially. A mask that requires a new etch tool has a much harder transition path than one that drops into an existing DRIE or ICP chamber, and DARPA has told you which it prefers.
Metrics of interest
Proposers should identify the underlying physical mechanisms responsible for enhanced pattern-transfer performance and demonstrate a clear path toward scalable manufacturing.
Metrics of interest include improvements in etch selectivity, maximum achievable aspect ratio, critical-dimension control, sidewall roughness, mask thickness reduction, process throughput, and compatibility with wafer-scale manufacturing.
Seven metrics. Selectivity and aspect ratio get the headline numbers, but mask thickness reduction and process throughput are the two that a fab actually cares about and that most proposals will neglect. A thinner mask that etches deeper is the whole point of the topic.
Phase II Requirements
Direct to Phase II: develop, integrate, and demonstrate the following five capabilities.
Scalable deposition, synthesis, or transfer methodologies for hard-mask materials. Candidate masks must demonstrate an etch selectivity exceeding that of state-of-the-art inorganic films or sputtered metals, for example greater than 150:1 mask-to-substrate under aggressive plasma conditions.
High-fidelity pattern transfer capabilities demonstrating extreme aspect ratios of 100:1 without mask failure, critical dimension loss, or top-edge faceting.
Sub-nanometer dimensional control, with candidate masks demonstrating etched structures with sidewall and line-edge roughness under 2 nm root-mean-square.
Compatibility with standard lithographic workflows. The hard mask itself must be readily patternable, for example via secondary chemical plasma or resist, while maintaining extreme resistance to the primary deep-etch plasma.
Mitigation of unwanted metallic or particulate contamination to levels acceptable for standard semiconductor, MEMS, or photonic device fabrication lines.
The patternability paradox, which deserves a section of your proposal
The fourth requirement is the hardest intellectual problem in the topic and the easiest to gloss over. The mask must be easy to pattern and nearly impossible to etch. Those are the same physical property pointed in opposite directions.
Every credible answer resolves this with a selectivity mechanism that is chemistry-specific rather than energy-specific: a secondary plasma chemistry or resist process that attacks the mask readily, and a primary deep-etch chemistry to which it is nearly inert. Say which two chemistries you use, what the selectivity ratio is in each direction, and how you keep the patterning step from damaging the mask's key structural property. A proposal that states a 150:1 selectivity number and never explains how the mask itself gets patterned has left out half the process.
The demonstration environment
Hard mask demonstration must be conducted in a standard cleanroom environment where the process can be scaled to production and which supports the processing of standard-size wafers using commercial Deep Reactive Ion Etching or other Inductively Coupled Plasma tools.
Patterning performance must be compared between the novel hard mask and a standard baseline mask material such as silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, or a sputtered metal, for example TiN or Cr.
The goal is to demonstrate that the novel mask successfully maintains structural integrity in aggressive etch conditions where standard masks fail, for example the novel mask maintains CD fidelity and sub-nanometer sidewall smoothness at etch depths that would completely erode or severely facet the standard mask.
Compared to standard masks, the proposed solution must deliver a statistically significant reduction in defect propagation and edge roughness.
Two words to take literally. "Standard cleanroom environment where the process can be scaled to production" means a university research cleanroom running quarter-wafer coupons may not satisfy the requirement on its own, so name your facility and its wafer capability. And "statistically significant" means a designed comparison with enough samples to support a statistical claim, not a pair of representative micrographs. Budget the wafer count.
Commercialization and transition obligations inside the technical work
This DP2 will also require a commercialization and transition plan along with technology development.
Throughout the phase, the proposers must collaborate with commercial and military end-users to refine operational requirements and deployment scenarios of their developed solution.
Manufacturing and scaling plans for production must also be developed before the end of the program.
The final report must also include technology transfer documents outlining planned opportunities for commercial and military applications.
Note "throughout the phase." End-user collaboration is a continuous requirement rather than a final deliverable, which in practice means named foundry, fab, or program-office contacts in your proposal. This is separate from and additional to the 5 page commercialization strategy required by Appendix A.
Deliverables
The deliverables for DP2 will include the final prototype mask formulation and process recipe, a comprehensive testing and validation report outlining the final demonstration, the technology transfer plan with commercialization plans, and the manufacturing and scaling strategy.
The Base Milestone Schedule
DP2 base milestones for this program should include the following.
Month 3. Establish and report baseline parameters for the candidate mask material and develop a comprehensive chemical vapor deposition, or equivalent scalable deposition, process map.
Month 6. Demonstrate initial solution-based, or alternative scalable, coating and dry etching. Achieve stable precursor formulation, continuous film formation on small-scale substrates, and an initial mask-to-substrate etch selectivity of at least 50:1.
Month 9. Screen multiple mask candidates and execute the first patterned etch using the down-selected scalable coating method. Demonstrate initial high-aspect-ratio patterning, for example greater than 75:1, with a line-edge roughness of 5 nm or less using a process flow that is scalable to production levels.
Month 12. Demonstrate process scalability with a target mask-to-substrate etch selectivity of at least 100:1.
Month 15. Expand process integration for the mask deposition. Achieve strict film thickness uniformity, for example less than 10 percent variation, across intermediate-scale substrates and demonstrate patterning resolution with minimum feature sizes of 100 nanometers or less.
Month 18. Validate mask performance on alternative, non-standard semiconductor or dielectric substrates. Demonstrate a minimum selectivity of 50:1 on at least two alternative materials and scale the coating process to larger wafer sizes.
Month 21. Execute integrated, wafer-level processing demonstrations. Show successful transfer or direct integration of the vapor-deposited films and validate extreme etching capabilities on application-specific substrates, for example semiconductor devices, MEMS components, or photonic structures.
Month 24. Final Phase II demonstration. Achieve extreme etch selectivity greater than 150:1, ultra-high aspect ratios greater than 100:1 on primary semiconductor substrates, and strict dimensional control with a line-edge roughness of 2 nanometers or less.
Reading the schedule
The performance ramp is legible and aggressive: selectivity goes 50:1 at Month 6, 100:1 at Month 12, 150:1 at Month 24, while aspect ratio goes 75:1 at Month 9 to 100:1 at Month 24 and roughness goes 5 nm at Month 9 to 2 nm at Month 24.
Notice that Month 6 asks for a selectivity you already had to demonstrate to win the award. That is intentional. The early base period is about reproducing your result inside a scalable coating process, not about beating it. Months 15 through 21 are the scale-up spine: uniformity across intermediate substrates, then two alternative material systems, then wafer-level integration.
Note also two schedule facts worth planning around. The milestones name specific deposition language, "chemical vapor deposition or equivalent scalable deposition" at Month 3 and "solution-based or alternative scalable coating" at Month 6, which suggests DARPA anticipated a solution-processed route while leaving the door open. If your process is neither, say clearly at Month 3 what your equivalent is.
One gap in the source document worth a question
The topic specifies base milestones through Month 24 and labels them "DP2 Base milestones." The award structure table lists a $450,000 option over 12 months. The topic does not describe what the option period covers or provide option milestones.
Appendix A requires a Phase II Option Statement of Work "if applicable, specified in the corresponding topic," which leaves it ambiguous whether an option SOW is required here and, if so, against what scope. This is a good candidate for a question to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil before October 14. In the meantime, the defensible approach is to propose an option scope that follows naturally from the Month 24 end state, most plausibly foundry qualification, extended substrate coverage, or pilot production of the mask material, and to say plainly that you are proposing it in the absence of stated option milestones.
Phase III Dual Use
Phase III efforts should focus on transitioning the developed hard-mask technology to DoW and commercial semiconductor fabrication facilities.
DoW applications include the domestic manufacturing of secure high-density memory, advanced electro-optical components, and high-performance MEMS and RF components for electronic warfare and GPS-denied navigation.
Commercially, this technology addresses fundamental physical scaling bottlenecks in the global semiconductor industry. Direct dual-use applications include the production of next-generation 3D semiconductor transistors, multiferroic memory and logic components, and high-coherence solid-state quantum devices.
The commercial case here is unusually strong for a defense topic, because high-aspect-ratio etch is a rate limiter in 3D NAND, DRAM capacitor formation, through-silicon vias, and MEMS timing and inertial devices, all of which are large existing markets with identifiable buyers. The GPS-denied navigation mention is the specific defense pull: high-performance MEMS inertial sensors depend on deep, smooth, high-aspect-ratio trenches, and that is a stated DoW need with named programs behind it.
The STTR Partnership Requirement
This is an STTR, not an SBIR, and the difference is structural rather than administrative. STTR awards require a formal partnership between the small business concern and a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum shares of the work performed by each. The small business must perform at least 40 percent of the work and the single partnering research institution must perform at least 30 percent, with the balance allocated between them or to other subcontractors.
Two notes specific to this document. First, the DARPA STTR Release 6 instructions do not restate the work-split percentages. They direct proposers to follow all general instructions provided in the DoW STTR Program BAA, which is where the split, the research institution eligibility rules, the required allocation-of-rights agreement, and the intellectual property provisions live. Read that document, not just this one.
Second, unlike the two other topics in this release, DPA26TZ06-DV004 does not assign specific roles to the small business and the research institution. Topic DV005 in this same release does, stating that the research institution will lead fundamental research while the small business focuses on productization and integration. The absence of that language here means you define the division of labor yourself, and a reviewer will read it as a proxy for whether the partnership is real.
For a topic like this one, the natural split writes itself. The research institution owns the erosion physics, the mechanism identification DARPA explicitly asked for, and the advanced metrology, which is where TEM and AFM capability usually lives. The small business owns the scalable deposition or transfer process, the cleanroom demonstration on standard wafers, the contamination control, and the foundry transfer path. Say which institution, which faculty PI, which instruments, and which tasks.
Funding, Cost Structure, and DARPA Mechanics
The award
$1,500,000 over a 24 month base, plus a $450,000 option over 12 months, for $1,950,000 across 36 months if the option is exercised.
This is the largest base award and the longest total period of the three topics in this STTR release, and the only one where the option is small relative to the base. The resources made available under each topic will depend on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds. The Government reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the options based on available funding and the performer's technical performance.
Contract type
Multiple awards are anticipated. DARPA may award FAR-based Government contracts, firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement, or Other Transactions for Prototypes agreements under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4022, subject to approval of the Contracting Officer or Agreements Officer respectively.
Note the authority citation. The DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions cite 10 U.S.C. 4021 for the same instrument, while this STTR document cites 10 U.S.C. 4022. If you are preparing both an SBIR and an STTR proposal in this cycle, do not assume the OT paperwork is identical.
In all cases, the Government Contracting Officer reserves the right to select award instrument type, regardless of the instrument type proposed, and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees.
DARPA points proposers to the DARPA SBIR/STTR Pre-Award Checklist on its Small Business website and asks that it be completed prior to being selected for award. It also reserves the right to remove a proposal from award consideration if the parties fail to reach agreement on terms within a reasonable time, or if the proposer fails to provide requested additional information within three business days.
Templates are mandatory
Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments to the announcement posted at dodsbirsttr.mil. Use of these templates is mandatory. The Direct to Phase II Volume 3 Cost Proposal Template is an Excel spreadsheet available on the DARPA Small Business site.
Cost substantiation, which is stricter than most proposers expect
All proposed costs should be accompanied by documentation to substantiate how the cost was derived. DARPA gives examples: paystubs or a DCMA rate agreement for direct labor, historical invoices or a current contract for consultants, and historical invoices, current quotes, or market research for materials and equipment.
Proposers do not necessarily have to propose the cheapest item or supplier, but should explain the decision to choose one over another. Failure to include documentation with your proposal will delay contract negotiation.
All subcontractor and consultant costs must be detailed at the same level as prime contractor costs for labor, travel, and equipment, and must be substantiated with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations under FAR 15.404-3(b), entered in the Explanatory Material section of the online cost proposal form. Subcontractors should send unsanitized cost proposals directly to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
This matters a great deal on an STTR, where the research institution is a subcontractor performing at least 30 percent of the work. Its budget has to be built out at prime-level detail and price-analyzed by you.
If subcontractors will be performing Fundamental Research, you must either provide a separate statement of work outlining the work that qualifies as Fundamental Research, or identify within the prime statement of work which tasks are fundamental research. On a university-partnered STTR this is a live question, and getting it right early affects publication rights and contract terms.
Cost sharing is permitted but is not required and will not be an evaluation factor.
Technical and Business Assistance
The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act Section 7 mandates agencies to offer TABA. DARPA will provide up to $25,000 for the Direct to Phase II.
Worth noting precisely: this STTR document states the $25,000 figure but, unlike the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions, does not include language stating that TABA is in addition to the cost ceiling and not subject to profit or fee. Treat the SBIR wording as not automatically transferring, and if the distinction affects your budget, ask DARPA before October 14. TABA funding requests will be reviewed by the respective contracting office or specialist at time of award to ensure compliance with TABA requirements.
For this topic, the highest-value TABA uses are intellectual property counsel, given that the feasibility documentation itself requires documented IP ownership or license rights, and manufacturing or foundry transition consulting, since foundry transferability is one of the four named integration constraints.
Questions and the FAQ
DSIP Topic Q&A will not be available for these DARPA topics. Technical questions related to improving the understanding of a topic's requirements must be submitted by October 14, 2026, by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, including the name, email address, and telephone number of a point of contact. All questions must be in English.
Questions submitted within seven calendar days of the proposal due date may not be answered. DARPA posts a consolidated Frequently Asked Questions document under the topic number summary on its Small Business site, updated on an ongoing basis until one week prior to the proposal due date.
DSIP technical support is available Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern, by email to DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
DARPA will not accept any late proposals.
Proposal format details
The Technical Volume must be a single PDF file including graphics. Perform a virus check before uploading, since a detected virus may cause rejection of the proposal. Do not lock or encrypt the file. Do not include or embed active graphics such as videos or moving pictures.
Number all pages consecutively. Font size should not be smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. The header on each page of the Technical Volume should contain your company name, the topic number, and the proposal number assigned by DSIP when the Cover Sheet was created, and may be placed in the one-inch margin.
The Proposal Cover Sheet must include a brief technical abstract of no more than 3000 characters describing the proposed R&D project with a discussion of anticipated benefits and potential commercial applications.
Do not include marketing material. Marketing material will not be evaluated.
Classification, marking, and registrations
All proposals are required to be UNCLASSIFIED or CUI. Do not include any classified information in your proposal submission. Do not include any proprietary information on the Proposal Coversheet in Volume 1, as it may be released publicly if selected for award.
Proprietary or other CUI information may be included in the Technical Volume as needed, marked appropriately as CUI with the appropriate CUI Control Block on the first page of Volume 2. The Cost Volume should be marked CUI for PROPIN. Volumes 4 through 7 should be marked as appropriate based on content.
Proposal titles, abstracts, anticipated benefits, and keywords of proposals selected for contract award will undergo a DARPA Policy and Security Review and are subject to revision or redaction. Final approved versions may appear on the DoW SBIR/STTR awards website and the SBA's award website at sbir.gov/awards.
Proposers should ensure they have an accurate and active entity registration on SAM.gov. Firms engaging in Controlled Unclassified Information, Export Controlled, or ITAR work for DARPA must have CMMC Level 2 self-assessment certification. The projected requirement for this topic is Level 1, and this topic carries no ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph. DARPA points to sprs.csd.disa.mil/nistsp.htm and notes Project Spectrum at projectspectrum.io as an assistance resource.
On venture capital ownership
The DARPA STTR Release 6 instructions contain no provision addressing majority ownership by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms. This is a real difference from the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions, which include an explicit section permitting such ownership under three conditions.
Do not read the SBIR provision across to this document. Eligibility for STTR awards is governed by the DoW STTR Program BAA and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, and if your firm's ownership structure raises the question, get an answer from DARPA or from the DoW STTR Program BAA before you invest in a proposal rather than after.
Evaluation and selection
All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in the DoW STTR Program BAA. DARPA will conduct an evaluation of each conforming proposal. Proposals that do not comply with the requirements detailed in this BAA and the research objectives of the corresponding topic are considered non-conforming and will not be evaluated nor considered for award.
There is a second, topic-specific non-responsiveness trap in Appendix A: proposals that do not adequately substantiate prior Phase I-equivalent feasibility for the components addressed will be deemed non-responsive and will not be evaluated for award.
Using the evaluation criteria, the Government will evaluate each proposal in its entirety, documenting the strengths and weaknesses relative to each criterion, and will determine the proposal's overall selectability for funding. Proposals will not be evaluated against each other but on their own individual merit.
A selectable proposal is one where the strengths of the overall proposal outweigh its weaknesses, with no accumulated weaknesses that would require extensive negotiations or a resubmitted proposal. A non-selectable proposal is one where the strengths do not outweigh its weaknesses.
Awards will be made to proposers whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, consistent with instructions and evaluation criteria specified in the DoW STTR Program BAA and availability of funding.
Proposing firms will be notified of selection or non-selection status within 90 calendar days of the closing date of the BAA. The Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative to the proposer for each proposal submitted, and an informal feedback session may be requested by email at sbir@darpa.mil, provided at the sole discretion of DARPA.
Company Commercialization Report information will not be considered by DARPA during proposal evaluations.
Protests regarding the selection decision should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to DARPA Contracts Management Office, 675 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203, by email to CMO_SBIRProtests@darpa.mil and sbir@darpa.mil.
Post-award support
DARPA provides Transition and Commercialization Support Program services to Phase II awardees upon contract execution at no cost to awardees. Awardees may also be eligible for the Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative, an invitation-only program at DARPA's sole discretion, typically no more than $310,000 per awardee over the duration of the award, supporting a Senior Commercialization Advisor relationship, investor working group connections, and hiring an embedded entrepreneur to execute a Go-to-Market strategy. Information in your commercialization strategy section is used to determine suitability for EEI participation, and selection for EEI is made independently after selection for award.
The References
Seven, and they map cleanly onto three arguments.
The problem is real and long-standing: Wu, Kumar, and Pamarthy, "High aspect ratio silicon etch: A review," Journal of Applied Physics, 2010. Huff, "Recent advances in reactive ion etching and applications of high-aspect-ratio microfabrication," Micromachines, 2021. Tang, Sandoughsaz, and Najafi, "Ultra high aspect-ratio and thick deep silicon etching (UDRIE)," IEEE MEMS, 2017.
The DoW pull: DARPA's Fast and Curious program, at darpa.mil.
The solution space DARPA has in mind: Esmeraldo Paiva et al., "High Aspect Ratio Nanoscale Pores through BCP-Based Metal Oxide Masks and Advanced Dry Etching," ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, 2023. Bernet et al., "Highly selective anisotropic dry etching of smooth SiO2 nanostructures using SF6 plasma and Cr hard mask: Toward sustainable plasma etching," Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology B, 2026. Venkatram et al., "Two-dimensional crystalline hard masks for high-aspect-ratio nanofabrication," Nature Materials, 2026.
The last of these is the most consequential. A 2026 Nature Materials paper on two-dimensional crystalline hard masks is almost certainly the proximate inspiration for the "low-dimensional, continuously ordered, inherently grain-free" language in the design brief. Read it, and position your approach relative to it explicitly, whether you are extending it, competing with it, or doing something else entirely. The block-copolymer metal oxide mask reference points to a second recognized route. If your approach is neither, the burden is on you to explain why it beats both.
Timeline and What to Do When
The dates
Topic opens: September 23, 2026
Technical question deadline: October 14, 2026, to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026. DARPA will not accept late proposals
Selection notification: within 90 calendar days of BAA close
Base period: 24 months from award
Option: 12 additional months if exercised
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Test yourself against the four feasibility categories with real data: measured selectivity above 50:1, aspect ratio above 25:1 with no degradation or faceting or CD loss, sidewall roughness under 5 nm RMS with named metrology, and a substantiated scale-up pathway addressing CMOS compatibility, thermal budget, foundry transferability, and application constraints. Confirm the feasibility work was substantially performed by you or your PI. Resolve IP ownership or licensing now, because documentation of ownership or license rights must be in the Technical Volume. Identify and commit your research institution partner, with a named faculty PI, specific instruments, and a task split that satisfies the STTR work-share minimums, and start the institution's subaward paperwork immediately, since university contracting offices are slow in October. Confirm cleanroom access that supports standard-size wafers and commercial DRIE or ICP tools. Download the mandatory Volume 2 and Volume 3 templates. Read the FAQ and keep rechecking it. Read the Venkatram 2026 Nature Materials paper and the two other solution-space references. Decide your contract type. Confirm SAM registration.
September 23 through October 5. Draft the 10 page feasibility documentation first, since it is the gate and since inadequate substantiation makes the proposal non-responsive. Include the reference list on the last page of the feasibility documentation, counting toward its page limit, and the one-page commercialization potential summary. Then draft the 20 page technical proposal against Appendix A's required sections, with the statement of work as a substantial portion. Address the patternability paradox explicitly. Send your questions to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil early enough to matter.
October 6 through October 14. Build the cost volume in the mandatory Excel template across 24 months plus the 12 month option, and get your research institution's budget in at prime-level detail with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations. Substantiate every cost with paystubs, rate agreements, quotes, or invoices. Decide and document the Fundamental Research treatment for the university tasks. Price wafer counts for the statistically significant baseline comparison, alternative substrate materials, and metrology time. Draft the 5 page transition and commercialization strategy against Appendix A's nine required elements.
October 15 through October 18. Assemble Volume 5 with data rights assertions, IP documentation, CVs, subcontractor pricing considerations, and any optional advocacy or letters of intent that substantiate specific commercialization claims. Complete Volume 6 training and the Volume 7 foreign affiliations webform, remembering that the Corporate Official cannot certify until Volume 7 is submitted. Run compliance: single unlocked PDF, no embedded video, 10-point minimum font, consecutive page numbers, correct header on every page, 3000 character abstract, CUI marking on Volume 2 and Volume 3, mandatory Excel cost template, no marketing material.
October 19 through October 20. Submit and certify in DSIP. Confirm that mandatory supporting documents actually uploaded, since a completed proposal submission in DSIP does not indicate that they did.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is DARPA STTR topic DPA26TZ06-DV004?
DPA26TZ06-DV004, called SHIELDER, is a DARPA STTR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Scalable Hard-mask materials with Improved Etch resistance and Low Degradation for Extreme-aspect-Ratio fabrication," released under the DoW 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop and demonstrate novel nanofabrication hard-mask materials with substantially improved plasma etch resistance, enabling extreme high-aspect-ratio structures with excellent pattern-transfer fidelity, minimal sidewall roughness, and precise dimensional control.
How much funding is available?
The base award is $1,500,000 over 24 months, with a $450,000 option over 12 months, for a maximum of $1,950,000 across 36 months if the option is exercised. DARPA will also provide up to $25,000 in Technical and Business Assistance for the Direct to Phase II.
When is the proposal deadline?
The topic opens September 23, 2026 and proposals are due October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal at dodsbirsttr.mil. DARPA will not accept late proposals.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal?
No. This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II proposals only.
What must my prior work already show?
Four things, documented with data. Measured etch selectivity exceeding 50:1 against target substrates under aggressive dry plasma, along with successful deposition, synthesis, or transfer of low-stress mask films. Proof-of-concept pattern transfer at an aspect ratio greater than 25:1 without significant mask degradation, faceting, or critical dimension loss. High-resolution metrology such as cross-sectional SEM, TEM, or AFM verifying sidewall roughness under 5 nm RMS. And initial feasibility data or a substantiated extrapolation showing a viable pathway to wafer-level scale, addressing CMOS compatibility, thermal budget, vendor and foundry transferability, and application-specific constraints.
Who has to have performed the feasibility work?
Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer or the Principal Investigator. Additionally, if the technology is subject to intellectual property, you must own the IP or have obtained license rights prior to proposal submission, with documentation included in the Technical Volume.
What are the Phase II performance targets?
Etch selectivity greater than 150:1 mask-to-substrate under aggressive plasma conditions, extreme aspect ratios of 100:1 without mask failure or CD loss or top-edge faceting, and sidewall and line-edge roughness under 2 nm RMS. The mask must also be readily patternable, and metallic or particulate contamination must be mitigated to levels acceptable for standard semiconductor, MEMS, or photonic fabrication lines.
What kind of material is DARPA looking for?
Approaches that inherently bypass the degradation mechanisms of traditional masks by using low-dimensional, continuously ordered, inherently grain-free, or self-regenerating structures. DARPA specifically identifies the problems with the state of the art as excessive required thickness, which induces stress and pattern distortion, and polycrystalline grain boundaries, which erode unevenly under ion bombardment and propagate roughness.
Does the solution have to work on silicon?
No. Solutions may target compound semiconductors, wide-bandgap materials, piezoelectric substrates, ceramics, heterogeneous material stacks, or any other microsystems platform relevant to the Department of War. Compatibility with existing or minimally-modified RIE, ICP, Bosch DRIE, or related plasma tools is strongly preferred.
Where must the Phase II demonstration take place?
In a standard cleanroom environment where the process can be scaled to production, supporting the processing of standard-size wafers using commercial Deep Reactive Ion Etching or other Inductively Coupled Plasma tools.
Do I have to compare against a baseline mask?
Yes. Patterning performance must be compared between the novel hard mask and a standard baseline such as silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, or a sputtered metal like TiN or Cr, and the proposed solution must deliver a statistically significant reduction in defect propagation and edge roughness.
Do I need a research institution partner?
Yes. STTR awards require a formal partnership with a single partnering research institution, with statutory minimum work shares for each party: at least 40 percent by the small business and at least 30 percent by the research institution. The DARPA instructions direct proposers to the DoW STTR Program BAA for those general requirements. Unlike topic DV005 in this same release, DV004 does not prescribe how the roles divide, so you define the split.
How long can my technical volume be?
The standard format is 35 pages. Feasibility documentation shall not exceed 10 pages, the technical proposal shall not exceed 20 pages, and the Phase II commercialization strategy shall not exceed 5 pages and should be the last section of the Technical Volume. Appendix A states that the commercialization strategy will not count against the proposal page limit, so confirm with DARPA how the three numbers combine if it affects your layout. Font must be at least 10-point on 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins.
What CMMC level applies?
The projected requirement for this topic is CMMC Level 1. Firms engaging in Controlled Unclassified Information, Export Controlled, or ITAR work for DARPA more broadly must have CMMC Level 2 self-assessment certification.
Is this topic ITAR restricted?
No topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on DPA26TZ06-DV004. The other two topics in this STTR release, DV005 and DV006, both carry one.
Can I ask questions through DSIP Topic Q&A?
No. DSIP Topic Q&A is not available for DARPA topics. Technical questions go by email to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil by October 14, 2026, with the topic number in the subject line, and must include a point of contact name, email, and phone number. DARPA maintains a consolidated FAQ on its Small Business site.
What contract types can DARPA award?
FAR-based firm-fixed-price or cost-plus reimbursement contracts, or Other Transactions for Prototypes agreements under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 4022. Note that the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions cite 10 U.S.C. 4021 for the same instrument type.
Are the templates mandatory?
Yes. Templates for Volume 2 Technical Volume and Volume 3 Cost Volume are provided as attachments to the announcement and use of these templates is mandatory. The Volume 3 template is an Excel spreadsheet.
How much cost documentation do I need?
All proposed costs should be accompanied by documentation substantiating how the cost was derived, such as paystubs or a DCMA rate agreement for labor, contracts or historical invoices for consultants, and quotes, invoices, or market research for materials and equipment. Subcontractor and consultant costs must be detailed at the same level as prime costs and substantiated with Subcontractor Pricing Considerations under FAR 15.404-3(b). Subcontractors send unsanitized cost proposals to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil.
Is cost sharing required?
No. Cost sharing is permitted but is not required and will not be an evaluation factor.
Are venture capital backed companies eligible?
The DARPA STTR Release 6 instructions contain no provision on majority ownership by venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms, unlike the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions, which explicitly permit it under three conditions. Do not assume the SBIR provision applies here. Check the DoW STTR Program BAA and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, or ask DARPA before October 14.
What happens if my feasibility documentation is thin?
Appendix A states that proposals which do not adequately substantiate prior Phase I-equivalent feasibility for the components addressed will be deemed non-responsive and will not be evaluated for award. That is a separate and stricter trap than being scored poorly.
How will my proposal be evaluated?
Against the evaluation criteria in the DoW STTR Program BAA. Proposals are evaluated individually on their own merit rather than against each other. A selectable proposal is one where strengths outweigh weaknesses with no accumulated weaknesses requiring extensive negotiation or resubmission. Proposals that do not comply with the BAA requirements or the research objectives of the topic are non-conforming and are not evaluated.
Will I get feedback if not selected?
Yes. DARPA will provide a technical evaluation narrative for each proposal submitted, and an informal feedback session may be requested by email at sbir@darpa.mil, granted at DARPA's sole discretion.
Can I include advocacy letters?
Yes, optionally, and they do not count against the page limit. They should only be submitted to substantiate transition or commercialization claims actually made in your commercialization strategy, and DARPA asks you not to submit them merely for the sake of including them. Letters from Government personnel will not be considered. Faxed or separately emailed letters will not be accepted.
What is the commercial market?
Domestic manufacturing of secure high-density memory, advanced electro-optical components, and high-performance MEMS and RF components for electronic warfare and GPS-denied navigation on the defense side. Commercially, next-generation 3D semiconductor transistors, multiferroic memory and logic components, and high-coherence solid-state quantum devices.
Who do I contact with questions?
Technical questions go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil with the topic number in the subject line, by October 14, 2026. Administrative questions about the DARPA program and these proposal instructions also go to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. DSIP technical support is DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com with a copy to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil. Feedback session requests go to sbir@darpa.mil.
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Lead with the mechanism, not the number. DARPA asked proposers to identify the underlying physical mechanisms responsible for enhanced pattern-transfer performance, and it named four structural strategies it has in mind. A proposal that opens with "our mask achieves 60:1 selectivity" is weaker than one that opens with "our mask is grain-free, which removes the uneven erosion pathway that limits sputtered metals, and here is the selectivity that follows."
Answer the patternability paradox in its own section. The mask must be readily patternable and extremely etch resistant. Name the two chemistries, give the selectivity in both directions, and show that patterning does not damage the property that makes the mask work. This is the requirement most likely to separate serious proposals from optimistic ones.
Report roughness like a metrologist. RMS values with no stated method, scan length, or instrument are not evidence to a reviewer who does this for a living. Give the AFM scan parameters or the SEM and TEM conditions, and be clear about the distinction between line-edge roughness and sidewall roughness, since the topic uses both terms and sets different targets at different milestones.
Take mask thickness reduction seriously as a selling point. It is in the metrics of interest and it is the mechanism behind the whole topic: thick masks cause stress, distortion, and instability. If your material delivers the same etch depth at a fraction of the thickness, that is the headline, and it is more persuasive to a fab than a selectivity ratio.
Name your cleanroom and your wafer size. The Phase II demonstration requires a standard cleanroom where the process can scale to production, running standard-size wafers on commercial DRIE or ICP tools. If your work to date is on coupons in a university lab, explain how you get to wafers, and budget it.
Budget the statistical comparison. "Statistically significant reduction in defect propagation and edge roughness" against a baseline mask means wafer counts, replicates, and a designed experiment. Most proposals will show two micrographs. Showing a plan for a real comparison is cheap differentiation.
Build the research institution partnership as a technical argument, not a compliance step. DV004 does not prescribe the role split, which means a reviewer reads yours as evidence of whether the partnership is genuine. The natural division is that the institution owns erosion physics, mechanism identification, and advanced metrology, while the small business owns scalable deposition, cleanroom demonstration, contamination control, and the foundry path. Name the institution, the PI, the instruments, and the tasks, and start the subaward paperwork immediately.
Resolve the Fundamental Research question early. With a university performing at least 30 percent of the work, whether those tasks are Fundamental Research affects publication rights and contract terms, and DARPA requires you to either separate that work into its own statement of work or identify it within the prime statement of work. Decide before you write the SOW, not after.
Address all four integration constraints by name. CMOS compatibility, thermal budget, vendor and foundry transferability, and application-specific constraints. Each is a sentence or a paragraph, and skipping any of them in the feasibility documentation is an easy weakness for an evaluator to write down.
Position against the 2026 Nature Materials two-dimensional crystalline hard mask paper. It is cited in the topic and it almost certainly shaped the design brief's language. Whether you are extending that work, competing with it, or pursuing a self-regenerating route instead, saying so explicitly shows you know the state of the art, which Appendix A requires you to persuade reviewers of.
Ask about the option period. The topic gives base milestones through Month 24 and no option milestones, while the award table lists $450,000 over 12 months. Send that question to SBIR_BAA@darpa.mil, and in the meantime propose an option scope that follows from the Month 24 end state, such as foundry qualification or pilot production, stating plainly that you are doing so absent stated milestones.
Do not import the SBIR document's provisions. Three concrete differences between this STTR document and the companion DARPA SBIR Release 6 instructions matter to a proposer: the OT authority citation, the absence of any venture capital ownership provision, and the absence of the language stating that TABA sits on top of the cost ceiling. If you are submitting to both programs this cycle, read both documents.