DoD 23.4 SBIR Annual BAA (2024)

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Information SystemsTOPIC OBJECTIVE:  To develop a suite of probe technology and machine learning algorithms which can be used throughout the energetics manufacturing process to reduce cost and increase product consistency.TOPIC DESCRIPTION:  Currently, nitramine energetic materials have unacceptably high rework/scrap rates in a number of different munitions’ energetics manufacturing processes, such as dissolution, recrystallization, and slurry coating. This is largely due to the plant operators inability to control critical manufacturing parameters such as cooling water temperature, nitramine concentration, and solvent/antisolvent ratios. To further exacerbate the problem, munitions’ energetics manufacturing processes are poorly understood ‘black boxes,’ so the reason behind any deviation from spec is difficult to ascertain. We believe that by deploying a number of different measurement probes during various manufacturing steps, and analyzing the data via machine learning, we can dramatically reduce or even eliminate out of spec batches. The probes will collect data in real time as materials are manufactured, and the machine learning algorithms will provide nearly instantaneous recommendations to the plant operators on how to adjust their processes to target the desired properties. Beyond reducing out of spec batches, we would also like to reduce cost, environmental footprint (by mainly increasing energy efficiency and reducing solvent use), and increase throughput from existing lines. We believe in the long run, the insights gained for this program will enable easier transition of novel energetic formulations.   The purpose of this topic is to explore probe technology and machine learning algorithms that will be examined from the offerors and will be down selected based on time resolution, ruggedness, data output, safety, and suitability.There are two key steps for this technology to be successful. The first is the development and deployment of novel probes that produce large amounts of data in real time. The second is an advanced machine learning system that can take the probe readings and provide adjustments in real time during manufacturing to produce the desired product.PHASE I: Demonstrate proposed probe technology can produce the data required over the course of several manufacturing runs. The Phase I Base amount must not exceed $100,000 for a 6-month period of performance. PHASE II:  Implement the probes during the manufacturing process and collect data. Use data with machine learning algorithms. •Phase II Sequential: Expand the probes to more manufacturing lines, increasing the amount of data for machine learning systems. Direct and control energetics manufacturing based on machine learning recommendations to realize benefits PHASE III and DUAL USE APPLICATIONS:  Applying AI/ML to chemical manufacturing has a ton of commercial potential, although this specific topic is geared towards energetics; therefore, landing this topic at moderate dual-use potential for commercial capabilities. All HMX/RDX batches are currently examined via a multitude of techniques to determine if they are meet specifications. These include assessing purity, particle size, and thermal stability. This analysis can compared against the predictions of the machine learning algorithms and the measurements provided by the probes. We will also test the machine learning predictions against the predictions of crystallization modeling software, when appropriate.  KEYWORDS:    Probe; Algorithms; Machine Learning; Manufacturing process; Energetic materials; Energy  REFERENCES:  1.http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/ajubeh/files/2012/05/B00k-Mechanics-of-Materials-Mcgraw-2012-Ed6-978-0-07-338028-5.pdf2.https://books.google.com/books/about/Particle_Size_Measurements.html?id=lLx4GzA-7AUC3.https://books.google.com/books/about/Chemical_Reactor_Modeling.html?id=mrP6RNajRs0C

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials; Battlespace TOPIC OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to explore potential opportunities surrounding a non-HFC based fire extinguishing agent or system. This is needed for ground vehicle crew automatic fire extinguishing systems (AFES) to protect Soldiers and their equipment.TOPIC DESCRIPTION:  The Army relies on HFC-227ea for many of its safety-critical ground vehicle crew fire protection systems. However, production and import of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) are now being phased down due to their high global warming potentials (GWP), as mandated by the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020. Development and fielding of non-HFC fire extinguishing systems directly supports Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad as well as the Army Climate Strategy. Meanwhile Section 103 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260) calls for an 85% phasedown of the production and import of HFCs by 2036.i.Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, 2021. https://www. federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/01/2021-02177/ tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and- abroad.ii.Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment. February 2022. United States Army Climate Strategy. Washington, DC.iii.Order 13990: Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, 2021. 2021-01765.pdf (govinfo.gov)Rather than relying on recovered HFCs or trying to establish a stockpile to address the impending shortages of these chemicals, our proposed strategy is to minimize, or eliminate, the Army’s uses of HFC-227ea for ground vehicle crew fire protection applications. PHASE I:  Subscale proof of concept of extinguishing effectiveness. Once developed, the technology would be tested at the US Army Aberdeen Test Center in one of its full-scale testbeds for performance and safety. The Phase I Base amount must not exceed $250,000 for a 12-month period of performance.PHASE II:  Full scale system demonstrated and tested in laboratory environment•Phase II Sequential: Full scale system integrated and tested in vehicle•Phase II Enhancement: Toxicology assessment, resolve any issues, documentPHASE III and DUAL USE APPLICATIONS:  While many different industries will need to eventually switch to non-HFC extinguishers in the coming years, there remains barriers to adoption and scaling. Once capabilities of the system have been established, it would be integrated onto a ground vehicle(s) and evaluated against the Army’s criteria.  KEYWORDS:    Non-HFC; Fire Extinguish; Ground combat vehicles; Soldier safety  REFERENCES:  1. https://www.congress.gov/committee-print/116th-congress/house-committee-print/427702.https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA517470#:~:text=Historically%20the%20US%20Army%20USA,of%20peacetime%20and%20combat%20fires.

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: General Warfighting Requirements TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): MaterialsTOPIC OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to develop alternative air handling units or systems to cool the cabin area and/or electronics. TOPIC DESCRIPTION: This topic calls for selected proposer(s) to design a non-refrigerant based low Global Warming Potential (GWP) Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) free cooling system. HFC 134a is being phased out globally due to its high global warming potential (GWP), the automotive industry has switched over to HFO-1234yf which is flammable and not suitable for current military system designs.The idea to design a non-refrigerant based cooling system directly supports the Army Climate Strategy. The HFC 134a phase down plan included in Section 103 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260) calls for a phase down of the production and import of HFC’s down to 15% of the current levels by 2036. Rather than trying to adapt military air conditioning system designs to address the flammability of HFO-1234yf, this design strategy is to eliminate the refrigerant loop altogether. A non-refrigerant based system would eliminate the need for the purchase and storage of refrigerants as well as the leakage issues of current systems. It would eliminate the need for large specialty equipment recovery machines which are required to maintain refrigerant systems, thus saving cost for Army wide infrastructure. PHASE I:  Quarter scale proof of concept version of cooling system. This would be tested in the Special Systems and Component Engineering (SSCE) laboratory in a thermal chamber for performance. The Phase I Base amount must not exceed $250,000 for a 12-month period of performance.PHASE II:  Full size breadboard system tested in laboratory environment •Phase II Sequential: Full size system installed in vehicle •Phase II Enhancement: Resolve any issues, document, demonstrate in-vehicle performance PHASE III and DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: As global regulations tighten around the kinds of refrigerants that can be used, all industries that require refrigeration in their operations will require a new, effective, and compliant refrigerant moving forward. However, widespread adoption and scalability remain concerns. This system would eventually be installed on a vehicle and evaluated for performance. KEYWORDS:    System cooling; Non-refrigerant; air conditioning; refrigerant loop  REFERENCES:  1.https://www.exair.com/solutions/cooling-solutions.html2.https://tetech.com/peltier-thermoelectric-cooler-modules/3.https://thermoelectricsolutions.com/list-of-thermoelectric-peltier-manufactures-companies-suppliers/

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: BiotechnologyTECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Sensors; Electronics; Information SystemsOBJECTIVE: Develop a solution that monitors relevant physiological markers and can alert divers of predetermined thresholds on risk. This solution includes form factor developments, accurate biomarker readings from sensors, durability for fresh, chlorinated, and salt-water environments, and on device computing to activate alerts based on predetermined thresholds. DESCRIPTION: Despite significant safety and overwatch, fatalities of student divers occasionally occur during training, with causes unknown in some cases. It is necessary to accurately monitor student biomarkers to determine when to alert nearby instructors and safety divers as special operations diving safety is paramount. Technology enabling systems that can alert divers in multiple environments can provide another tool for the military to use to ensure safe operations in high risk, high stress environments. Desired capabilities are broken up into critical, essential, and enhancing to articulate the minimum acceptable capabilities up to fully desired capabilities for product development. Critical (essential needs/must have):●Accurate measurement of the following vital signs in fresh and chlorinated environments oHeart rate tracking -Within 5 beats of clinical-grade device oBlood or tissue oxygen saturation - SpO2/StO2 (within 2-5% of clinical-grade device)●Bluetooth and/or WiFi capabilities for transferring recorded data●Capable of implementing compatibility with the USSOCOM Human Performance Data Management System (HPDMS), i.e. Smartabase (API)●24-hour continuous runtime●Adequate storage to capture 24 hours of critical dataDesired (strongly wanted features):●Accurate measurement of the following vital signs in fresh, chlorinated and salad water oHeart rate tracking -Within 5 beats of clinical-grade device oBlood or tissue oxygen saturation - SpO2/StO2 (within 2-5% of clinical-grade device)●Heart Rate Variability (HRV)oSampling rate 500-1000Hz (can record data at a lower rate) ●Present real-time physiological data to the user on a wearable display●Accurate measurement of water depth and ambient temperature (air or water)●Ability to set alert thresholds (preferably by a dive instructor)oInstructors will edit thresholds in HPDMS ●Ability to alert the wearer oInstructors will have ability to toggle alert ●Ability to alert nearby divers underwater of the wearers alert condition●Functional at depths up to 130ft●Functional at water temperatures between 34O-100O F ●Accurate respiratory rate measurement in fresh, chlorinated, and saltwater environmentsEnhancing (increases value to the user):●Skin temperature measurement in fresh, chlorinated, and saltwater environments●Core temperature measurement in fresh, chlorinated, and saltwater environments●Ability to measure any other parameters vendors deem important ●Any other additional features vendors propose as potentially usefulConstraints:●The device cannot interfere with training or other gear (BCD, dive computer, mask, etc.)●The device shall minimize the use of buttons to display physiological parametersPHASE I: Design a proof-of-concept solution for a device capable of accurately monitoring physiological markers vendors conclude are necessary (e.g. heart rate, SpO2, etc.) which can alert divers and instructors on predetermined thresholds of risk. The design should include, but not limited to, accurate measurements of heart rate and SpO2 or StO2 (in dry, fresh, and chlorinated environments), Bluetooth and/or WiFi capabilities, battery life and memory for a 24-hour continuous runtime, and should be capable of interfacing with the Human Performance Data Management System (HPDMS), i.e. Smartabase (API). The device can be standalone or integrated with standard dive equipment. Other features, capabilities, and/or solutions not addressed in this solicitation that vendors determine will be beneficial to improving safety of Army divers are encouraged.Phase I will award $150,000 over a 3-month period of performance (PoP). The 3 month period will include several virtual sessions with TPOCs and an option to travel to San Diego to assist with refinement of a final presentation on month 3. The final presentation will take into account adjustments to approach, desire to work with other vendors to solve the proposed problem, and cost effectiveness of the solution. Proposals will be evaluated on a holistic basis based on their relevance, total cost, developmental timeline, ability to integrate into a system of systems, modularity, compatibility with open architecture, and any additional features the proposer includes.Companies can voluntarily participate in the Army Applications Laboratory (AAL) 12-week cohort program. The AAL cohort program is designed to solve specific Army modernization challenges on a compressed timeline. The cohort program matches qualified companies with Army problems owners to speed capability development, accelerate transition, and de-risk or inform requirements. This program is designed for businesses that own unique, applicable technology and are interested in growing a new line of business into the DoD.The cohort program will enhance technology development through the rapid exposure to Army stakeholders and the sustainment, maneuver, and robotics acquisition communities. Planned activities include a problem topic deep dive, a field week with Army sustainment and maneuver leaders and soldiers, hands-on experience with currently fielded military equipment and weapon systems, and stakeholder engagement from the requirements writer to acquisition manager to the end-user. An example cohort program for this topic is:Week 1 – Orientation and problem deep dive (virtual)Week 2 – Soldier Touchpoint (in-person at a military installation)Week 3-6 – Concept research and planningWeek 7 – Mid-point concept design brief to stakeholders and SME roundtable discussion (virtual)Week 8-11 – Concept design refinementWeek 12 – Final concept design brief to Army Senior Leaders (virtual)Cohort programming will be provided free of charge. Proposers that plan to participate in the cohort (if awarded a Phase I) are encouraged to include travel costs for one cohort trip, within the continental US, of 4-5 days each for in-person programming. In-person events may be substituted for virtual events depending on COVID-19 travel restrictions. Details will be provided to awardees under this topic at Phase I award. PHASE II:Demonstrate a prototype device capable of monitoring physiological markers, established in Phase I, which can alert divers on predetermined thresholds of risk. Vendors will have quarterly touchpoints with military stakeholders and develop said prototype to conform to listed parameters throughout the 21-month PoP. Soldier touchpoints will be provided free of charge. Proposers that plan to participate in the Soldier touchpoints (if awarded a Phase II) are encouraged to include travel costs for 7 touchpoints, within the continental US, of 1-2 days each for in-person events. It is incumbent on the vendor to provide proposed, iterative deliverables over the PoP (or sooner) to complete the identified solution. Vendors will interact with military diving experts prior to delivering physical solutions to combat divers. Potential solutions can iterate and the ability to test potential solutions with a military unit is available free of charge. Solutions will be evaluated in priority of critical, essential, and enhancing priorities. Access to military diving experts during the touchpoints for feedback is free of charge, and companies should include the estimated cost of travel (assume quarterly multi day trips to various dive training locations such as San Diego, Key West, Panama City, or Pensacola for set-up, iterative prototyping, final product delivery & testing) to these touchpoints in their budget. In addition to the Phase II deliverable of a prototype for extended Soldier touch points, companies will provide deliverable and final reports detailing performance and associated deliverables, any iterative adjustments based on user feedback, and final product details. The final report should also include plans to adopt the solution onto a military network with associated security protocols and logical access points.PHASE III: The objective of Phase III, where appropriate, is for the small business to pursue commercialization objectives through the effort by improving the device and developing the technology to TRL 7 and document the final design. Companies will iterate on and deliver final prototypes, make modifications to adapt to the required COTS wearables as identified through extended Soldier touch points and create a viable prototype for combat divers in various underwater scenarios. Prototypes shall be in their final form factor, capable of being worn and used by divers, and may be subjected to environmental testing at the government’s discretion.Phase III deliverables include integration with USSOCOM Human Performance Data Management System (HPDMS), i.e. Smartabase (API), user documentation, and prototype(s) for demonstration and government-sponsored testing.WEBINAR DATE:Tuesday December 13, 2022 10:00 am CTTo learn more about this topic, and ask questions of Army stakeholders involved in the project register for a webinar: https://diver-performance.eventbrite.com The Link to the video recording of the webinar will be posted in the DSIP portal in the days following. KEYWORDS: Human performance optimization, HPO, underwater sensors, under water, underwater, sensor, HP, high risk, high stress, combat diver, heart rate, SpO2, StO2REFERENCES1.Optimizing sampling rate of wrist-worn optical sensors for physiologic monitoring | Journal of Clinical and Translational Science | Cambridge Core2.Wearable Pulse Oximeter for Swimming Pool Safety - PMC (nih.gov)3.Frontiers | Using Underwater Pulse Oximetry in Freediving to Extreme Depths to Study Risk of Hypoxic Blackout and Diving Response Phases (frontiersin.org)4.The Dewey Monitor: Pulse Oximetry can Warn of Hypoxia in an Immersed Rebreather Diver in Multiple Scenarios | SpringerLink5.AAL | Resource Center6.http://aal.army/assets/files/pdf/sbir-phase-1-template.pdf7.http://aal.army/assets/files/pdf/sbir-optional-slide-template.pdf

OUSD (R&E) MODERNIZATION PRIORITY: Advanced MaterialsTECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced MaterialsOBJECTIVE: Develop a solution to provide the requisite infrastructure for the Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F) Soldier Performance Readiness Center (SPRC). This facility has several critical requirements, but key innovation is focused on construction materials and techniques that drive the overall cost of the structure significantly below Army costs of ~$16M. Additionally, the solution should be developed with efficiency in maintenance and operating costs over a period of 25 years. This solution is to be implemented in the harshest climates of US Army installations ranging from heavy snow and wind to high heat and humidity. DESCRIPTION: The Army’s Holistic Health and Fitness Program is missioned to resource 110 brigades across the Army by FY2030 with people, equipment, and facilities. Specifically to facilities, H2F has designed and budgeted for SPRCs for each brigade at 43,189 square feet. Unfortunately due to traditional construction costs and requirements from existing construction contracts, the facility as designed has an unfeasible cost of over $16 million. Without a different solution in construction materials/techniques, the program office will need to continue forward with a facility of less than half the size. This equates individuals within brigades using the SPRC 2-3 times per week to only having access once every 10 days. In reference to human performance across all five domains of health and fitness (physical, mental, nutrition, sleep, and spiritual), the SPRC is the primary facility meant to service Soldiers for their holistic health, enable appropriate levels of readiness, and improve their human performance baseline to accomplish the mission.Key Capabilities include: Critical:-43,183 sf minimum with 16ft clear ceiling height in Zone 3 of the Physical Training Area. -Must withstand wind gusts of 115 mph for minimum of 3 second gusts.-Must handle a minimum of 15-92 pounds per square foot of snow load on the roof, depending on final project site.-Must follow anti-terrorism force protection per UFC 04-010-01 02 (30 JUL 2022)-Must include a fire protection system for safety purposes, following UFC 3-600-01 (06 MAY 2021).-Must include costs for foundation preparation and installation. Unique approaches to foundation are encouraged.-Must have commercial internet established for low cost upkeep with end-user. -Energy efficiency ratings will meet or exceed traditional “brick & mortar” standards for environmental control.-Must include all plumbing and electrical connections for HVAC, hygiene (hand washing, drinking water stations, restrooms), and lighting. Desired:-25-year warranty on major structural defects to include enclosure materials (roofing/siding). Enhancing: -25-year warranty on defects in wiring, piping, and ductwork in the electrical, plumbing, heating, cooling, ventilating, and mechanical systems. -3-year warranty on defects in workmanship and materials such as facility equipment, finishes, doors & windows. PHASE I: Design a proof-of-concept solution for a full scale prototype facility to service the required throughput in H2F designed programming. Other features, capabilities, and/or solutions not addressed in this solicitation that vendors determine will be beneficial to improving safety of Army Soldiers are encouraged.Phase I will award up to $200,000 over a 3-month period of performance (PoP). The 3 month period will include several virtual sessions with TPOCs and an option to travel to Fort Benning, GA to assist with refinement of a final presentation on month 3. The final presentation will take into account adjustments to approach, ability to innovate on semi-permanent/semi-portable techniques, and cost effectiveness of the solution. Proposals will be evaluated holistically based on their relevance, total cost, development timeline, material uses, foundational preparation and establishment, and additional features the proposer includes.Week 1 – Orientation and problem deep dive (virtual)Week 2 – Soldier Touchpoint (in-person at a military installation)Week 3-6 – Concept research and planningWeek 7 – Mid-point concept design brief to stakeholders and SME roundtable discussion (virtual)Week 8-11 – Concept design refinementWeek 12 – Final concept design brief to Army Senior Leaders (virtual)PHASE II:Demonstrate a full scale prototype facility, established in Phase I, to service the required throughput in H2F designed programming. Vendors will deploy to a specified site location (either Fort Drum, Fort Bragg, or Fort Benning), prepare the ground, build the foundation and structure for testing. The target timeline for this activity is the first 6 months of the PoP. Vendors will have direct interaction with units and facilities managers at the specified site throughout the PoP. Upon completion of the build, the facility will be tested with the associated operational brigade for 9 months to ensure effective construction and can withstand heavy throughput. If awarded for phase II, proposers are encouraged to include travel costs for the project development throughout the build, along with 3 quarterly touch points for operational unit feedback on the prototype. Assume 1-2 days for each in-person touch point at whichever location selected to perform (Fort Drum, Fort Bragg, or Fort Benning). Vendors will interact with military H2F professionals, leaders, and facilities experts at each installation. Solutions will be evaluated in priority of critical, desired, and enhancing priorities. Companies should include the estimated cost of travel for build and quarterly touchpoints at the specified location in their budget. In addition to the Phase II deliverable of a prototype for extended Soldier touch points, companies will provide deliverable and final reports detailing performance and associated deliverables, any iterative adjustments based on user feedback, and final product details. The final report should also include price structures, cost sheets itemized, and design documentation with any adjustments due to environmental considerations by location.PHASE III: The objective of Phase III, where appropriate, is for the small business to pursue commercialization objectives through the effort by improving the sourcing, design, technique, or actual materials to develop the technology to Technology Readiness Level 7 and document the final design. Companies will deliver final prototypes, make modifications to adapt the facility to different environments, or customize the facility for specific unit needs. Prototypes are to be subjected to environmental testing at the government’s discretion.Phase III deliverables include final price structures, full scale prototype with final design documentation, and a cost sheet itemized for consideration.WEBINAR DATE:Wednesday Jan 11, 2023 11:00 am CTTo learn more about this topic, and ask questions of Army stakeholders involved in the project register for a webinar: https://H2FReadinessKit.eventbrite.comThe Link to the video recording of the webinar will be posted in the DSIP portal in the days following. KEYWORDS: Human performance optimization, HPO, construction, advanced materials, foundation, materials, utilities, structure, facilityREFERENCES1.SPRC Army Standard, 05 MAY 2021https://mrsi.erdc.dren.mil/cos/hnc/sprc/2.SPRC Standard Design, 30 SEP 2021 https://rfpwizard.mrsi.erdc.dren.mil/MRSI/content/cos/hnc/sprc/Library/Standard%20Designs/Standard_Design_SPRC_Medium_Sept_2021.pdf3.UFC 04-010-01 DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, with Change 2 https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-criteria-ufc/ufc-4-010-014.UFC 3-600-01 Fire Protection Engineering for Facilities, with Change 6, 06 MAY 2021https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-criteria-ufc/ufc-3-600-015.https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82447.pdf

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced MaterialsTOPIC OBJECTIVE: The topic focuses on developing technology that will allow the radiation detection industry to develop and propose low-cost dose rate meters that is significantly smaller and better wearable than those based on current GM-tube. Smaller RADIACs (radiation detectors) will decrease the weight burden of equipment on its users, reducing fatigue and improving maneuverability. The impact of this topic will be lighter and smaller equipment that the wearer may carry. The scale has potential to be throughout the Army and other commercial platforms.TOPIC DESCRIPTION: The innovative approach of this topic is the focus on SWAP (size, weight, and power) in addition to performance. Since the 1920’s, Geiger-Muller tubes (GM tubes) have been the technology used in almost all military RADAICs. The current systems, UDR-13, UDR-14, and UDR-15, all use GM-tubes. While the GM tubes can offer the needed performance, they have major drawbacks that limit the reduction of SWAP. The GM tubes’ low sensitivity per volume and relatively high-power consumption will severely limit any SWAP reduction. If a new suitable technology is not matured and the JPD-S must use GM-tube technology, then the new JPD-S will be about the same size as the current 30-year-old UDR-13. Evolving ground-breaking technology such as solid-state gamma dose rate sensors offers the potential to greatly reduce the SWAP, with an overall objective of reducing SWAP by half. The potential end users of this technology may be the ground combat troops. Those RADIACs are deployed at one RADIAC per squad level (about 10 soldiers). The soldiers will rely on the JPD-S to provide accurate information about the radiation levels throughout the operational environment from response to disasters such as the Army’s response in Operation Tomodachi (the US support to Japan after the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear power plant accident) to operations on the nuclear battlefield. Soldiers rely on their RADIACs to provide accurate information about the radiation level to help minimize and document exposures.PHASE I:  Starting in FY23, Phase I would be multiple awards for 6-month efforts focused on scientific, technical, commercial merit and feasibility of proposed solutions. If a performer proposed an existing detector, then the performer would need to demonstrate a clear path for temperature range and nuclear survivability. If a performer proposed a new sensor material, then the performer would need to demonstrate that the new sensor material can accurately measure radiation.PHASE II: Starting in FY 24, Phase II would be at least two awards focused on development of the technology, integration into a detector, and testing. JPEO would consider the possibility of a Phase II enhancement depending on the progress made by the performers in Phase II.PHASE III and DUAL USE APPLICATIONS:  In FY27, JPEO plans to start the program of record. Based on previous successes, JPEO plans to the following path:•Issue an RFP (request for proposal) requiring extensive data showing that their proposed equipment meets the needs of the Army and is low risk at that point plus an operating prototype•Select 3 to 5 prototypes for testing•Based on test results, down select to one system•Complete development•Conduct Development and operational test•Develop logistic (manuals, repair process, etc.)•Procure and field  KEYWORDS: Radiation detectors; RADAIC; ground combat troops; dose rate meter; meter  REFERENCES:  Fabjan, C. W. and Schopper, H. (eds.) 2020, Particle Physics Reference Library, Volume 2: Detectors for Particles and RadiationKrutul, K, et. al., “Radiation Hardness Studies of PIN-Diode Detectors Irradiated with Heavy Ions”, Acta Physica Polonica B Proceedings Supplement, Vol. 13 (2020)Menichelli, M., et. al., “Hydrogenated amorphous silicon detectors for particle detection, beam flux monitoring and dosimetry in high-dose radiation environment”, arXiv:2002.10848 [physics.ins-det]

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Trusted AI and Autonomy TOPIC OBJECTIVE: The purpose of an Artificial Intelligence (AI)/ Machine Learning (ML) focused Open Topic is to bring potentially valuable small business innovations to the Army and create an opportunity to expand the relevance of the Army SBIR program to firms who do not normally compete for SBIR awards. TOPIC DESCRIPTION: This open topic is a Phase I submission only. The period of performance is a maximum of 3 months and a maximum funding limit of $150,000 per award. While the AI/ML Open Topic will accept proposals on any technical challenge requiring an AI/ML application, submissions addressing the following six out of eleven AI/ML TBT core priorities will be prioritized for award:•Synthetic data generation – production data applicable to a given situation that are not obtained by direct measurement.•Automated detection and prevention – automated systemic-based controls where they can stop threats automatically as well as predict the next attack for better future prevention.•Automated data label – quickly curate and label data for an AI model.•Biometrics – authentication is used in computer science as a form of identification and access control•Natural language technology – focused on programming computers to process and analyze large amounts of natural language data.•Supply chain resilience – automating risks and vulnerabilities within the supply chains to prevent major impacts.PHASE I:  The Phase 1 period of performance will be 3 months. Small businesses shall deliver a proof of technical feasibility at the end of the Period of Performance. Phase 1 submission materials:•5-page technical volume for down-select•8-slide commercialization plan; template provided in announcement.•A Statement of Work” is required outlining intermediate and final anticipated deliverables during the Phase 1 award periodPost-Phase 1 Deliverables: •Small Business: A feasibility study to demonstrate the technical and commercial practicality of the concept to include an assessment of its technical readiness and potential applicability to military and commercial markets.•TPOC and Transition Partner: Commitment secured from TPOC and Transition Partner to associate with potential P2 work.PHASE II: Produce prototype solutions that will be easy to operate by a Soldier. These products will be provided to select Army units for further evaluation by the soldiers. In addition, companies will provide a technology transition and commercialization plan for DOD and commercial markets.PHASE III and DUAL USE APPLICATIONS:  Complete the maturation of the company’s technology developed in Phase II to TRL 6/7 and produce prototypes to support further development and commercialization. The Army will evaluate each product in a realistic field environment and provide small solutions to stakeholders for further evaluation. Based on soldier evaluations in the field, companies will be requested to update the previously delivered prototypes to meet final design configuration.  KEYWORDS: Artificial Intelligence; Machine Learning; Open topic; automation; synthetic data generation; data labeling; supply chain resilience  REFERENCES:  https://www.armysbir.army.mil/topics/

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced Computing and Software, Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems and Trusted AI and AutonomyTOPIC OBJECTIVE: To develop, integrate and deploy a technology with a simple intuitive user interface to improve information exchange and the discovery of collaboration opportunities within the Army R&D and Acquisitions communities as well as between the Army and private sector technology providers and private sector technology integrators. The intent is to improve the transition of R&D-funded technologies into the Army enterprise. TOPIC DESCRIPTION: The Army research and development ecosystem does not have a simple, intuitive portal for Army research centers and acquisition offices to access information related to Army R&D investments, including technology capabilities, technology maturity level, milestone delivery schedules, etc. The lack of direct access to internal information and data limits internal Army awareness and analysis of potentially valuable technologies to support the Army enterprise. The result is a less robust use of R&D investments, missed collaborations and co-investments, and an overall decrease in the likelihood of critical technologies transitioning into the Army enterprise to support the Soldier. The Army Tech Marketplace is envisioned as a web-based knowledge management and collaboration platform with an intuitive user-friendly interface that enhances transparency and simplifies access to R&D-funded technologies for Army stakeholders and private sector innovators to share, retrieve, and analyze information, and collaborate. The Army Tech Marketplace should provide an artificial intelligence and data-fusion capability to assess the probability of technologies to transition, identify trends within the Army enterprise, and maximize the value of business intelligence data to support agile Army decision-making. This effort seeks to create a platform for sharing information at the appropriate level first between different Army offices and second with members of the innovation economy. The effort will prioritize an internal Army-focused side connecting R&D needs and gaps with funding and resource opportunities. Internally, it must be a common, IL4 secure space for the Army and eventually, Joint Service research centers, acquisitions, and SBIR programs to learn of cross-organizational activities, mitigate R&D risks by learning from others, and dynamically exploit opportunities for collaboration. It will also have a generally accessible, external-to-the-Army side connecting innovation economy firms with Army technology challenges and the Army Program Executive Offices working to address those challenges. Externally, the Army Tech Marketplace permits Army, Joint Services, and innovation economy members to appropriately share information, build relationships, and facilitate collaboration, contracts, and integration of innovations into the Army enterprise. Integral to the platform must be data analytics and artificial intelligence enabled tools to assist internal Army Tech Marketplace users to assess technologies and trends to improve interactions with external members, as well as leverage the total value of the data on the platform to improve Army Tech Marketplace operations. These capabilities should be accessed through a simple graphical intuitive user interface that can serve users of various proficiencies and knowledge. The platform should be vetted from both a software and usability standpoint. The following are the generalized steps required of the company performing this work to frame and inform their proof-of-concept deliverable: 1.Work with Army SBIR Program to align project goals, requirements, and roles. 2.Engage key stakeholders identified by Army SBIR Program to conduct problem framing and stakeholder mapping activities to engage, discover questions, clarify language, and develop instruments useful to the stakeholders. 3.Review and present findings on similar products and services that other military Services and private organizations use that may have similar or overlapping use cases. 4.Collaborate with Army SBIR Program to identify and outline a detailed project plan, timeline, goals, scoping, and discovery outline intended to form the basis of anticipated Phase 2 work. The following are success criteria for this effort: 1.Internal Army and External Innovation Economy: Separation within the platform of internal Army stakeholder site from external emerging technology accessible site. The internal, Army-only site must achieve DOD IL-4 to handle Army data up to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). The external, innovative economy-oriented side of the platform should achieve DOD IL 2 (Public or Non-Critical Mission Information). 2.Collaboration: Enable collaboration across multiple Army users and private sector innovation economy firms. 3.Ease of Use: An intuitive interface informed by a human-centered design approach that results in a layout and graphics requiring minimal familiarization for basic portal navigation. Must be easy to customize fields to provide flexibility and offer a simplified Search Engine. 4.Workflow: Process tracking, routing, reminders, and ability to assign follow-on tasks. 5.Platform Modularity: Build a modular platform capable of easy expansion in both scale of participants and the scope of capabilities. 6.Reporting & Accountability: The ability to easily retrieve data and insights and track progress on pre-determined metrics. Includes but not limited to reporting and dashboards or other business intelligence tools to help visualize the data. 7.Analytics: Offer data analytics and artificial intelligence enabled tools for trend analysis, customer discovery, and continuous improvement actions across the platform. 8.Lifecycle Cost: Respecting the platform’s modular approach, create a total lifecycle cost model to account for implementation, training, and ongoing licensing/support costs. PHASE I: Starting in FY23, Phase I would be for multiple awards of $200,000 each with a 4-month period focused on technical value, commercial merit, and feasibility of proposed solutions. At a minimum, the deliverable from Phase I would be a detailed technical presentation on the design and attributes of the proposed platform conforming to the eight success criteria listed in the Topic Description. PHASE II: In FY 23, an award would be made to refine the plan developed in Phase I and create a minimum viable platform for testing and evaluation by the Army Applied SBIR Program and its stakeholders employing the eight success criteria listed in this Topic Description. These criteria are subject to revision based on the results of the outcome of the Phase I effort. PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The proposed technology has potential use within the Army Small Business Innovation Research Program as well as other Army Research Centers and acquisition programs.   KEYWORDS: R&D; research and development; portal; Webpage integration; knowledge management; collaboration platform; innovation economy; tech marketplace; software; website  REFERENCES:  https://www.armysbir.army.mil/topics/https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/SR-1990-A-Primer-on-Research-and-Development-in-the-US-Army.pdf

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Combat Casualty Care; Human-Machine InterfacesOBJECTIVE:Develop, demonstrate, and deliver solutions for enhanced female combat trauma mixed reality (MR) training manikin that incorporates open architecture utilizing high fidelity simulations for combat-trauma-related scenarios. DESCRIPTION:A study of the Army’s medical training literature found significant disregard for the anatomical and physiological differences between males and females resulting in lower survivability rates for female casualties in comparison to males: 35.9% vs 17% and 14.5% vs 12% (Operation Iraqi Freedom) (Cross, Johnson, Wenke, Bosse, & Ficke, 2011). The Army currently trains Soldiers using male manikins when teaching Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC). The Army is looking to invest in technology that improves training to better care for Soldiers, specifically female Soldiers, on the battlefield and save lives at point of injury. Training using realistic, female anatomy can help reduce hesitation to provide treatment of battlefield injuries and reduce female deaths.The Army is seeking a solution for a hybrid training tool utilizing a combination of augmented reality, virtual reality, and physical manikins to address female combat casualty care. To build out the best-in-breed training solution, all components need to be open architecture with plug-and-play capabilities to develop modular training independent of gender or scenario. While medical training is extremely hands-on, and the ability to physically feel what is happening is critical in training, virtual training provides ease and modularity for creating different training scenarios and reduces the cost of training. Currently, trauma medical training is done in either virtual or physical training environments. There are limitations for both approaches but combining the two will increase training effectiveness and reduce costs overall.Current Army medical training is male-centric with significant gaps in female trauma care (Bell, Thomson, Mazzeo, & Pike, 2020). According to the Department of Defense Personnel and Readiness Report of 2019, 14.9% of the United States Army population is female (2019, p. 93). This effort will not only move the needle to address female needs on the battlefield for the military, but it will also have applications in the civilian sector, better preparing medical professionals for trauma cases.PHASE I:Design a proof-of-concept solution for an end-to-end system, or components of a system that effectively trains Soldiers utilizing an anatomically correct physical female manikin, physical task trainers, software simulators/trainers, and provides Soldier training feedback. Solutions will be evaluated based on a holistic view of factors including the ability to integrate designated Army open standards, cost of development, adaptability of solution based on individual Soldiers’ needs or scenarios, and any additional factors proposed. The objective of Phase I is to establish the technical merit, feasibility, and commercial potential of the proposed effort, and to determine the quality of performance of the awarded companies prior to providing further support in Phase II. Final deliverable will be a concept design presentation, proof of technology demonstration, and plans for follow-on Phase II work. Companies can voluntarily participate in the Army Applications Laboratory (AAL) 12-week cohort program. The AAL cohort program is designed to solve specific Army modernization challenges on a compressed timeline. The cohort program matches qualified companies with Army problem owners to speed capability development, accelerate transition, and de-risk or inform requirements. This program is designed for businesses that own unique, applicable technology and are interested in growing a new line of business through the DoD.The cohort program will enhance technology development through rapid exposure to Army stakeholders and the Army medical simulation community. Planned activities include a problem topic deep dive, a field week with Army leaders and Soldiers, hands-on experience with currently fielded military equipment, and stakeholder engagement from the requirements writer, to the acquisition manager, to the end-user. An example cohort program for this topic is: Week 1 – Orientation and problem deep-dive (virtual) Week 2 – Soldier Touchpoint (in-person at an Army installation)Week 3-6 – Concept research and planning Week 7 – Mid-point concept design brief to Army Senior Leaders and SME roundtable discussion (in-person at an Army installation) Week 8-11 – Concept design refinement Week 12 – Final concept design brief to Army Senior Leaders (in-person at an Army installation)Cohort programming will be provided free of charge. Proposers who plan to participate in the cohort (if awarded a Phase I) are encouraged to include travel costs for three cohort trips, within the continental US, for four to five days each for in-person programming. In-person events may be substituted for virtual events depending on COVID-19 travel restrictions. Details will be provided to awardees under this topic at Phase I award.PHASE II:Design a prototype demonstration for the continued development efforts initiated in Phase I. Prototypes should be capable of integration with existing Army systems or newly developed systems from other awardees. They should also showcase modularity and prove effective during simulated or operational demonstrations. Phase II deliverables include a demonstration and delivery of a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 prototype for further Army evaluation, as well as quarterly and final reports detailing design and performance analysis of the prototype.Awardees may also be eligible for Phase IIb award after completion of Phase II period of performance. Phase IIb can extend the period of performance with additional funding and additional matching opportunities to finish building out solutions with the stakeholders’ discretion.PHASE III:The objective of Phase III, where appropriate, is for the small business to pursue commercialization objectives through the effort. Companies may develop a manufacturing-ready product design, capable of integration with the existing or future system, and demonstrate technology integration. Low-rate production will occur as required. Companies will engage in laboratory or operational testing as required. Phase III deliverables include system-level integration technical data package, installation documentation, and system-level prototype for demonstration and government-sponsored testingWEBINAR DATE:Two Webinars will be conducted with this solicitation on Tuesday, 21 March: Webinar 1 (1500-1600 CST) and Thursday, 23 March: Webinar 2 (1200-1300 CST). Please register at: https://casualtycaretrainingwebinar.eventbrite.com KEYWORDS:Female Manikin, Combat Casualty Trauma, Combat Trauma Manikin, MOHSES, Augmented Reality Medical Training, Virtual Reality Medical Training, Open ArchitectureREFERENCES:Bell, E. Thomson, R., Mazzeo, M. Pike, W. (2020). Same injury, different outcome? Investigating hesitation while treating female casualties. Proceedings of the 2020 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference. https://media.defense.gov/2023/Mar/06/2003173353/-1/-1/1/BELL_THOMSON_CASUALTIES.PDF Cross, J. D., Johnson, A. E., Wenke, J. C., Bosse, M. J., & Ficke, J. R. (2011). Mortality in female war veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 469(7), 1956-1961.Retrieved November 21 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111768/ MoHSES, the Advanced Modular Manikin Phase 2 Standards(2015). Retrieved November 3 from https://www.mohses.org/ Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness Report, 2019. Retrieved October 2, 2019 from https://prhome.defense.gov/M-RA/Inside-M-RA/TFM/Reports/ Reed, A. M., Janak, J. C., Orman, J. A., & Hudak, S. J. (2018). Genitourinary injuries among female US service members during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom: findings from the Trauma Outcomes and Urogenital Health (TOUGH) project. Military Medicine, 183(7-8), e304-e309. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29420771/Sotomayor, T. M., Mazzeo M. V., Maraj, C. S., & Page, A. J. (2018). Saving female lives using simulation: elevating the training experience.. Launching Innovation Through Medical Modeling and Simulation Technologies, 6(4), 28 – 37. Retrieved October 2, 2019, from https://csiac.org/articles/saving-female-lives-using-simulation-elevating-the-training-experience/

Critical Technical Area(s): Advanced Computing and Software; Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems; Renewable Energy Generation and Storage; Human-machine InterfacesOBJECTIVE: It has been noted that when it comes to conflict, America is often the “away team.” The U.S. is often fighting wars in areas thousands of miles from U.S. shores. This fact creates a “tyranny of distance,” meaning that, distance lessens military strength and increases the cost of conflicts. The impact of long distances can affect overall strategy, tactics, and logistics. Even with unrivaled capabilities, the ability to collect and understand intelligence can decay over distance. The supply chain is also heavily impacted, as distance increases, the time to provide supplies increases, supply routes can be contested, and even when supplies arrive safely, upkeep and maintenance are still a concern. These are just a few of the ways that distance impacts the effectiveness of our military overseas.The U.S. Army is interested in enabling technologies that could help overcome the “tyranny of distance”. Examples of technologies that address this issue include but are not limited to the following domains:•Logistics/Supply Chain: To ensure rapid resupply of material and aid.•Sustainment and Climate: To limit the need for resupply across geographically dispersed troops.•Communications: To ensure secured communication in degraded environments over extraordinary distances.•Internet of Things (IoT)/Sensing: To increase force control and introduce autonomous capabilities in Theater.•Information Advantage: To increase real-time situational awareness through information operations and a commons intelligence picture.DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Army would like to invite interested entities to participate in the xTech Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Pacific competition, a forum for eligible small businesses in the U.S. Pacific region to engage with the Army, earn prize money, participate in the accelerator program, and submit for a Phase I SBIR award. xTechSBIR Pacific offers an opportunity for eligible participants to pitch novel technology solutions directly to the Army addressing tyranny of distance challenges faced by the U.S. Pacific region.The U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM)-Pacific, U.S. Army Pacific (USAPAC), and Hawaii Technology Development Corporation (HTDC) in partnership with the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology) (ASA(ALT)), recognizes that the Army must enhance engagements with eligible small businesses by: (1) understanding the spectrum of ‘world-class’ technologies being developed commercially that may benefit the Army; (2) integrating the sector of commercial innovators into the Army’s Science and Technology (S&T) ecosystem; and (3) providing mentorship and expertise to accelerate, mature, and transition technologies of interest to the Army.The xTechSBIR Pacific competition will consist of three-rounds: (1) Call for concept white papers (2) Virtual Technology Pitch event and (3) Final Pitch event, awarding up to $800,000 in cash prizes to select eligible entities throughout the competition. Ultimately, up to 20 finalists will be selected from the virtual technology pitch event and will receive a cash prize of $20,000 each and an invitation to demonstrate their innovative technology solutions to Army challenges during the final pitch event. Up to 10 participants will be selected as the final winners of the competition upon conclusion of the finals pitch event and will receive an additional cash prize of $25,000 each and the opportunity to submit for a Phase I SBIR award of up to $250,000 each or a Direct to Phase II SBIR award of up to $1,900,000 each. Details on the prize structure are listed in this announcement. In addition to non-dilutive cash prizes, participants will have the opportunity to engage with Army partners through information sharing and networking opportunities. Finalists will be entered into the xTech Accelerator to receive intensive mentorship and access to networking events to help grow their companies for Army and commercial users. The efforts described in this notice are being pursued under the authorities of 10 U.S.C. § 4025 (formerly 2374a, Prizes for Advanced Technology Achievements) and 15 U.S.C. § 638 and 10 U.S.C. § 4003 (Prototype Projects) to award cash prizes and SBIR awards to only those eligible entities as described in this announcement. While the authority of this program is 10 U.S.C. § 4025, the xTechSBIR Pacific competition may generate interest by another U.S. Army, DOD or USG organization for a funding opportunity outside of this event. The interested organization may contact the participant to provide additional information which may or may not result in partnership opportunities. PHASE I: Companies will complete a feasibility study that demonstrates the firm’s competitive technical advantage relative to other commercial products (if other products exist) and develop concept plans for how the company’s technology can be applied to Army modernization priority areas. Studies should clearly detail and identify a firm’s technology at both the individual component and system levels, provide supporting literature for technical feasibility, highlight existing performance data, showcase the technology’s application opportunities to a broad base of customers outside the defense space, a market strategy for the commercial space, how the technology directly addresses the Army’s modernization area as well as include a technology development roadmap to demonstrate scientific and engineering viability. At the end of Phase I, the company will be required to provide a concept demonstration of their technology to demonstrate a high probability that continued design and development will result in a Phase II mature product. PHASE II: Produce prototype solutions that will be easy to operate by a Soldier. These products will be provided to select Army units for further evaluation by the soldiers. In addition, companies will provide a technology transition and commercialization plan for DOD and commercial markets.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Complete the maturation of the company’s technology developed in Phase II to TRL 6/7 and produce prototypes to support further development and commercialization. The Army will evaluate each product in a realistic field environment and provide small solutions to stakeholders for further evaluation. Based on soldier evaluations in the field, companies will be requested to update the previously delivered prototypes to meet final design configuration. REFERENCES: https://www.xtech.army.mil/competitions/KEYWORDS: logistics; supply chain; climate; xTech; xTechSBIR Pacific; internet of things; information collection; data collection; sensing; communications

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Renewable Energy Generation and Storage; BiotechnologyTOPIC OBJECTIVE: The goal of this topic is to develop conformable hydrogen storage vessels that can store hydrogen at 700 bar (10,000 psi). TOPIC DESCRIPTION: As the Army moves towards electrifying its vehicle fleet, storing enough energy onboard vehicles to match or exceed their current performance is a challenge. While batteries have made great strides in recent decades, they remain heavy and cumbersome. A potential solution for heavy vehicles is hydrogen fuel cells. Fuel cells can provide the benefits of electrification (silent mobility, silent watch, export power, high torque on demand, etc.) while maintaining current vehicle range and allowing for refueling in the same amount of time as liquid fuels. One drawback of hydrogen fuel cells is storage of the hydrogen itself. Current solutions are bulky composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) that take up significant space. A potential solution is conformable tanks that can be designed to fit unusually shaped space claims, allowing for more energy to be stored in containers, on vehicles, or in other energy storage use cases. This technology has been developed and validated to 350 bar (5,000 psi) applications, but further work is required to meet the goal of 700 bar operating pressures. Evaluation of these tanks under military ballistic testing also revealed some potential areas of improvement for this technology. It is important to develop this technology as it will enable high energy density storage that can be refilled as quickly as current liquid fuels while enabling electrification technologies and reducing thermal and acoustic footprints for energy generation systems. Note: This technology uses emerging manufacturing techniques along with a unique design that allows for the hydrogen storage tank to fit the shape of any space claim, utilizing a higher percentage of empty space than the current state of the art. The materials used are also lower cost and have been optimized to meet the demanding requirements for vehicle use.PHASE I: This is a Direct to Phase II topic. To justify a Direct to Phase 2, the company should provide data showing a tank system made up of multiple segments (more than one) capable of 350 bar operations. At minimum, there should be data demonstrating the system can comply with proof testing and burst testing outlined in CSA/ANSI HGV 2.DIRECT TO PHASE II: Design a 700-bar system for vehicle use that qualifies applicable to HGV 2 standards identified by both TPOC and contractor. Demonstrate the performance of the system on an applicable vehicle system. Potential Phase II Sequential and Enhancement: Scale up the design of the 700-bar system for larger storage quantities. Undergo ballistic testing of the system with military specific ballistic threats. Incorporate lessons learned from previous testing and develop 700 bar systems for specific military vehicle applications.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: There is a multitude of industries that would benefit from improved hydrogen storage, with new use cases, like P2G tech, that will rely on hydrogen storage technology for operation. Efficient hydrogen storage will become a necessity as various industries, including transportation, metal refining, and chemical manufacturing, increase their hydrogen usage. The proposed technology has potential use within the Army Small Business Innovation Research Program as well as other Army Research Centers and acquisition programs.   KEYWORDS: Hydrogen; Storage; fuel; battlespace; tank; refuel point; electrification  REFERENCES:  1.Lithium Ion Battery, Clean Energy Institute, https://www.cei.washington.edu/education/science‐of‐solar/battery‐technology/2.Physical Hydrogen Storage, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/physical‐hydrogen‐storage 3.Conformable Hydrogen Pressure Vessel, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/14591844.Innovative pressurized hydrogen storage for integrated vehicle structures using composites, 5.https://www.compositesworld.com/news/innovative‐pressurized‐hydrogen‐storage‐for‐integrated‐vehicle‐structures‐using‐composites 6.Materials challenges to enable hydrogen deployment at scale by 2050, https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQw7AJahcKEwjg37GFo_f7AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.royce.ac.uk%2Fcontent%2Fuploads%2F2021%2F06%2FRoyce‐Hydrogen‐Conformable‐Tanks-Summary.pdf&psig=AOvVaw1WyXFqJZkfpV3vNpk4zMmc&ust=1671044241186277

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Renewable Energy Generation and Storage; BiotechnologyTOPIC OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this topic is to develop an on-demand hydrogen generation system that can be used to quickly refuel a vehicle in situations where its main fuel tank is empty. The end user for this system would be fuel cell system operators. In the event a fuel cell system depletes the main fuel tank and battery power (assuming a hybrid fuel cell/battery electric architecture), this system can be used to provide hydrogen to the fuel tank (or directly to the fuel cell) to allow the system to provide power and return to safety. The system would be sized to be portable while providing enough energy to travel back to base, similar to how jerrycans are currently used.TOPIC DESCRIPTION: As the Army moves towards more electrified platforms, new challenges arise, such as running out of fuel or energy while executing a mission. Current vehicles can be refueled quickly from a jerrycan, allowing them to travel to the refueling point. Fully electrified platforms are not as easily refueled on the side of the road, which puts both Soldiers and materiel in danger. As the Army explores electrification technologies, preparing for situations such as this are important to keep both Soldiers safe and protect next generation platforms. Hydrogen fuel cells are a potential electrification technology that can provide near-silent power and mobility for military vehicles while providing high torque with inherently scalable power and energy, capable of providing range beyond that of purely battery-powered electric vehicles. Hydrogen can also be refueled more quickly than batteries can charge, providing an opportunity to solve the problem of a fuel-depleted vehicle on a mission. Several technologies exist that can provide hydrogen on-demand from solid materials that can be easily and safely transported and stored. One such technology of interest is aluminum alloys that react with water to provide hydrogen.Note: Hydrogen generators that utilize aluminum alloy and water are like an extra fuel tank, butless volatile. Aluminum powder can be safely handled and stored as a solid material, unlike liquid fuel. Several recent advances in the technology allow for the material to be manufactured at scale from scrap aluminum, providing a large source of energy in an inexpensive manner (1, 2). Compared to domestically sourcing lithium for battery production (and in order to meet future energy needs), this technology provides significant energy density without requiring rare earth metals, while at the same time needing significantly less infrastructure be developed. When exposed to water, the alloys produce hydrogen rapidly and at pressure, allowing a vehicle to be fueled quickly while providing enough energy to travel back to safety or a refueling point. The system can be designed with safety at the forefront, incorporating pressure relief devices and intrinsically safe controls.PHASE I: It is important to note that this is a Direct to Phase II topic. To justify a Direct to Phase 2, This Direct to Phase 2 effort should have data demonstrating the operation of an aluminum-water hydrogen generation system. The data should show the flow rate of hydrogen from the system, pressure during operation, temperature of the system, the amount of aluminum and water used, and control over the reaction (data showing a controlled stop/start cycle of the reaction). The proposal should also demonstrate the hydrogen from the reaction is pure enough to operate a fuel cell by either providing performance data from a fuel cell connected to the system or analysis of the hydrogen purity.PHASE II: Design a hydrogen generation system that can be man-portable while providing a meaningful range for vehicles in the case that fuel is depleted. Manage the thermal performance of the system, reducing both the exterior touch temperature to safe levels and overall thermal signature. Fabricate and demonstrate such a system. Demonstrate aluminum alloy production capable of supporting the manufacturing of several systems. Testing required for this technology would include measuring the flow rate of hydrogen from the system, demonstrating that the system can operate at the designated pressure, maintaining a safe external touch temperature, and effectively removing heat from the reaction.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: There is high dual-use potential for hydrogen fuel cells, as users across industries continue to adopt this technology, especially in vehicles and industrial power. The high CAGR indicated rapid, significant projected growth across all sectors. Popular use cases for fuel cells in general include power generation for electric individual and mass transportation vehicles, industrial processes, data centers, and utilities, as well as residential heating. Hydrogen fuel cells can be used to build stacks, which can allow for modular power systems that can adapt to energy requirements based on the use case.The proposed technology has potential use within the Army Small Business Innovation Research Program as well as other Army Research Centers and acquisition programs.   KEYWORDS: Hydrogen; Storage; fuel; battlespace; tank; refuel point; electrification; generator; generation system; power supply  REFERENCES:  1.Using aluminum and water to make clean hydrogen fuel—when and where it’s needed, https://energy.mit.edu/news/using-aluminum-and-water-to-make-clean-hydrogen-fuel-when-and-where-its-needed/2.Nanogalvanic Aluminum Powder For Hydrogen Generation, https://www.arl.army.mil/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/AlNanogalvanicPowder-Marketing-Sheet.pdf3.The production of hydrogen as an alternative energy carrier from aluminium waste, https://energsustainsoc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13705-017-0110-7

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Integrated Sensing and CyberOBJECTIVE: The innovative approach of this topic is the focus on reduced SWAP (size, weight, and power) in addition to performance. DESCRIPTION: Missions require the use of multiple sensors in order to achieve specific objectives. The sensors used extended range imaging applications relies on antiquated technology resulting in extreme sensitivity to Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP). Current dismounted sensors configurations either necessitate separate imaging devices, or complex optical filtering schemes that increase system SWaP in order to maintain operational effectiveness in all environments. Lastly, imaging sensors allow for more advanced target discrimination against advanced threats in multiple bands, complex scenes and various atmospheric conditions. If multiple sensor bands can be imaged simultaneously on the same detector, lower SWaP and less sensitive subcomponent alignments (lower SWaP/environmental factors) is gained resulting in less complex systems. PHASE I: Phase I is anticipated 3 months to complete a System Design Review, covering systems trade analysis and optimization of performance vs anticipated SWaP, with the goals of phase II below as the basis. The final design will be illustrated with conceptual drawings and performance predictions to at the detector level to support system-level feasibility studies by the Government. Additional details/specifications to be provided to firm upon award.PHASE II: Phase II is anticipated <20 months to further develop and finalize dual-band detectors specifically tailored for the dismounted Soldier on stacked structures for simultaneous imaging capabilities in the Short Wave and Mid-Wave Infrared. This project will study varying detector design parameters to minimize crosstalk while improving the detector Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) when paired with optimized optical configurations while producing prototypes for test and integration. The Integrated Dewar Cooler Assembly shall be tailored for dismounted applications and be light weight with minimal power consumption. The IDECA FPA shall have a minimum format of 1280 x 720 with a minimal detector pixel pitch. The project will be validated in two approaches; one with Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) optics for demonstration of final imaging performance, then retrofitted into an existing host prototype. Additional details/specifications to be provided to firm upon award.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Complete the maturation of the company’s technology developed in Phase II and produce prototypes to support further development and commercialization. KEYWORDS: Infrared; sensors; imager; camera systems; dual-band optics; laser guidanceREFERENCES: High Operating Temperature (HOT) SWIR/MWIR Dual-band 2-channel and Broadband Detectors for Weapon Targeting and IR Seekers | SBIR.govHexaBlu | Commercial Infrared Solutions (leonardodrs.com)

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced MaterialsOBJECTIVE: The purpose of a Sustainable Building Materials and Technologies focused Open Topic is to bring potentially valuable small business innovations to the Army and create an opportunity to expand the relevance of the Army SBIR program to firms who do not normally compete for SBIR awards.Building materials and technologies are ubiquitously used by the Army CONUS and OCONUS, and account for a significant percentage of the overall Army carbon/climate footprint. This Sustainable Building Materials and Technologies topic seeks to address this carbon intensive aspect of military operations through disruptive materials, logistics, and technologies from a life-cycle assessment (LCA)perspective to meet the goals of the DoD Climate Adaptation plan and Army Climate Strategy.DESCRIPTION: This open topic is a Phase I or Direct to Phase II submission. For Phase I awards period of performance is a maximum of 6 months and a maximum funding limit of $250,000 per award. For Direct to Phase II awards period of performance is a maximum of 18 months and a maximum funding limit of $1,900,000 per award.While the Sustainable Building Materials and Technologies Open Topic will accept proposals on any technical challenge requiring an application to reduce lifecycle fossil fuel consumption and/or emissions, submissions addressing the applications of those technologies in enduring facilities and infrastructure on installations as well as low-logistics contingency construction applications will be prioritized along with efforts focused on the following technical areas:•Low-logistics indigenous materials utilization•Sustainability-centered materials-by-design•Scalable sustainable building material technologies•Forward waste utilization for sustainable low-logistics manufacturing•Low-energy bio-based building materials•Terrestrial carbon sequestration materials and technologiesPHASE I: The Phase I period of performance will be 6 months. Small businesses shall deliver a proof of technical feasibility at the end of the Period of Performance. Phase I submission materials:•5-page technical volume •8-slide commercialization plan; template provided in announcementPost-Phase I Deliverables:•Small Business: A feasibility study to demonstrate the technical and commercial practicality of the concept to include an assessment of its technical readiness and potential applicability to both military and commercial markets.•Technical POC and Transition Partner: Commitment secured from TPOC and Transition Partner to associate with potential Phase II work. (Transition Partner is defined as an Army organization planning to integrate and fund the technology after SBIR funding has expired).Proposers interested in submitting a Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described above has been met and describes the potential military and/or commercial applications. Documentation should include all relevant information including, but not limited to: technical reports, test data, prototype designs/models, and performance goals/results. PHASE II: Produce prototype solutions targeted toward construction and other Army sustainability requirements. These solutions should be vetted through standard testing procedures and modeling focused on mechanical /structural performance, lifecycle durability, lifecycle sustainability, and an understanding of lifecycle cost factors. Prototypes will focus on demonstrating technology at scale including requirements for design and specifications that can easily transition for adoption by the Army. In addition, companies will provide a technology transition and commercialization plan for DOD and commercial markets.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Complete the maturation of the company’s technology developed in Phase II to TRL 6/7 and produce prototypes to support further development and commercialization. The Army will evaluate each product in a realistic field environment and provide small solutions to stakeholders for further evaluation. Based on technical evaluations in the field, companies will be requested to update the previously delivered prototypes to meet final design configurationKEYWORDS: Clean Technology; Sustainable Construction; Open topic; Materials, Sustainability, Resilience; Emissions; Green; Environmental, Facilities, Buildings, Infrastructure REFERENCES:  https://www.armysbir.army.mil/topics/

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Trusted AI and Autonomy; Advanced Computing and Software; Integrated Sensing and Cyber; Microelectronics; Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems; Renewable Energy Generation and Storage; Advanced Materials; Human-Machine InterfacesOBJECTIVE: xTechPrime is seeking novel, disruptive concepts and technology solutions with dual-use capabilities that can assist in tackling the Army’s current needs and apply to current Army concepts. The intent is to provide the Army with transformative technology solutions while enabling cost savings throughout the Army systems’ life cycle. Critical technology focus areas include Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML); Autonomy; Climate and Clean Technologies; Immersive/Wearables; and Sensors. See attached document on the Valid Eval registration page for a list of the top Army SBIR Transition Broker Team topic areas. DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Army would like to invite interested entities to participate in the xTechPrime competition, a forum for eligible small businesses and technology integrators to form teams in order to bring forward innovative technology solutions to solve current Army needs. A technology integrator is defined for this competition as “any business outside of the selected small business in Part 1, who has directly worked with the U.S. government. They have experience managing at least one subcontractor and are responsible for ensuring that the work is completed as defined in the contract, this can include but is not limited to, other small businesses, Primes, and sole proprietors.” The xTechPrime competition will challenge small businesses to work together in teams with technology integrators to submit their innovative solutions that contribute to the Army’s current modernization goals. xTechPrime will assist in driving innovation, ultimately delivering novel, and often overlooked, technologies to the Army. Through the xTechPrime competition, the Army is encouraging collaboration between small businesses and technology integrators by providing an opportunity to form teams to compete for non-dilutive cash prizes and, for the original small business submitters, the potential for a Direct to Phase II SBIR contract award. The efforts described in this notice are being pursued under the authorities of 10 U.S.C. § 4025 (formerly 2374a) and 15 U.S.C. § 638 and 10 U.S.C. § 4022 (Prototype Projects) to award cash prizes and SBIRs to only those eligible entities as described in this announcement. The xTechPrime competition will serve as the proof-of-principle that is required to receive a Direct to Phase II SBIR award. While the authority of this program is 10 U.S.C. § 4025, the xTechPrime competition may generate interest by another DOD organization for a funding opportunity outside of this program (e.g., submission of a proposal under a Broad Agency Announcement). The interested DOD organization may contact the participant to provide additional information or ask for a request for proposal in a separate solicitation. PHASE I: This is a Direct to Phase II submission. In order for proposers to submit a Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposal, they must provide the justification documentation to substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described above has been met and describes the potential military and/or commercial applications. Documentation should include all relevant information including, but not limited to: technical reports, test data, prototype designs/models, and performance goals/results. PHASE II: Produce prototype solutions that will be easy to operate by a Soldier. These products will be provided to select Army units for further evaluation by the soldiers. In addition, companies will provide a technology transition and commercialization plan for DOD and commercial markets.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Complete the maturation of the company’s technology developed in Phase II to TRL 6/7 and produce prototypes to support further development and commercialization. The Army will evaluate each product in a realistic field environment and provide small solutions to stakeholders for further evaluation. Based on soldier evaluations in the field, companies will be requested to update the previously delivered prototypes to meet final design configuration. REFERENCES: https://www.xtech.army.mil/competitions/KEYWORDS: logistics; supply chain; climate; xTech; xTechPrime; internet of things; information collection; data collection; sensing; communications; autonomy; artificial intelligence; sensors; AI/ML

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platforms OBJECTIVE:Develop a lethal payload capability that can be employed on a Small Unmanned Aerial System (sUAS). The capability should employ munitions (ammunition or explosives) that are currently in the U.S. inventory and attach to one or more sUAS platforms on the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) Blue UAS Cleared List, excluding the WingtraOne platform. DESCRIPTION:The ability to employ lethal payloads on existing sUAS is vital for future Army combat operations. Lethal payloads for sUAS will provide capabilities at the small unit level beyond the current use of sUAS, which focuses only on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. Successful development of lethal payloads for sUAS would advance the U.S. Army’s modernization priorities and increase the lethality of its Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs). Currently only one sUAS platform is fielded at the small unit level: the Short Range Reconnaissance (SRR) platform, fielded by Program Executive Office (PEO) Aviation and referred to commercially as the Skydio X2D. The SRR was developed to give infantry platoons a UAS platform for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Under the SRR program there is currently no capability to employ the system as a lethal asset. The Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), under the Blue UAS program, has worked with vendors to vet and scale commercial UAS technology for the Department of Defense (DoD). This program consists of five lines of effort that curate, maintain, and improve a roster of policy-approved commercial UAS which suit the diverse needs of DoD users. This effort currently has vetted 16 different platforms for DoD use. Government labs are currently undertaking efforts to develop lethal UAS. These efforts include DEVCOM Armament Center’s latest payload for the SRR platform, which delivers an M67 fragmentation grenade as the munition.The design goals of this effort are the development of modular lethal payloads that can be employed by the current Program of Record SRR and/or any of the platforms on the DIU Blue UAS Cleared List excluding the WingtraOne platform.These payloads should:•Be attachable by Soldiers in the field•Employ ammunition or explosives currently in the Government inventory, allowing units to order through standard channels•Increase the lethal capability beyond that of the M67 fragmentation grenade-based solution currently in development•Integrate into the selected platform•Operate on the platform controller or include a simple system to initiate the payload (long term desire is for ATEK integration)•Be able to pass applicable safety testing•Be able to be made safe and dismounted from the platform if not detonatedPrimary obstacles to overcome for successful operation of lethal payloads for sUAS is the integration and control of the payload to the selected platform while maintaining safe flight of the platform. Cost should be considered in the SBIR proposals.PHASE I:Design a preliminary lethal payload for the Short Range Reconnaissance (SRR) platform or any sUAS platform from the DIU Blue UAS Cleared List, excluding the WingtraOne platform. Preliminary design should describe the selected sUAS platform(s) and munition(s), consist of a concept for physical attachment and electrical and software integration, and a description of the method of fire control.This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only. Proposers interested in submitting a DP2 proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described in above has been met and describes the potential commercial applications. Documentation should include all relevant information including, but not limited to: technical reports, test data, prototype designs/models, and performance goals/results.PHASE II:Refine the preliminary design, produce, and deliver a prototype at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5 of a lethal payload for a sUAS platform. The system refinement should include mechanical and electrical integration into the selected platform, fire control, and targeting. Required Phase II deliverables include all necessary components (hardware and software) to integrate the payload to the platform, attachment of munitions, safe handling procedures for munitions, arming munitions, targeting or aiming, delivery of munition, making system safe, returning to operator, and removal of munitions and payload to be utilized again if not employed. The prototype will be demonstrated using a simulated, dummy, or inert munition at a vendor-provided, government-approved location to evaluate performance. The performer will provide the sUAS platform necessary to conduct the demonstration but is not required to deliver the sUAS platform to the Government. Additionally, the performer will deliver monthly progress reports describing all technical challenges, technical risk, and progress against the schedule, and a final technical report.PHASE III:The objective of Phase III, where appropriate, is to transition the technology to a U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) lab for further development, or to a Program Executive Office (PEO) for potential acquisition pathways. Phase III goals may include live-fire demonstration of the technology at an appropriate test range, testing to applicable safety and airworthiness standards, end user touchpoints, and development of operator, maintenance, and safety instructions and training procedures.KEYWORDS:UAS, sUAS, Small Unmanned Aerial Systems, Blue UAS, SRR, Lethal PayloadsREFERENCES:1.DIU Blue UAS Cleared Drone List, https://www.diu.mil/blue-uas-cleared-list2.DIU UAS Policy Guidance, https://www.diu.mil/blue-uas-policy 3.U.S. Army Weapon Systems Handbook, https://asc.army.mil/docs/wsh2/2020-2021-wsh.pdf

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Autonomy; Advanced MaterialsOBJECTIVE: xTechSBIR Autonomy is seeking novel capabilities and technology solutions within the Autonomy space, that can assist in tackling the Army’s current and future needs, enabling new capabilities, improved performance, faster production, or cost savings for Army systems. Examples of technologies that address the issue include but are not limited to the following domains: •Novel Materials for Additive Manufacturing – The U.S. Army is interested in enabling technologies that could replace conventional subtractive production methods. Novel feedstocks and 3D printable materials can be used to produce parts more with increased efficiency and superior performance. •Future Additive Production Capabilities – The U.S. Army is seeking novel and unique additive production technologies. These may include revolutionary production capabilities, or improved processes that can increase efficiency to reduce cost, waste, and production time.•Additive Production Systems & Analysis – The U.S. Army is interested in solutions to produce parts through additive manufacturing with improved efficiency, reliability, and quality. These technologies may include:•Manufacturing Equipment for Expeditionary Environments – The U.S. Army manufacturers parts in harsh environments including deserts, high altitude locations, and the Arctic. Such environments may be remote with limited logistical support, and may experience high humidity, dust, sand, and temperatures below -50C. Expeditionary production equipment must survive being stored in extreme environments and may also be required to operate in difficult conditions. •Advanced and Convergent Manufacturing Capabilities - The U.S. Army is also interested in novel non-additive production methods and hybrid/convergent manufacturing capabilities that combine additive and subtractive processes. •Advanced Materials – The U.S. Army is seeking research and development in the areas of novel advanced materials. There is particular interest in materials that exhibit improved strength, durability, and performance at both extremely low and high temperatures. A wide variety of applications for advanced materials include personnel protection, aerospace, avionics, and hypersonic systems.DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Army would like to invite interested entities to participate in the xTech Small Business Innovation Research Autonomy competition, an opportunity for eligible small businesses to engage and pitch their novel technology solutions directly to the Department of Defense, earn prize money and potentially receive a Phase I SBIR award of up to $250,000 each. The Army recognizes that the DoD must enhance engagements with eligible small businesses, by: (1) understanding the spectrum of ‘world-class’ technologies being developed commercially that may benefit the DoD in the autonomy space; (2) integrating the sector of non-traditional innovators into the DoD Science and Technology (S&T) ecosystem; and (3) providing expertise and feedback to accelerate, mature, and transition technologies of interest to the DoD.The xTechSBIR Autonomy competition will consist of four-rounds: (1) Call for concept white papers; (2) Final Technology Pitch event; (3) Request for Phase I SBIR Proposal Submission; and (4) Request for Phase II SBIR Demonstration. The competition will be awarding up to $500,000 in cash prizes to select eligible entities throughout the competition. Ultimately, up to 20 winners will be selected from the technology pitch event round and will be invited to submit an application for a potential Phase I SBIR Proposal worth up to $250,000. Up to 20 companies will be selected to receive a Phase I SBIR award and then will be invited back after six months of award to conduct a live demonstration to a key panel of DoD experts. Details on the prize structure and phases, are listed in this announcement below. In addition to non-dilutive cash prizes, participants will have the opportunity to engage with U.S. DoD and winners from the Part 1: Concept White Paper round will be invited to conduct an in-person pitch at Grace’s Quarters in Maryland. The efforts described in this notice are being pursued under the authorities of 10 U.S.C. § 4025 (formerly 2374a, Prizes for Advanced Technology Achievements) to award cash prizes as described in this announcement and potential SBIR contracts (15 U.S. Code §638) to only those eligible and selected entities as described in this announcement. In addition, 10 U.S.C. § 4003 (Prototype Projects) can be utilized to award additional follow-on contracts for additional proof-of-concept or prototype development. While the authority of this program is 10 U.S.C. § 4025, the xTechSBIR Autonomy competition may generate interest by another U.S. Army, DoD or USG organization for a funding opportunity outside of this event. The interested organization may contact the participant to provide additional information which may or may not result in partnership opportunities. PHASE I: Companies will complete a feasibility study that demonstrates the firm’s competitive technical advantage relative to other commercial products (if other products exist) and develop concept plans for how the company’s technology can be applied to Army modernization priority areas. Studies should clearly detail and identify a firm’s technology at both the individual component and system levels, provide supporting literature for technical feasibility, highlight existing performance data, showcase the technology’s application opportunities to a broad base of customers outside the defense space, a market strategy for the commercial space, how the technology directly addresses the Army’s modernization area as well as include a technology development roadmap to demonstrate scientific and engineering viability. At the end of Phase I, the company will be required to provide a concept demonstration of their technology to demonstrate a high probability that continued design and development will result in a Phase II mature product. PHASE II: Produce prototype solutions that will be easy to operate by a Soldier. These products will be provided to select Army units for further evaluation by the soldiers. In addition, companies will provide a technology transition and commercialization plan for DOD and commercial markets. PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Complete the maturation of the company’s technology developed in Phase II to TRL 6/7 and produce prototypes to support further development and commercialization. The Army will evaluate each product in a realistic field environment and provide small solutions to stakeholders for further evaluation. Based on soldier evaluations in the field, companies will be requested to update the previously delivered prototypes to meet final design configuration.REFERENCES: https://www.xtech.army.mil/competitions/KEYWORDS: autonomy; manufacturing; additive manufacturing; xTech; xTechSBIR; 3D printing; additive fabrication; direct digital manufacturing; freeform fabrication; solid freeform fabrication; rapid manufacturing; rapid prototyping; expeditionary manufacturing; convergent manufacturing; additive production; advanced materials; advanced manufacturing; advanced manufacturing;

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Trusted AI and Autonomy; Advanced Computing and SoftwareOBJECTIVE: Modern and future battlefields will see increasing use of automated platforms; however, single-use, leave-behind, or unattended U.S. military systems require sufficient protection against hardware and software components from being reverse engineered. Currently, there is not yet a cost-effective, adequate solution for this requirement. Practices such as traditional physical anti-tamper methods or warfighters having direct physical access to attempt platform destruction are not feasible for the new ecosystem of low-cost, high-count platforms. Conversely, digital erasure with its low barrier-to-entry, in terms of cost and implementation, is the suitable alternative. DESCRIPTION: Through reverse engineering techniques, adversaries can extract information stored in non-volatile memory from abandoned, misused, single-use, leave-behind, or unattended U.S. military systems. Furthermore, utilizing volatile memory storage (i.e., Random Access Memory, RAM) for a system’s Critical Program Information (CPI), proprietary information, or intellectual property (IP) is not an adequate design technique to ensure the information is unrecoverable as new, sophisticated techniques are able to “freeze” binary signatures etched onto the storage medium hardware. These capabilities enable adversaries and other nation-state actors to potentially modify, exploit, exfiltrate, or leverage U.S. military systems, including their design and information, risking Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) business advantages and the U.S. military’s technological superiority. However, systems designed with reconfigurable logic hardware (e.g., Field Programmable Gate Arrays, FPGAs) instead of Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) to execute system functions provides a hardware fabric that can be completely erased in order to protect sensitive designs and information from being reverse engineered.PHASE I: This is a Direct to Phase II topic (DP2). Small businesses, at the time of proposal, must have a solution capable of and, at the time of award, be able to demonstrate a proof-of-concept digital erasure solution capable of modifying the FPGA fabric to ensure the original data within memory is no longer recoverable.DIRECT TO PHASE II: As a Direct to Phase II, proposal submissions should include discussion on the following:•Demonstrate digital erasure functionality on commercial platforms/systems/controllers that, once activated by a trigger mechanism, will successfully erase the FPGA fabric in order to prevent data recovery through reverse engineering of the memory hardware. •Coordination with partners will reveal applications and preferred trigger mechanisms, thus the trigger functions themselves must be protected to mitigate the potential for adversaries to attack platforms through digitally erasing systems. •The developed tool will automatically implement digital erasure functionality onto FPGAs despite differences in vendors, components, interfaces, etc. to achieve platform-agnostic support.•To provide resiliency against reverse engineering, digital erasure function should erase FPGA fabric by writing randomized data to memory instead of writing only 0s or only 1s.•Optimization steps to reduce total erasure/overwrite times and resource utilization will be identified and implemented during development. •Streamline user experience and requirements both for warfighters to trigger digital erasure and for FPGA developers to implement digital erasure functionality. •Conduct commercialization strategy to integrate solution with existing toolchains and developer applications utilized by industry for FPGA development.•Solution testing and evaluation will be conducted through FPGA developer tools to digitally verify that the memory has been successfully erased, and later through performing simulated data remanence attacks, where the hardware is manipulated to retain memory states which are then analyzed, to provide realistic verification whether the original data can be recovered through sophisticated reverse engineering techniques after a memory erase.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Data security is a top priority for organizations across all industries, which has companies rushing to adopt and implement the latest capabilities in data destruction and sanitation. The moderately high CAGR of 14.3% indicates sustained growth. Complete the maturation of the company’s technology developed in Phase II and produce prototypes to support further development and commercialization. KEYWORDS: Reconfigurable, Logic, Zeroize, Circuit, FPGA, System On A Chip, SoC, ASIC, Tamper, Data Assurance, Electronics, Microelectronics, Zeroization, Sanitization, Hardware, MemoryREFERENCES:1.NIST Special Publication 800-88: Guidelines for Media Sanitization, Revision 1 https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/itl-bulletin/2015/02/nist-special-publication-800-88-revision-1-guidelines-for-media/final#:~:text=NIST%20has%20published%20an%20updated%20version%20of%20Special,on%20the%20categorization%20of%20confidentiality%20of%20their%20information2.Lohrke, H., Tajik, S., Krachenfels, T., Boit, C., & Seifert, J. P. (2018). Key extraction using thermal laser stimulation: A case study on xilinx ultrascale fpgas. IACR Transactions on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems, 573-595. https://tches.iacr.org/index.php/TCHES/article/download/7287/6464/3.Courbon, F., Skorobogatov, S., & Woods, C. (2016, November). Direct charge measurement in floating gate transistors of flash EEPROM using scanning electron microscopy. In ISTFA 2016 (pp. 327-335). ASM International. https://aspace.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/262365/Courbon_et_al2016-International_Symposium_for_Testing_and_Failure_Analysis-AM.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y4.Gupta, K., & Nisbet, A. (2016). Memory forensic data recovery utilising RAM cooling methods. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=adf5.Gutmann, P. (2001). Data remanence in semiconductor devices. In 10th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 01). https://www.usenix.org/events/sec01/full_papers/gutmann/gutmann_html6.Skorobogatov, S. (2002). Low temperature data remanence in static RAM (No. UCAM-CL-TR-536). University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR536.pdf

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Integrated Network Systems-of-SystemsThe technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (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 the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) 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.OBJECTIVE: Beamforming is utilized in numerous applications from wireless communications, acoustics, radar, and sonar as a means to direct a specific signal towards a particular receiver. Such applications typically require computing power to perform the signal processing and a sensor array to send or receive signals. These requirements are tailored to the specific application and may cause significant impact to the overall resources available for operations. Given the ubiquity of Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) compute, sensors, and sensor platforms, there are multiple applications that could benefit from utilizing commodity hardware in lieu of requiring application-specific technologies. Beamforming requires relative time synchronization between nodes within an array and the ability to establish range metrics between senders prior to being able to beamform to a specific receiver. Typically, arrays are custom built where such information is already known or can easily be calculated. However, the creation of an array from heterogeneous commodity hardware requires such calculations to be performed on-the-fly and repeatedly as there could be modifications to the array during signal emissions. This Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) topic is seeking technologies for achieving time synchronization and coherence from a cooperating set of commodity devices. Vibe performers will explore novel approaches and develop prototypes for establishing distributed frequency coherence between a set of commodity devices to be able to achieve beamforming to a known receiver. Vibe is interested in any hardware/software methods that can achieve beamforming while also minimizing customized hardware solutions, maintaining a small form factor, and leaving the hardware inconspicuous.DESCRIPTION: Performers will develop novel approaches for utilizing commodity hardware for achieving distributed coherence and beamforming. Vibe prototypes should be able to demonstrate the ability to establish and maintain time synchronization necessary for coherent beamforming of a given frequency and waveform to a receiver. This can range from audible acoustic, ultrasonic, GSM, LTE, Bluetooth, WiFi, or other frequencies and waveforms of commercial/military interest and value. This receiver will also be controlled by the performer, but must also utilize COTS technologies to validate the transmitted signal.PHASE I: This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only. Therefore, Phase I proposals will not be accepted or reviewed. Phase I feasibility will be demonstrated through evidence of: a completed feasibility study or a basic prototype system; definition and characterization of properties desirable for both Department of Defense (DoD) and civilian use; and comparisons with alternative state-of-the-art methodologies (competing approaches). This includes determining, insofar as possible, the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas appearing to have application to the core objective of achieving coherence between a cooperating set of commodity devices. Proposers interested in submitting a DP2 proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described above have been met and describe the potential military or commercial applications. DP2 documentation should include: •technical reports describing results and conclusions of existing work, particularly regarding the commercial opportunity or DoD insertion opportunity, and risks/mitigations, assessments; •presentation materials and/or white papers;•technical papers; •test and measurement data;•prototype designs/models;•performance projections, goals, or results in different use cases This collection of material will verify mastery of the required content for DP2 consideration. DP2 proposers must also demonstrate knowledge, skills, and ability in computer science, mathematics, physics, electrical engineering, and software engineering. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer to the DoD BAA and the DARPA Instructions for this topic.PHASE II: The goal of Vibe is to design and evaluate an array to achieve coherent signal transmission and beamforming utilizing commodity hardware. Proposals should include development, installation, integration, demonstration and/or test and evaluation of the proposed prototype system. These activities should focus specifically on:1.Evaluating the adapted solution against the proposed objectives.2.Describing in detail how the installed solution differs from the non-defense commercial offering to solve DoD need(s) as well as how it can be scaled for wide adoption, i.e., modified for scale and broader signals. 3.Identifying the proposed solution's clear transition path considering input from affected stakeholders, including but not limited to, end users, engineering, sustainment, contracting, finance, legal, and cyber. Specifying the solution's integration with other current and potential future solutions.4.Describing the solution's sustainability, i.e., supportability. Identifying other specific DoD or Governmental customers for the solution. Phase II will culminate in a system demonstration using one or more compelling use case(s) consistent with commercial opportunities, DoD opportunities, and/or insertion into a DARPA program. The below schedule of milestones and deliverables is provided to establish expectations and desired results for the Phase II effort. Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables: Proposers will execute Research and Development (R&D) plan as described in their proposal. Proposers will also complete a commercialization plan that addresses relevant material costs and potential material/equipment suppliers. •Month 1: Phase II Kickoff briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA Program Manager (PM) (in person or virtual, as needed) including: any updates to the proposed plan and technical approach, risks/mitigations, schedule (inclusive of dependencies) with planned capability milestones and deliverables, proposed metrics, and plan for prototype demonstration/validation. •Months 3, 5, 7: Technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, major risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (while this will normally report progress against the plan detailed in the proposal or presented at the Kickoff briefing, it is understood that scientific discoveries, competition, and regulatory changes may all have impacts on the planned work and DARPA must be made aware of any revisions that result), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 9: Interim technical progress briefing (live system demo with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM (in-person or virtual as needed) detailing progress made (include quantitative assessment of capability developed to date), tasks accomplished, major risks/mitigations, planned activities, and technical plan for the remainder of Phase II, the demonstration/verification plan for the end of Phase II, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM.•Month 12, 15, 18: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, major risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (with necessary updates as in the parenthetical remark for Months 3, 5, and 7), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 21/Final Phase II Deliverables: Final architecture demonstration with documented details, demonstrating the establishment of an array using commodity hardware with sufficient timing and ranging capabilities; demonstrating beamforming to a designated receiver, documented application programming interfaces; any other necessary documentation (including, at a minimum, user manuals and a detailed system design document; and the end of phase commercialization plan). Proposers must demonstrate in their proposal the ability to apply for and obtain a Facility Clearance Letter (FCL) with secret safeguarding, or already possess an FCL with secret safeguarding by Phase III. Proposals must outline the proposer’s security plan for conducting prototyping, software development and testing of DoD applications at the collateral secret level by Phase III. All proposals must be unclassified, but proposers may submit classified annexes with prior approval of the DARPA Information Innovation Office Program Security Officer (I2O PSO); for instructions on classified annex submittals, contact I2Osecurity@DARPA.mil. Security Classification Guides governing potential classified Vibe applications may be provided to authorized U.S. contractor proposers upon request.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Phase III work will be oriented towards transition and commercialization of the developed Vibe technologies. Phase III refers to work that derives from, extends, or completes an effort made under prior SBIR funding agreements, but is funded by sources other than the SBIR Program. Primary Vibe support will be to national efforts in both commercial and military applications for novel signal delivery and resilient communications. Such technology can be used for protecting transmitters, localizing specific receivers, and providing signal in non-traditional environments.REFERENCES:1.K. Alemdar, D. Varshey, S. Mohanti, U. Muncuk, K. Chowdhury, "RFClock: Timing, Phase and Frequency Synchronization for Distributed Wireless Networks,” ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom 2021), New Orleans, LA, USA, 2021.2.F. Quitin, M. M. U. Rahman, R. Mudumbai and U. Madhow, "A Scalable Architecture for Distributed Transmit Beamforming with Commodity Radios: Design and Proof of Concept," in IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1418-1428, March 2013, doi: 10.1109/TWC.2013.012513.121029.KEYWORDS: coherence, ranging, distributed coordination, beamforming

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Integrated Sensing and CyberOBJECTIVE: The objective of Synthetic User Personas (SUP) is to generate labeled, synthetic cyber data suitable for enabling machine learning algorithms that support holistic cyber defenses.DESCRIPTION: Currently there is little to no labeled unified host and network data available to the cyber research community to facilitate the development and testing of machine learning algorithms for cyber defenses. Both network data, that captures network connections and packet flows, and host or endpoint data, that captures the use of applications and other activities on a machine, are necessary to build comprehensive cyber defenses. There are two categories of existing datasets. The first is anonymized data from networks with human users such as that provided by the Los Alamos National Laboratory [1]. The second is synthetic data generated and collected from a cyber exercise [2]. The data generated using each approach has significant problems that prevent its use in developing and testing machine learning algorithms. One strength of anonymized data is that none of the events are synthetic. The data represents the actual activity on the network from which it was collected. What anonymized data typically lacks, however, is any sense of ground truth. Anonymized data usually contains limited events, preventing more realistic enrichments and limiting the scope of detection algorithms that can be trained. Using anonymized data from a real network also raises the question of whether there was a malicious actor active when collecting the data, and as a result, there is malicious activity represented in the dataset. If there was a malicious actor, there is no reliable or practical way to identify the specific events that were produced by the actor’s activity. As a result, such datasets are not suitable for training machine learning algorithms. Further, elements of anonymized datasets may not be consistent amongst each other since there may be correlations in the actual collected data that are not recognized and preserved by the anonymization process. Alternatively, synthetic data can be easily and automatically annotated with ground truth (e.g., accurately identify and label benign and malicious events). However, to date, synthetic datasets lack the realism required to fully support development, training, and testing of machine learning algorithms. Synthetic datasets also typically contain unwanted artifacts that reduce or eliminate their value (e.g., artificial artifacts introduce biases when training machine learning algorithms). The existence of unified endpoint and network data is rare because of several issues. First, the anonymization of endpoint data and network data both present unique challenges. Notably, the limitless variations of potential endpoint data makes anonymizing it impossible for arbitrary use cases. Preserving correlations among data elements in both types of data is also incredibly challenging, and again impossible for generalized cases. Second, the collection of endpoint data for research purposes typically requires Institutional Review Board approval. Third, the configuration management of and policies governing the endpoints may prohibit the deployment of a collection agent. Finally, most commercial agents do not make collected endpoint telemetry available for local analysis, instead sending it for centralized (e.g., cloud) processing. SUP will implement synthetic agents designed to generate user activity without creating spurious network or host artifacts. SUP will not create a self-hosted agent that generates activity and filters out its own events from the event stream. Rather, SUP will passively and remotely interpret data (e.g., from a computer screen) to understand the machine state, and then interact with the machine using external input sources (e.g., keyboard and mouse), thus emulating human users. All of the generation activity is “off box” so that no generational artifacts contaminate the collected data. This is a key factor in ensuring that the collected data is free of any spurious artifacts that may incorrectly bias machine learning algorithms generated from the synthetic data. The “off box” synthetic agents implemented by SUP will be capable of scaling to at least five hundred (500) hosts within an enterprise test network. Additionally, SUP will provide for the ability to generate and record user activity and associated data without the addition of software on the subject hosts and without relying on remote logins to the subject hosts. Ideally, the lightweight “off box” synthetic agents will be built with a language that natively supports concurrency, enabling straightforward scaling well beyond the 500-host requirement. SUP will be able to respond correctly and continue proper operation after unexpected pop-ups and other operating system notifications occur. This will be implemented without reliance on timeouts or waiting periods to avoid unknown dialogs; and SUP will not make any assumptions as to when dialogs may or may not appear. SUP will continue to operate properly when the screen resolution changes unexpectedly (i.e., dependencies on image matching should work at any resolution without the need for code changes or a collection of images at every possible resolution). Within an enterprise environment, typically there are many different types of employees and departments that need to be protected, each of which may represent different types of user behavior, with communications closely matching organizational groups and software use differing as well. SUP will enable the emulation of multiple user profiles to provide a variety of realistic user behaviors across the environment. User modeling efforts may span multiple levels of complexity. For example, activities may be performed at random, quickly changing from web browsing tasks to e-mail. Alternatively, a specific workflow may be defined, providing scripts or playbooks from which to draw on actions. Finally, complex emergent behaviors may be built on models of real human behavior. Previous work has explored many approaches to user behavior modeling. Amirkhanyan et al. [3] looked at modeling user behavior using graphical methods called user behavior state graphs. Drawing on human factors research, Garg et al. [4] included features such as nervousness, typing speed, and mouse movement behaviors into user behavior patterns that could then be replicated in a testbed environment. Blythe et. al [5] explored using the Belief-Desire-Intention model for creating intelligent agents that were capable of using planning and reaction to achieve preset goals. These methods were demonstrated as part of the Deter Agents Simulating Human-Behavior module that is a part of DeterLab [6]. Additionally, the GHOSTS-SPECTRE project has also demonstrated use of machine learning methods to drive web browsing behavior in support of data generation while modeling changing user preferences [7]. Traditionally, user data generation has used an agent “on box.” The agent creates artifacts as a result of its activity and those artifacts must be filtered out if possible; otherwise, they may introduce biases into any learned algorithm. PHASE I: This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only. Phase I feasibility will be demonstrated through evidence of: a completed feasibility study or a basic prototype system; definition and characterization of properties desirable for both Department of Defense (DoD) and civilian use; and comparisons with alternative state-of-the-art methodologies (competing approaches). Proposers interested in submitting a DP2 proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described above have been met and describe the potential commercial applications. DP2 documentation should include: •technical reports describing results and conclusions of existing work, particularly regarding the commercial opportunity or DoD insertion opportunity, and risks/mitigations, and assessments; •presentation materials and/or white papers;•technical papers;•test and measurement data;•prototype designs/models;•performance projections, goals, or results in different use cases; and,•documentation of related topics such as how the proposed SUP solution can enable more realistic cyber training. This collection of material will verify mastery of the required content for DP2 consideration. DP2 proposers must also demonstrate knowledge, skills, and ability in networking, computer science, mathematics, and software engineering. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer to the DoD BAA and the DARPA Instructions for this topic.PHASE II: The goal of SUP is to generate realistic synthetic data that is void of artifacts and capable of scaling. An average cyber operator should not be able to determine that the data is synthetic by looking at the generated data, even when the operator has knowledge of typical human activity that was modeled when generating the synthetic data. The operator’s view of user behavior is limited to the event activity of the user; the operator will not have visibility of the actual content created by the user. The SUP prototype should easily scale as a result of its architecture and implementation language. DP2 proposals should present systems that: •generate realistic synthetic data without artifacts such that an average operator cannot determine that the event data is synthetic; and •scale to at least five hundred (500) end user machines. •Phase II will culminate in a system demonstration using one or more compelling use cases consistent with commercial opportunities and/or insertion into a DARPA program. The below schedule of milestones and deliverables is provided to establish expectations and desired results/end products for the Phase II effort. Deliverables must include: •a software implementation of SUP for a virtualized test environment; and •an example dataset generated by SUP suitable for machine learning research. The Phase II Option period will further mature the technology for insertion into a larger DARPA Program, DoD/Intelligence Community (IC) Acquisition Program, another Federal agency; or commercialization into the private sector.Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables: Proposers will execute the research and development (R&D) plan as described in the proposal. •Month 1: Phase I Kickoff briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA Program Manager (PM) including: any updates to the proposed plan and technical approach, risks/mitigations, schedule (inclusive of dependencies) with planned capability milestones and deliverables, proposed metrics, and plan for prototype demonstration/validation. •Months 4, 7, 10: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, major risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (while this will normally report progress against the plan detailed in the proposal or presented at the Kickoff briefing, it is understood that scientific discoveries, competition, and regulatory changes may all have impacts on the planned work and DARPA must be made aware of any revisions that result), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 12: Interim technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM detailing progress made (include quantitative assessment of capabilities developed to date), tasks accomplished, major risks/mitigations, planned activities, technical plan for the second half of Phase II, the demonstration/verification plan for the end of Phase II, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM.•Month 15, 18, 21: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, major risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (with necessary updates as in the parenthetical remark for Months 4, 7, and 10), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 24 (Final Phase II Deliverables): Final technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM. Final architecture with documented details; a demonstration of the ability to generate artifact-free data at scale; documented application programming interfaces; and any other necessary documentation (including, at a minimum, user manuals and a detailed system design document; and the end-of-phase commercialization plan). Month 30 (Phase II Option period): Interim Option period technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM. Interim report of prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies documenting key technical gaps towards productization.•Month 36 (Phase II Option period): Final Option period technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM. Final Phase II Option period report of prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, including quantitative metrics for scalability, assessments of realism, and costs, risks, and schedule for implementation of the full prototype capability into a government-chosen test facility.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: SUP has potential applicability across DoD, IC, U.S. Government (USG), and commercial entities. For DoD/IC/USG, SUP is extremely well-suited for large-scale cyber exercises, smaller-scale operator training, weapon system software testing, and automation of rote tasks. SUP has the same applicability as DoD/IC/USG for the commercial sector. The Phase III work will be oriented towards transition and commercialization of the developed SUP technologies. The proposer is required to obtain funding from either the private sector, a non-SBIR Government source, or both, to develop the prototype into a viable product or non-R&D service for sale in military or private sector markets. Phase III refers to work that derives from, extends, or completes an effort made under prior SBIR funding agreements, but is funded by sources other than the SBIR Program. Primary SUP support will be to national efforts to explore application of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve generation of realistic user events captured during cyber-security testing on synthetic ranges. AI technologies will provide the foundation for developing sophisticated user behavior models that can be used in cyber range exercises. In particular, it is important that these models are realistic and do not bias machine learning approaches because of predictable artifacts. Results of SUP are intended to improve the quality of cyber ranges used across academia, industry, and governmentREFERENCES:1.Los Alamos National Laboratory. “Advanced Research in Cyber Systems Data Sets.” Triad National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, https://csr.lanl.gov/data/. July 5, 2022. 2.DARPA (2020) Operationally Transparent Cyber Data Release [Data Set]. Available at: https://github.com/FiveDirections/OpTC-data 3.Amirkhanyan, A., Sapegin, A., Gawron, M., Cheng, F., & Meinel, C. (2015, September). Simulation user behavior on a security testbed using user behavior states graph. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Security of Information and Networks (pp. 217-223). Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279535149_Simulation_User_Behavior_on_A_Security_Testbed_Using_User_Behavior_States_Graph 4.Garg, A., Vidyaraman, S., Upadhyaya, S., & Kwiat, K. (2006, April). USim: a user behavior simulation framework for training and testing IDSes in GUI based systems. In 39th Annual Simulation Symposium (ANSS'06) (pp. 8-pp). IEEE. Available at: https://cse.buffalo.edu/~shambhu/documents/pdf/USim.pdf 5.Blythe, J., Botello, A., Sutton, J., Mazzocco, D., Lin, J., Spraragen, M., & Zyda, M. (2011, August). Testing cyber security with simulated humans. In Twenty-Third IAAI Conference. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221016543_Testing_Cyber_Security_with_Simulated_Humans6.University of Southern California Information Sciences Institute (USC-ISI). “The cyber DEfense Technology Experimental Research (DETER) Lab Capabilities.” The DETER Project, USC-ISI, https://deter-project.org/deterlab_capabilities#dash. July 5, 2022. 7.Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute (2020) GHOSTS-SPECTRE [Source Code] Available at: https://github.com/cmu-sei/GHOSTS-SPECTREKEYWORDS: Machine Learning, Cyber, Artificial Intelligence, Automation, Data, Analytics

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Space TechnologyThe technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (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 the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) 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.OBJECTIVE: Develop a proof of concept metamaterial antenna specifically designed to provide space-based detection, tracking, and imaging of moving targets. The prototype should include fabrication of a metasurface aperture (sub tile) that can support wide angle, high-speed beamsteering, as well as any testing capabilities needed for capturing full antenna patterns from the prototype.DESCRIPTION: Providing persistent, global, space-based detection, tracking, and imaging requires high-capacity and low-cost sensors. This cost is most acutely felt in the new low-cost “proliferated” space domain where space vehicle costs have been plummeting. The most suitable type of sensor for performance is a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) due to its ability to provide fast, wide field of regard to detect, track, and image multiple moving objects of interest regardless of weather. However, SARs are not cost effective to deploy aboard spacecraft in the numbers necessary to provide a persistent, global capability. Another option could be lower-cost fixed mesh-reflectors or planar arrays as they are capable of generating adequate antenna gain, but they lack the ability to electronically steer a beam, and can only image one or two targets per pass. Due to the lack of capability offered by fixed-beam systems and the prohibitive cost of using traditional SAR-equipped satellites for global coverage, DARPA is looking for cost-effective, fully-steerable track-while-scan radars that can be deployed in low earth orbit (LEO). To provide the cost-effective capability DARPA is looking for, metamaterial electronically scanned array (MESA) radars are of particular interest due to their ability to offer similar performance to traditional Active Electronically Scanned Arrays (AESAs), but at an order of magnitude less cost due to their simpler design. While MESAs technology has been developed for both ground and air applications, it has not yet been developed for deployment to and usage in space environments. To detect and track objects over large areas (100s of square kilometers), the MESA would need to be constructed of coherent, digital tiles. A super-array of digital tiles though would require new means to solve coherence and calibration challenges, while also burdened with the extreme temperature variations and high orbital velocities experienced in a space environment. In this effort, proposers will design and develop an operational electronically-steerable metamaterial antenna sub tile prototype, as well as:•Design and develop a near-field probe antenna test system to capture full antenna patters out of the antenna prototype•Document manufacturing development steps necessary for the metamaterial antenna•Develop all hardware and software to control drive electronics of active components of sub-tile to electronically steer a beam.PHASE I: This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only. Previous Phase 1 qualified efforts should have demonstrated that they can design and produce an electronically steerable antenna capable of achieving the metrics listed below. Results should be supported by prior demonstration or laboratory testing. •Steerable to ± 60° in azimuth and elevation with sub 1° steps•Ability to survive high peak radiofrequency powers from 800W to 1200W for apertures 1m2 and greater Efficiency data of 40% or greater at broadside•Peak sidelobe levels of 15dB or greater at broadside•Ability to steer large apertures (150?? Lambda or greater) in 10us or lessPHASE II: The Phase II effort consists of a Phase II base of 12 months and a Phase II option of 12 months. Phase II fixed payable milestones for this program should include: •Month 2: Initial report on architecture and program plan •Month 6: Interim report on system trade study and architecture, antenna design, and system requirements •Month 12: Phase II report documenting status of X-band antenna design and development, antenna test platform, antenna manufacturing process development, and hardware/software to control drive electronics progress•Month 18: Interim report documenting X-band antenna design and fabrication, antenna test platform design, antenna manufacturing results, and hardware/software to control drive electronics progress •Month 24: Final Phase II report documenting X-band antenna design and test results, antenna test platform design and specifications, antenna manufacturing process, and verification results of hardware and software to control drive electronicsPHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Metasurface Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radars are currently high technology readiness level and in full-rate production, providing high-performance at low cost for both air and ground usage, for military and commercial applications. Further developing this metamaterial antenna technology to be operable in space while providing the performance needed for wide-area moving target indication would attract significant interest from space-focused agencies within the Department of Defense, and potentially commercial partners as well.REFERENCES:1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_electronically_scanned_array 2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial_antenna 3.https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/27373-metamaterial-advances-for-radar-and-communicationsKEYWORDS: Metamaterials, Synthetic Aperture Radar, Electronical Scanned Arrays

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Microelectronics OBJECTIVE: This topic seeks to develop a super-resolution thermal metrology tool to enable accurate characterization of semiconductor materials and devices, and wide bandgap and ultra-wide bandgap materials and devices, in particular, at nanometer length scale.DESCRIPTION: Radar and communication systems are ubiquitous in both military and commercial applications. In these platforms, system performance can be improved by increasing the radio frequency (RF) output power of the transmitter power amplifier (PA), which is directly proportional to the output power density of the PA transistor. However, the operating output power densities achieved in today’s wide bandgap transistors are thermally limited to values substantially below theoretical electronic limits. The government has an interest in developing technologies to overcome these thermal limitations and realize robust, high-power density transistors that operate near their fundamental electronic limit of RF output power, with a focus on achieving high power density through reduction in transistor thermal resistance [1]. Success requires metrology that can accurately measure thermal resistance and interfacial thermal resistance of a variety of material and device structures. Furthermore, these measurements are required to verify that performer high-power transistors meet program metrics. Existing thermal metrology tools often use pump-probe laser-based techniques, such as time-domain thermoreflectance (TDTR), frequency-domain thermoreflectance (FDTR), and recent variants such as steady state thermoreflectance (SSTR)[2] . While these techniques are useful for the measurement of thermal resistance in thin films and interfaces, they are are limited in spatial resolution [2,3], and cannot measure thermal resistance and thermal resistance gradients in submicron devices. The ability to measure thermal resistance beyond the surface film (i.e., in the buried channel layer of a heterojunction device) and also characterize at both nanoscale and microscale dimensions, is critical to the development of high power density devices. The purpose of this direct to Phase II (DP2) SBIR topic is to develop a super-resolution thermal metrology tool that enables accurate characterization of the thermal resistance of semiconductor materials, heterostructures and devices, particularly wide bandgap and ultra-wide bandgap materials and devices at nanometer length scale. The tool must be capable of measuring both epilayers and operating devices with a thermal resolution less than 0.25 oC, thermal precision of 1 oC, spatial resolution below 50 nm, accuracy above 90%, and reproducibility and repeatability less than 2%. Specific measurement capabilities include thermal resistance, thermal boundary resistance of interfaces, and temperature of an operating device and, in particular, buried channel layers. The device-scale measurements must characterize both the surface and cross-section of a multi-finger, submicron GaN high-electron-mobility transistor (HEMT) and an ultra-wide bandgap AlGaN HEMT. In addition, a comprehensive validation plan should be provided. For example, the plan should include device-relevant material structures, such as GaN transistor layers, that are compared to other thermal measurement techniques for verification of results. The plan may also incorporate National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards. The final Phase II base deliverable will be a laboratory demonstration of the thermal metrology tool, along with a plan for construction of tool and delivery to a U.S. government organization. The Phase II option of this topic will address the development of this thermal metrology tool into an automated, turnkey system that will be delivered to a U.S. government laboratory. The deliverables of the Phase II option will include both the tool, calibration standards, and any necessary software for demonstrating material and device thermal characterization. Finally, on-site support will be required to ensure proper installation and operation at the U.S. government organization.PHASE I: This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only. This DP2 SBIR requires documentation of existing thermal metrology capabilities and a proposed plan with supporting analysis showing that achieving 50 nm spatial resolution with high precision and accuracy is feasible. The documentation must include measured data, including thermal resistance, from existing thermal metrology techniques demonstrating less than 2 µm spatial resolution and the ability to resolve interfaces beyond the surface film. In addition, validation data from the existing thermal metrology tool should be provided.PHASE II: The proposed plan must describe the path towards a successful final DP2 SBIR deliverable which meets the requirements listed below. This DP2 SBIR will have an 18-month duration in which the super-resolution thermal metrology tool will be designed, developed, validated, and tested for performance goals. The requirements of the thermal metrology tool are: 1.Capable of measuring thermal resistance, thermal boundary resistance, and temperature of operating multi-finger, submicron GaN HEMT and ultra-wide bandgap AlGaN HEMT with the following specifications: a.Spatial resolution < 50 nm b.Thermal resolution < 0.25 oC c.Thermal precision: 1 oC d.Accuracy > 90% e.Reproducibility and repeatability < 2% 2.Tool validation using a comparison of measured results of device relevant structures to other thermal metrology techniques. In addition, validation may use available NIST standards. Phase II (base) fixed milestones include: •Month 1: Detailed report on super-resolution thermal metrology tool design, including documentation of path towards achieving in-situ device testing and meeting DP2 SBIR goals. •Month 3: Report on progress towards final design and demonstration of thermal metrology tool. •Month 6: Report on progress towards final design and demonstration of thermal metrology tool. •Month 9: Report on progress towards final design and demonstration of thermal metrology tool. •Month 12: Initial prototype demonstration of super-resolution thermal metrology tool. Detailed report should include validation data as well as thermal resistance, temperature, and thermal resolution of the surface and cross-section of GaN and AlGaN transistors with less than 100 nm spatial resolution. Documentation should also describe the path towards the final DF2 SBIR deliverable. •Month 15: Detailed report on progress towards final design and demonstration of the thermal metrology tool, including validation data and transistor thermal characterization. •Month 18: Final demonstration of a prototype thermal metrology tool that meets requirements listed above. Detailed data report containing final validation measurements and thermal characterization of surface and cross-section of GaN and AlGaN transistors with less than 50 nm spatial resolution. Plan for construction of tool and delivery to a U.S. government organization. Phase II (option) This DP2 SBIR will have a 6-month option in which the super-resolution thermal metrology tool demonstrated in Phase II will be developed into a turn-key, push-button, automated system. A Phase II option final report will detail the successful demonstration of a fully-automated measurement of the thermal resistance, thermal boundary resistance, temperature, and thermal resolution of an operating multi-finger, submicron GaN HEMT and ultra-wide bandgap AlGaN HEMT. The DP2 option will also include: 1.Delivery of prototype automated, turnkey thermal metrology tool to a designated U.S. government organization. 2.Support for installation and operation at the U.S. government laboratory. 3.Demonstration of thermal characterization of GaN HEMT and ultra-wide bandgap AlGaN HEMT on-site at the U.S. government organization. Phase II (option) fixed milestones include: •Month 1: Detailed report on automated, push-button thermal metrology tool design and path toward achieving DP2 Option goals. Coordinate with the designated U.S. government organization to provide a preliminary plan for delivery and installation. •Month 3: Report on thermal metrology tool development progress. •Month 6: Delivery of final prototype thermal metrology tool, including calibration standards and any necessary software for demonstrating material and device thermal characterization. Detailed report containing final validation measurements and thermal characterization of surface and cross-section of GaN and AlGaN transistors with less than 50 nm spatial resolution.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This SBIR will enable a commercially available, automated thermal metrology tool for use by academia, semiconductor foundries (commercial and defense), and material vendors. Specifically, this technology will provide high resolution thermal metrology so that transistor developers can accurately characterize the thermal resistance and temperature of a wide variety of films, material structures, devices, and packages. This thermal characterization data can be incorporated into device modeling and design, enabling devices with higher power density and improved robustness for a wide range of defense and commercial radar and communication applications.REFERENCES:[1] DARPA Broad Agency Announcement, Technologies for Heat Removal in Electronics at the Device Scale (THREADS), Microsystems Technology Office, HR001123S0013, November 18, 2022. [2] Olson, David, et al., "Spatially resolved thermoreflectance techniques for thermal conductivity measurements from the nanoscale to the mesoscale", Journal of Applied Physics 126, 2019. [3] Yuan, Chao, et al., “A review of thermoreflectance techniques for characterizing wide bandgap semiconductors’ thermal properties and devices’ temperatures,” Journal of Applied Physics 132, 2022.KEYWORDS: Microelectronics, thermal metrology, thermoreflectance, thermal resistance, temperature, transistor, wide bandgap, ultra-wide bandgap

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced Materials, MicroelectronicsOBJECTIVE: The objective of the Wearables at the Edge to Augment Readiness (WEAR) SBIR topic is to develop a secure and lightweight framework for real-time analysis of sensory data from wearables to monitor warfighter health and readiness at the edge.DESCRIPTION: Wearable technology is now fundamental to all areas of the human ecosystem. The term wearable technology refers to small electronic and mobile devices, or computers with wireless communications capability that are incorporated into gadgets, accessories, or clothes, which can be worn on the human body [1]; for the purposes of this SBIR topic, it does not apply to invasive versions such as micro-chips or smart tattoos. Wearable technology can provide invaluable physiological and environmental data that can potentially be used to assess a warfighters’ physical/mental wellness and readiness. Modern edge devices, like smartphones and smart watches, are equipped with an ever-increasing set of sensors, such as accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes, etc., that can continuously record users’ movements and motion [2]. The observed patterns can be an effective tool for seamless Human Activity Recognition which is the process of identifying and labeling human activities by applying Artificial Intelligence (AI)/Machine Learning (ML) to sensor data generated by smart devices both in isolation and in combination [3, 4]. However, smartphone and wearable sensor signals are typically noisy and can lack context/causality due to inaccurate timestamps when the device sleeps, goes into low-power mode, or experiences high resource utilization. Thus, it can be challenging to fuse any of the various raw sensor data to achieve positive or negative assessment in wellness areas such as personal healthcare, injuries, fall detection, as well as monitoring functional/behavioral health. For instance, sensor data can be processed into feature data related to sleep or different physical activities that potentially correlate to effects on an individual’s health [5, 6]. The objective of WEAR is to develop a secure and lightweight framework for real-time analysis of sensory data from wearables to monitor warfighter health and readiness at the edge. Importantly, WEAR will achieve this goal while consuming less than 5% of the wearable battery over 10 days, assuming an initial full battery charge. The battery consumption metric is of particular interest to WEAR as warfighters at the edge (e.g., expeditionary forces deployed to remote locations or Special Operations Forces units) may not be able to recharge wearable batteries due to mission constraints limiting access to power sources for re-charging. Equally important is the need for all processing to occur at the edge because of security concerns [8]. Existing commercial efforts require cloud and off-premises server resources to analyze sensor data.PHASE I: This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase 2 (DP2) proposals only. Phase I feasibility will be demonstrated through evidence of: a completed proof of concept/principal or basic prototype system; definition and characterization of framework properties/technology capabilities desirable for both Department of Defense (DoD)/government and civilian/commercial use; and capability/performance comparisons with existing state-of-the-art technologies/methodologies (competing approaches). Entities interested in submitting a DP2 proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific/technical merit and feasibility described above has been achieved and also describe the potential commercial applications. DP2 Phase I feasibility documentation should include: •technical reports describing results and conclusions of existing work, particularly regarding the commercial opportunity or DoD insertion opportunity, risks/mitigations, and technology assessments; •presentation materials and/or white papers; •technical papers; •test and measurement data; •prototype designs/models; •performance projections, goals, or results in different use cases; and, •documentation of related topics such as how the proposed WEAR solution can enable accurate and reliable analysis of sensory data at the edge. This collection of material will verify mastery of the required content for DP2 consideration. DP2 proposers must also demonstrate knowledge, skills, and abilities in AI/ML, data analytics, edge technologies, software development/engineering, and mobile security/privacy. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer to the DoD Broad Agency Announcement and the DARPA Instructions for this topic.PHASE II: The Personal Health Determinations (WEAR) SBIR topic seeks to develop a secure and lightweight framework that can perform real-time analysis of sensory data from wearables to monitor warfighter operational health and readiness at the edge, while consuming less than 5% of the wearable battery over 10 days, assuming an initial full battery charge (i.e., WEAR component overhead can be no more than 5% of the wearable battery over 10 days). One potential direction to achieve this goal is to leverage advances in low-power sensing at the chipset level present in modern mobile and wearable devices, including but not limited to “always-on sensing.” The primary interest is in commercial-off-the-shelf hardware paired with novel sensor drivers and algorithms developed to operate at low power. A secondary objective is to offer modular application programming interfaces (APIs) to access sensor data and edge ML models/algorithms that can fit into the resource-constrained environments of commercial wearables. The end goal is the capability to monitor and accurately assess warfighter operational health and readiness by using the sensory information on the edge devices without transporting information outside of the wearable or smartphone devices. Any custom hardware or sensors are out of scope for this solicitation. DP2 proposals should: •describe a proposed framework design/architecture to achieve the above stated goals; •present a plan for maturation of the framework to a demonstrable prototype system; and •detail a test plan, complete with proposed metrics and scope, for verification and validation of the prototype system performance. Phase II will culminate in a prototype system demonstration using one or more compelling use cases consistent with commercial opportunities and/or insertion into a DARPA program (e.g., Warfighter Analytics using Smartphones for Health (WASH [7]), which seeks to use data collected from cellphone sensors to enable novel algorithms that conduct passive, continuous, real-time assessment of the warfighter). The Phase II Option period will further mature the technology for insertion into a DoD/Intelligence Community (IC) Acquisition Program, another Federal agency; or commercialization into the private sector. The below schedule of milestones and deliverables is provided to establish expectations and desired results/end products for the Phase II and Phase II Option period efforts. Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables: Proposers will execute the research and development (R&D) plan as described in the proposal, including the below: •Month 1: Phase I Kickoff briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA Program Manager (PM) including: any updates to the proposed plan and technical approach, risks/mitigations, schedule (inclusive of dependencies) with planned capability milestones and deliverables, proposed metrics, and plan for prototype demonstration/validation. •Months 4, 7, 10: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress to date, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (while this would normally report progress against the plan detailed in the proposal or presented at the Kickoff briefing, it is understood that scientific discoveries, competition, and regulatory changes may all have impacts on the planned work and DARPA must be made aware of any revisions that result), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 12: Interim technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM detailing progress made (including quantitative assessment of capabilities developed to date), tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, planned activities, technical plan for the second half of Phase II, the demonstration/verification plan for the end of Phase II, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 15, 18, 21: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (with necessary updates as in the parenthetical remark for Months 4, 7, and 10), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 24: Final technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM. Final architecture with documented details; a demonstration of the ability to perform real-time analysis of sensory data at the edge while consuming less than 5% of the wearable battery over 10 days; documented APIs; and any other necessary documentation (including, at a minimum, user manuals and a detailed system design document; and the commercialization plan). •Month 30 (Phase II Option period): Interim report of matured prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, documenting key technical gaps towards productization. •Month 36 (Phase II Option period): Final Phase II Option period technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM including prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, including quantitative metrics for battery consumption and assessment of monitoring/assessment capabilities to support determinations of warfighter health status.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Phase III Dual use applications (Commercial DoD/Military): WEAR has potential applicability across DoD and commercial entities. For DoD, WEAR is extremely well-suited for continuous, low-cost, opportunistic monitoring of warfighter health in the field, where specialized equipment and medical experts are not necessarily available. WEAR has the same applicability for the commercial sector and has the potential to provide doctors and physicians with invaluable historical patient health data that can be correlated to their activities, environment, and physiological responses. Phase III refers to work that derives from, extends, or completes an effort made under prior SBIR funding agreements, but is funded by sources other than the SBIR Program. The Phase III work will be oriented towards transition and commercialization of the developed WEAR technologies. The proposer is required to obtain funding from either the private sector, a non-SBIR Government source, or both, to develop the prototype into a viable product or non-R&D service for sale in military or private sector markets. Primary WEAR support will be to national efforts to explore the ability to collect and fuse sensor data and apply ML algorithms at the edge to that data in a manner that does not drain device battery. Results of WEAR are intended to improve healthcare monitoring and assessment at the edge, across government and industry.REFERENCES:[1] Aleksandr Ometov, Viktoriia Shubina, Lucie Klus, Justyna Skibinska, Salwa Saafi, Pavel Pascacio, Laura Flueratoru, Darwin Quezada Gaibor, Nadezhda Chukhno, Olga Chukhno, Asad Ali, Asma Channa, Ekaterina Svertoka, Waleed Bin Qaim, Raúl Casanova-Marqués, Sylvia Holcer, Joaquín Torres-Sospedra, Sven Casteleyn, Giuseppe Ruggeri, Giuseppe Araniti, Radim Burget, Jiri Hosek, Elena Simona Lohan, A Survey on Wearable Technology: History, State-of-the-Art and Current Challenges, Computer Networks, Volume 193, 2021, 108074, ISSN 1389-1286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2021.108074. (Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389128621001651) [2] Paula Delgado-Santos, Giuseppe Stragapede, Ruben Tolosana, Richard Guest, Farzin Deravi, and Ruben Vera-Rodriguez. 2022. A Survey of Privacy Vulnerabilities of Mobile Device Sensors. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 11s, Article 224 (January 2022), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510579. (Available at https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3510579) [3] Straczkiewicz, M., James, P. & Onnela, JP. A systematic review of smartphone-based human activity recognition methods for health research. npj Digit. Med. 4, 148 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-021-00514-4. (Available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-021-00514-4) [4] E. Ramanujam, T. Perumal and S. Padmavathi, "Human Activity Recognition With Smartphone and Wearable Sensors Using Deep Learning Techniques: A Review," in IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 13029-13040, 15 June15, 2021, doi: 10.1109/JSEN.2021.3069927. (Available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=9389739) [5] Jun-Ki Min, Afsaneh Doryab, Jason Wiese, Shahriyar Amini, John Zimmerman, and Jason I. Hong. 2014. Toss 'n' turn: smartphone as sleep and sleep quality detector. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557220 (Available at https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2556288.2557220) [6] Sardar, A. W., Ullah, F., Bacha, J., Khan, J., Ali, F., & Lee, S. (2022). Mobile sensors based platform of Human Physical Activities Recognition for COVID-19 spread minimization. Computers in biology and medicine, 146, 105662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105662. (Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9137241/pdf/main.pdf) [7] Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. (2017, May 8). Warfighter Analytics using Smartphones for Health (WASH) Broad Agency Announcement HR001117S0032. (Available at https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/wp.wpi.edu/dist/d/274/files/2017/05/DODBAA-SMARTPHONES.pdf) [8] Fitness tracking app Strava gives away location of secret US army bases. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracking-app-gives-away-location-of-secret-us-army-basesKEYWORDS: Wearable Technology, Health Monitoring, Health Assessment, Data Analytics, Edge Technology, Activity Recognition, Machine Learning

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced Computing and SoftwareOBJECTIVE: Extend the scientific Python programming ecosystem to incorporate a rich set of matrix and tensor operations supported by a compilation system capable of automatic efficient code generation for execution on a range of run-time hardware architectures, including hardware with features that optimize or accelerate operations on sparse data.DESCRIPTION: Of the nearly 44 zettabytes of data humans have gathered to date, most of it is collected, processed and stored as multi-dimensional arrays or tensors. From the earliest computer and the first FORTRAN compiler, we have perfected how to store and compute dense tensor data. However, a large portion of the data, either obtained from nature or generated by humans, is sparse. The Python programming environment is increasingly the tool of choice for scientific processing, but it has poor support for sparsity; current practice is to ignore the sparsity and treat the data as dense, incurring unnecessary overhead, or to transform the data into unnatural dense formats, making the programs much more complicated. Capitalizing on sparsity can greatly increase the efficiency of scientific computations, but the challenge is that there are a large number of sparse data formats, each of which takes advantage of particular features of the data; the algorithms that operate on these different data formats are then specialized to exploit the advantages of the specific data formats. An additional challenge is that there are a variety of hardware accelerators for matrix and tensor computations, ranging from features in conventional CPUs and GPUs to new hardware capabilities that have been developed to accelerate computations on sparse data. Dealing with this complexity is a challenge that is not within the reach of most programmers. The objective of this effort is to make the processing of sparse data as accessible and efficient as working with dense data. Specifically, to make the Python APIs for array processing (in NumPy, SciPy, PyTorch, and scikit-learn used by 10s of millions of people) work seamlessly with sparse data. ESPy will build on the current Python scientific library approach (e.g. NumPy and SciPy), to minimize source code changes and encourage community take-up, and add sparsity awareness and the ability to target multiple hardware architectures, including at least one architecture with features aimed at accelerating computation on sparse data. A framework or domain-specific language approach can be used to encapsulate the Python application, or the Python environment can be extended with an array/tensor algebra compiler; the selected approach should require minimal source-code changes. A compilation intermediate representation should be devised or adapted that incorporates sparse semantics, such as degree of sparsity and data formatting, and that can be efficiently targeted at multiple run-time hardware architectures. Data formatting transformations should be minimized.PHASE I: This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only. Selected performers will have an established and documented background and experience with most or all of the following: the design and implementation of Python-based libraries, frameworks, domain-specific-languages, compilers, compilation intermediate representations, code generation and optimization, and a range of target computer architectures including CPUs, GPUs, and hardware accelerators. Performers should also be able to document familiarity with sparse and dense tensor algebra, including comprehensive coverage of the many sparse and dense data structures and formats.PHASE II: The goal of ESPy is to establish an efficient and easy-to-use sparse tensor algebra capability in the Python scientific ecosystem. The facility can be based on a library approach, or use a domain-specific language or a framework to facilitate the capability, as long as there are minimal code changes for the Python programmer. There are a multitude of sparse object data structures and formats, and ESPy should support as many of these as possible, and be capable of extension to additional sparse data formats as needed or required. ESPy should also support multiple target architectures including at least one architecture implementation with features that can be exploited to accelerate sparse vector or matrix processing. ESPy’s support of tensor algebra shall be more than just addition and multiplication by providing a rich set of operators and functions, such as convolutions and semi-rings. Expected Phase II metrics: •At least 100X faster performance on a sparse array- and tensor-processing benchmark vs generic Python processing using scientific libraries with <5% lines of code changed •Benchmark composition to be proposed and implemented by the proposer with DARPA’s agreement •Two or more target hardware architectures in Phase II (base) •Three or more target architectures, including at least one with hardware support for sparse data processing, in Phase II (option) Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables •Month 1: Kick-Off meeting; technical approach report that outlines the Python user interface (library/framework/DSL), intermediate representation, and target architecture code generation strategy; proposed tensor-processing benchmark review •Month 3: PI meeting with PowerPoint presentations of accomplishments since the previous review and plans for the next period •Month 6: PI meeting with PowerPoint presentations of accomplishments since the previous review and plans for the next period; demonstrations of work so far •Month 9: PI review, including final design review, demonstration plans, and projected metrics achievements •Month 12: Final PI review and final report, including quantitative metrics regarding performance and usability (percentage code changes need); demonstrate support for multiple sparse data formats; demonstrate support for multiple target architectures; proposal for Phase II option including additional target architecture and demonstration application (based on transition party requirements); the final report shall also document any scientific advances that have been achieved under the program (A brief statement of claims supplemented by publication material will meet this requirement); delivery of software executables, source code (if applicable), and documentation (publishing as open source is acceptable as delivery) Phase II Option Phase II option activities should include the addition of a target architecture and a real-world demonstration in collaboration with a transition partner. Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables •Month 1: Kick-Off meeting; technical approach report outlining demonstration application based on transition partner requirements and additional target architecture(s) •Month 3: PI meeting with PowerPoint presentations of accomplishments since the previous review and plans for the next period •Month 6: PI meeting with PowerPoint presentations of accomplishments since the previous review and plans for the next period; demonstrations of work so far •Month 9: PI review, including final design review, demonstration plans, and projected metrics •Month 12: Final review/report including demonstration with transition partner and demonstration of additional target architecture; delivery of software executables, source code (if applicable), and documentation (publishing as open source is acceptable as delivery)PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Sparse arrays are used extensively in commercial, scientific, and DoD/Military applications, such as social media, financial transactions, network traffic analysis, partial differential equations, optimizations, and Machine Learning applications. A likely pathway forward for the developers is to publish the software as open-source, thereby encouraging uptake and recruiting additional developers, and then to offer support and consulting services based on intimate understanding of the ESPy design and implementation.REFERENCES:[1] Shail Dave et al, Hardware Acceleration of Sparse and Irregular Tensor Computations of ML Models: A Survey and Insights, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9507542. [2] Jie-Fang Zhang et al, SNAP: An Efficient Sparse Neural Acceleration Processor for Unstructured Sparse Deep Neural Network Inference, https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~zhengya/papers/zhang_jssc21.pdf. [3] Shaohuai Shi, Qiang Wang, Xiaowen Chu, Efficient Sparse-Dense Matrix-Matrix Multiplication on GPUs Using the Customized Sparse Storage Format, arxiv.org. [4] Kartik Hegde et al, ExTensor: An Accelerator for Sparse Tensor Algebra, csail.mit. [5] R. Henry et al, Compilation of Sparse Array Programming Models, DSpace@MIT. [6] https://sparse.pydata.org/en/stable/ - implementation of sparse arrays of arbitrary dimension on top of numpy and scipy.sparse. [7] http://tensor-compiler.org/ - a fast and versatile compiler-based library for sparse linear and tensor algebra.KEYWORDS: Sparse; Dense; Python; Array; Matrix; Tensor

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons, Information SystemsOBJECTIVE: The goal of SaFE is to develop practical; low-cost; small size, weight, and power; non-isotopic sources for food irradiation and other applications requiring pathogen sterilization, supporting ubiquitous treatment at points of production and points of distribution, particularly in austere or compromised environments (e.g., expeditionary operations, humanitarian relief, or disaster response).DESCRIPTION: This SBIR XL topic will focus on the development of compact, low-cost, high efficiency, and economically viable electron accelerator systems. The topic is composed of two linked subtopics: Subtopic 1 will develop accelerator technology, and Subtopic 2 will focus on distributed system designs and pilot demonstrations. Accelerators developed as part of the first subtopic will be capable of generating continuous, high current electron beams at 2 to 10 MeV energies using 10 kW electric sources. 10 kW generators are commonly used in deployed support operations such as those found in containerized kitchens. Specifically, this subtopic will explore recent innovations resulting in accelerator designs that can be produced for tens of thousands of dollars compared to millions of dollars for traditional high power accelerators such as Rhodotrons and S-band LINACs, while being suitable for new distributed system architectures. High-gradient direct current (DC) accelerator structures, novel voltage multiplier designs, and new innovations in dielectric materials may provide viable technical approaches. Further, new solid state amplifiers could provide a potential path for radiofrequency (RF) approaches. Such configurations could present the highest potential for compact, low-cost, high wall-plug efficiency accelerator designs. The second subtopic, system studies, will initially focus on two use cases: (1) a single 10 kW system for deployed or austere environments and (2) multiple distributed 10 kW systems for point of packaging applications. Subtopic 2 performers will conduct detailed economic analysis including capital costs and operations and maintenance costs. The analysis will define minimum viable product and systems characteristics that can be economically produced and address the maximum number of applications for wide-spread use while still achieving treatment and throughput requirements. Further, practical issues such as radiation shielding, automation, and regulatory concerns will be addressed. These analyses will be informed by strong food industry, U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) engagements. Systems work will culminate in a proof-of-concept pilot demonstration of the specific subtopic accelerator technology. Such a demonstration aims to establish broader adoption of food irradiation and enhance food safety and security for both deployed and domestic applications. In addition, secondary applications such as sterilization and remediation will be examined.It is envisioned that between the two subtopics, technical, economic, and regulatory hurdles currently hindering food irradiation adoption will be fully addressed. This, in turn, will jumpstart commercial activity in this sector leading to viable products, new industrial development, and overall greater food safety and security.PHASE I: This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only. There is no Phase I; however, proposers must provide evidence of approach feasibility with results at a level commensurate with the conclusion of a Phase I effort. Examples of such evidence are included below for each subtopic. Proposers to Subtopic 1 are required to provide documentation outlining success in high efficiency accelerator component technologies. Achievements must be substantial. For example, a key component for a DC accelerator could be a co*ckroft-Walton voltage ladder. Such a ladder showing 1 MV and an efficiency of >70% into a representative load would be considered sufficient. Proposers to Subtopic 2 are required to provide documentation outlining success in prior end-to-end system design, demonstration of hands-on work with analogous technologies (including core competencies with accelerator technologies), and experience working with regulatory agencies – specifically the FDA and state regulatory bodies for machine-produced radiation sources.PHASE II: SaFE is composed of two linked subtopics over an anticipated 3-year period of performance. The period of performance is divided into a 12-month base and two 12-month option periods. Proposers may apply to one or both subtopics.Subtopic 1: Accelerator technology development. The overall goal of Subtopic 1 is to produce and demonstrate a turn-key high efficiency, low cost, reasonably compact, irradiation accelerator prototype at technology readiness level 6 with the following characteristics: ParameterThresholdObjectiveTunable electron energy range (MeV) 2-5 2-10 Max x-ray energy (MeV) 5 7.5 Wall plug efficiency (Pbeam/Pwall) > 0.3 > 0.7Unit cost ($)< $100,000 < $50,000 The accelerator must make use of 10 kW electric generator output such as 120V@100A or 208V@50A. The complete, turn-key system including controls, accelerator, RF generation (if appropriate), shielding, beam steering, and target must be compatible with a single 463L pallet. Additional suitability metrics include a removable x-ray converter (such as tantalum) to support x-ray production, continuous or near continuous operation, and targets compatible with conveyer-based operations. The 12-month base period will focus on accelerator design, modeling, and component development. The design will progress through typical processes including a system requirements review, preliminary design review, and a critical design review. Components will be developed and tested supporting the overall accelerator design. Base period (12 month) milestones: •Month 1: Kickoff materials. Slide deck summarizing technical approach to meet overall goals, risks, and risk mitigations and quantified milestone schedule •Month 3: System Requirements Review •Month 6: Preliminary Design Review •Month 12: Critical Design Review During the 12-month Option 1 period, components will be refined and integrated into a prototype system. This system will be tested to verify performance and ultimately used in Subtopic 2’s pilot system demonstration. Option 1 period (12 month) milestones: •Month 6: Complete Accelerator Prototype •Month 9: Test and Eval of Prototype •Month 10: X-ray Target Assessment •Month 12: Integrated T&E of Prototype During the 12-month Option 2 period, support will be provided to Subtopic 2’s pilot system demonstration and the accelerator will be further refined to a minimum viable product using feedback from Subtopic 2. Option 2 period (12 month) milestones: •Month 6: Accelerator Integration Report •Month 12: Final Accelerator and System Design Monthly written technical progress reports will supplement the above milestones (see template under SBIR/STTR BAA DOCUMENTS at https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/for-small-businesses/participate-sbir-sttr-program). Subtopic 1 performers are expected to collaborate with subtopic 2 performers in this program. Subtopic 2: Irradiation system design and proof-of-concept pilot demonstrationSubtopic 2 will complete system studies for two use cases using the accelerator technology of Subtopic 1. As mentioned above, the first use case will examine operation in deployed or austere environments. Food-based logistical support aims to feed 300 troops from mobilized trailers or 800 troops from containerized kitchens. About 32 lbs. of food supplies (including packaging) are needed per troop per week. This is about 2 kg/day at an average density of ~0.5 g/cc. Detailed modeling and analysis will be carried out on various objects and package configurations, and optimization studies will be conducted to provide effective treatment per object at maximum throughput. In addition, Monte Carlo analysis will be used to study radiation shielding. Such shielding could make use of supplied or indigenous materials or combinations of both to minimize size and weight. Handling systems will also be developed and included in the design studies. Metrics for this use case are described in the table below. ParameterThresholdObjectiveSize and weight (463L pallets)< 2< 1Throughput (kg/hr)> 50> 180Dose/item (kGy)> 0.4> 1Dose uniformity ratio< 2.5< 1.4Size and weight metrics include the full accelerator of Subtopic 1. Object and packaging details as well as feedback on aspects of practical system suitability are anticipated through discussions with performer(s) and DoD stakeholders during the base period. The second system study will examine using the accelerator of Subtopic 1 in a distributed architecture at the point of packaging. Perishable food such as lettuce or ground beef and associated packaging will be analyzed. Detailed technical analysis, economic analysis, and commercialization plans for the system will be completed with the goal of minimizing overall system costs. The specific use case will be proposed by the performer. Metrics for this use case are described in the table below.ParameterThresholdObjectiveThroughput (kg/hr)> 1,000> 3,600Dose (kGy)> 0.4> 1Dose uniformity ratio< 2.5< 1.4In addition to system studies, Subtopic 2 will develop and demonstrate a proof of concept pilot for both of the use cases described above. This includes addressing all regulatory requirements and potentially crafting petitions to regulatory bodies describing the specific needs of distributed systems. The 12-month base period will focus on separate design studies for the use cases described above and progress through typical design review elements, including a system requirements review and preliminary design review. In addition, all relevant regulations will be identified. Base period (12 month) milestones: •Month 1: Kickoff materials. Slide deck summarizing approaches to meet overall goals, risks, and risk mitigations and quantified milestone schedule •Month 3: System Requirements Review •Month 9: Preliminary Design Review •Month 12: Final base period report and design updateDuring the 12-month Option 1 period, systems will be refined through a critical design review. A minimum viable product will be defined for the accelerator system of Subtopic 1. Pilot plans will be progressed and address all regulations. Option 1 period (12 month) milestones: •Month 3: 1) Critical Design Review, including summary of minimum viable product findings for accelerator technology, and 2) Preliminary pilot plan •Month 6: Interim pilot plan •Month 12: Final pilot plan During the 12-month Option 2 period, the accelerator from Subtopic 1 will be used to complete a concept pilot demonstration. Option 2 period (12 month) milestones: Month 3: Initial pilot operation report Month 6: Interim pilot operation report Month 12: Final pilot operation report Monthly written technical progress reports will supplement the above milestones (see template under SBIR/STTR BAA DOCUMENTS at https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/for-small-businesses/participate-sbir-sttr-program). Subtopic 1 and 2 are linked. Monthly coordination meetings between the teams are anticipated to facilitate communication and successful completion of overall program goals.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: While the U.S. food supply is among the safest in the world, the FDA estimates that there are about 48 million cases of foodborne illness annually—the equivalent of sickening 1 in 6 Americans each year. And each year these illnesses result in an estimated 128,000 hospitalizations and 3,000 deaths. More significantly, the USDA estimates that food waste is between 30 and 40 percent of the U.S. food supply, with spoilage being a significant contributor. Based on estimates from USDA’s Economic Research Service of 31 percent food loss at the retail and consumer levels, this corresponded to approximately 133 billion pounds and $161 billion worth of food in 2010. Globally, about 1.4 billion tons of food is wasted every year. From a food security perspective, the U.S. imports 94% of its seafood, 55% of fruit, and 32% of vegetables, while the FDA is only able to inspect 1-2% of these foodstuffs. Lastly, there is a need to treat food for improved safety and stability during expeditionary operations or in environments where food quality may be compromised, such as in disaster response or humanitarian relief operations. Development of “in-house,” port-of-entry, or expeditionary irradiation capabilities would provide a new means to avoid or significantly improve these food safety and waste issues. For food safety applications, the availability of in-house technologies will help reduce and control costs, provide greater flexibility in managing inventory, facilitate new product formulations, protect against supply chain disruption, and decrease the impact of waste management. Being able to cold pasteurize food at points of production, import, or distribution and in austere environments could present a transformational ability to improve food safety and security and reduce the threat from natural, accidental, or intentional food contamination. Further, these sources could also be used for a range of other applications. For example, low-cost e-beam technology can be employed to remediate urgently needed capabilities to degrade per– and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in groundwater and soils. In-situ sterilization of medical devices is a further need for such sources. Overall, advancement in improving food safety, availability, and security could have global impacts and significantly advance U.S. national security agendas. By enabling safe and secure food supplies in underdeveloped countries, there are new opportunities for the U.S. to provide additional stability in these regimes. Successful proposals for this SBIR offering must make significant arguments supporting the commercial viability of their approach. Hence, proposals to Subtopic 1 must provide initial evidence that their technical approach will allow accelerator structures that are much lower cost to produce (>10-100x) and operate (>10x) than traditional accelerator systems such as S-band LINACs and rhodotrons, while still achieving required beam powers for high throughput food treatment. Proposals for Subtopic 2 must make arguments that, should the above accelerator technology be available, it would enable highly economic treatment of foodstuffs at points of production/packaging and ports of entry. Transition and commercialization (T-C) milestones have been added as part of the option phases to aid in assuring commercial viability.REFERENCES:1.https://www.aiche.org/resources/publications/cep/2016/november/introduction-electron-beam-food-irradiation2.https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/10/07/the-plan-to-give-soldiers-a-days-worth-of-mres-in-one-ration-seven-days-of-food-weighing-less-than-10-pounds/ 3.https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/what-you-need-know-about-foodborne-illnesses#4.https://www.usda.gov/foodwaste/faqs# 5.https://www.rts.com/resources/guides/food-waste-america/ 6.https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/february/india-and-mexico-top-sources-of-pathogen-based-u-s-food-import-refusals/7.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.1097058.https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1774110KEYWORDS: Food irradiation, cold pasteurization, medical sterilization, x-rays, linear accelerators, radiation dose

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Integrated Sensing & Cyber, Trusted AI & AutonomyOBJECTIVE: To address supply chain shortages by providing a fast, reliable, and widely-available capability to identify, appraise, and extract valuable mechanical and electronic components from scrapped or damaged systems, for reuse in functioning systems [1-3].DESCRIPTION: Mechanical parts recycling, and electronic waste (e-waste) reuse falls into two broad categories. The first is the recovery of valuable materials such as aluminum, steel, gold, rare earths, and lithium. This is a high-volume bulk process where the high-value manufactured components are systematically reduced to raw material [4]. The second broad category is ad-hoc recovery through junkyards and scrap-picking. In this case, experts look through the scrap and select the parts needed—a labor-intensive process that does not scale. The experts have (1) the skills to understand which parts are needed [5], (2) an encyclopedic knowledge of which systems have the needed part and where it is in the system, (3) the ability to assess whether the scrapped part appears to be functional, and (4) the expertise to safely extract the needed part [6]. Today, each of these steps requires substantial knowledge of potential donor systems. Given the plethora of donor systems (cars, trucks, phones, computers, printers) now available, and the broad understanding of available components and means of extraction, the potential utility of harvesting this vast pool of high-value resources is far above what can be done today by human experts [7]. Note: please see DARPA SBIR 23.4 - Release 4 under the DoD STTR 23.4 Annual BAA at https://www.defensesbirsttr.mil/SBIR-STTR/Opportunities/ for DARPA proposal instructions, to include duration and funding information for this topic.PHASE I: This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only. In a Deuce Coupe environment, operators equipped with high-end cell phones would be given search lists and then cued to look for the sources of needed components. Based on information from service manuals, shop manuals, disassembly information, and related sources [8], Deuce Coupe-developed software would use image-feature extraction, natural language processing, and knowledge of physical dynamics to identify systems containing the necessary components [9]. When a candidate donor system is identified, the operator is then cued as to where to find the material within the system [10, 11]. Feasibility requirements firms must meet to be considered for a Phase II award: •Ability to create the models and structures needed to identify embedded material•Capability to capture information from sensors to feed the inventory of materialSuccess criteria for Phase I: Identification of the components needed. In Phase I, the identification will not require a pass/fail for the component [12].PHASE II: During Phase II, Deuce Coupe will use the sensors on the phone to evaluate the state of the identified components or sub-assemblies [3, 13]. A highly-skilled mechanic or technician can examine the appearance, color, and shape of parts and subsystems and then rapidly assess the part’s condition and suitability for reuse [2, 14]. Phase II Milestones (Base): •Month 4: Demonstration of an automated, functioning workflow to take an operator from parts ingestion though populating a s design system component library•Month 7: Capability to ingest and identify junked systems (e.g. car, truck) and provide sufficient metadata to be able to access the parts database systems •Month 10: Capability to provide information on the available parts from the junked systems based on sensor input and synthesis of the metadata on the system (e.g. shop manual) Phase II Milestones (Option): •Month 5: Ability to assess the utility of a part based on sensor data and evaluate its capacity for reuse •Month 6: Capability to advise on preferential reuse of parts based on assessed utility of the part and information in available metadata Success criteria for Phase II: the components are to be identified with a reliability indicator that is accurate 80% of the time for P(working) and 90% of the time for P(failure).PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Scale up to provide efficient and local resupply, measuring the ability to keep a greater quantity of systems in the field for longer periods of time, while simultaneously increasing confidence levels for systems’ operational capabilities. Expand the range of sourcing possibilities for parts and subsystems, thus allowing otherwise-incapacitated systems to be made available for operation.REFERENCES:1.J. Aitken and A. Murray, "Crash repair in the UK: reusing salvaged parts in car repair centres," International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 359-372, 2010. 2.O. Akinade et al., "Design for deconstruction using a circular economy approach: Barriers and strategies for improvement," Production Planning & Control, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 829-840, 2020. 3.A. A. Dubey and J. Adhikari, "Design and development of smart junkyard system based on machine learning," International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science, vol. 4, no. 6, 2022. 4.S. S. Sawyer-Beaulieu, J. A. Stagner, and E. K. Tam, "Sustainability issues affecting the successful management and recycling of end-of-life vehicles in Canada and the United States," in Environmental issues in automotive industry: Springer, 2014, pp. 223-245. 5.A. K. Parlikad and D. McFarlane, "Quantifying the impact of AIDC technologies for vehicle component recovery," Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 296-307, 2010. 6.P. Thongkaow, T. Prueksasit, and W. Siriwong, "Quantification and characterization of recovered materials in the cycle of the informal household electronic waste dismantling in Buriram province, Thailand: A challenge towards sustainable management and circular economy," Waste Management & Research, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 1766-1776, 2022. 7.T. A. Kurniawan et al., "Transformation of solid waste management in China: moving towards sustainability through digitalization-based circular economy," Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 4, p. 2374, 2022. 8.D. Page, A. Koschan, and M. Abidi, "Methodologies and techniques for reverse engineering–the potential for automation with 3-d laser scanners," in Reverse Engineering: Springer, 2008, pp. 11-32. 9.M. Ghoreishi and A. Happonen, "Key enablers for deploying artificial intelligence for circular economy embracing sustainable product design: Three case studies," in AIP conference proceedings, 2020, vol. 2233, no. 1: AIP Publishing LLC, p. 050008. 10.P. Haribabu, S. R. Kassa, J. Nagaraju, R. Karthik, N. Shirisha, and M. Anila, "Implementation of an smart waste management system using IoT," in 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Sustainable Systems (ICISS), 2017: IEEE, pp. 1155-1156. 11.S. Keivanpour, D. Ait Kadi, and C. Mascle, "End-of-life aircraft treatment in the context of sustainable development, lean management, and global business," International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 357-380, 2017. 12.C. A. Zimring, "The complex environmental legacy of the automobile shredder," Technology and culture, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 523-547, 2011. 13.E. Williams et al., "Towards the development of junkyard hacks: networked robotics applications," in 31st Florida Conference on Recent Advances in Robotics, 2018. 14.F. Elghaish, S. T. Matarneh, D. J. Edwards, F. P. Rahimian, H. El-Gohary, and O. Ejohwomu, "Applications of Industry 4.0 digital technologies towards a construction circular economy: gap analysis and conceptual framework," Construction Innovation, no. ahead-of-print, 2022.KEYWORDS: Supply Chain, Sustainability, Resilience, Machine Reasoning, Automatic decomposition of system-of-systems, Automatic assessment of system wear, Part reuse, Machine vision, Mobile applications

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced Computing and Software, Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems, Quantum ScienceThe technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (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 the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) 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.OBJECTIVE: The Empirical Proving Ground for Cryptographic Engineering Challenges in Large-scale Deployments (EPiC EagLe) effort will develop sound state-of-the-art experimental methodologies and operational benchmarks for evaluating distributed trust solutions such as: 1) modifications of existing Public Key Infrastructures (PKIs) and Key Management Infrastructures (KMIs) to recover from loss-of-trust events at Internet scale, 2) hybrid PKIs that add novel delegation and transient trust protocols, and 3) novel designs of PKIs and KMIs for networks with special link, bandwidth, and latency requirements and constraints, such as connected battlespaces. This effort will demonstrate the capability to evaluate such solutions, at scale, exceeding traditional methodologies’ ability to assess the Internet’s commercial PKI’s and Internet-of-Things (IoT) scales.DESCRIPTION: This effort will develop sound state-of-the-art experimental methodologies and operational benchmarks for evaluating distributed trust solutions and demonstrate the capability of evaluating such solutions, at scale, exceeding traditional methodologies’ ability to assess the Internet’s commercial PKI’s and IoT’s scales. Innovative approaches should address the experimental methodology for evaluating implementations of distributed trust schemes—or modifications of existing schemes, such as those focused on recovery—at large scales, under realistic connectivity (or intermittent connectivity) constraints, along with the required simulation framework, metrics of success, assessment methods, and integration of solutions into robust, real-time cyber defense capabilities of interest to the DoD.PHASE I: This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only. The Phase I feasibility study shall include the documentation of a basic distributed trust evaluation prototype consisting of the software code and hardware capabilities that are capable of experimenting with Research & Development (R&D) concepts of Tactical Certificate Authorities (CAs) that employ flexible policies, extensions, and protocols for battlefield use. Proposers interested in submitting a Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described above has been met and supports relevant military and/or commercial applications. Documentation should include all relevant information including, but not limited to: technical reports, test data, prototype designs/models, and performance goals/results. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer to Appendix B of the DARPA Instructions for DoD BAA 2023.4.PHASE II: Phase II shall produce system design, implementation, and maintenance capabilities to significantly advance the state of the art in PKI scaling challenges for IoT and IoT-like battlespace uses. In today’s Internet PKIs, simple loss-of-trust events such as an expiring PKI certificate led to massive outages of national telecom providers, major cloud computing services, and even critical transportation systems, with no effective automated means of timely recovery [1, 4-7]. Such outages, although indirect to the DoD, are likely to create major challenges for DoD operations. There currently are limited scalable capabilities for recovering from loss-of-trust events such as expiration of trusted certificates, expiry of root-of-trust certificates, or compromises of such certificates or PKI subsystems. Despite the “impending doom” of multiple Internet Root-of-Trust certificates approaching their expiry dates [2], the Internet PKI and IoT trust technologies lack well-designed technological fallbacks for recovery. When proposed, such technological fallbacks cannot be comprehensively evaluated without creating major deployments at representative scales, which are cost-prohibitive. Today, the DoD lacks the capability to experimentally test proposed distributed trust solutions at DoD-relevant scales. Although simulation technologies such as OPNET facilitate introductory training in DoD encryption protocols (e.g., [8]) and limited experimentation with proposed replacements of inefficient key management systems (e.g., [9]), these systems are limited in scale, and cannot be extended to simulate the behaviors of millions or hundreds of millions of nodes. This stymies the Government’s abilities to pose cryptographic engineering challenges and to evaluate proposed solutions. Today, our understanding of (rare) successful recovery derives from a few actual loss-of-trust events such as expiration of the trusted intermediate CA certificate of the Mozilla Firefox browser, which lead to worldwide deactivation of Firefox plugins (including critical security plugins). Mozilla recovered from this near-catastrophic event via an ad hoc manipulation of the certificates’ trust paths, made possible by a serendipitous feature of the browser’s trust chain validation implementation and ad hoc manipulation of the browser key store [1]. The two features that serendipitously enabled this recovery effort were used in ways not intended by their original design and not considered before the outage. Today, there exists no rigorous sets of metrics, models, or simulations to discuss scalability requirements of trust management solutions such as hierarchical PKIs or any hybrid schemes. There is strong anecdotal evidence from industry that PKI and key management problems at scale create non-trivial operational surprises. However, lack of a common framework for evaluating research in distributed trust solutions at scale stymies progress. In particular, the challenges of recovering from loss-of-trust events or of migrating authority on a large scale have not been formalized at all, despite their increasing practical importance. Phase II will create an experimental methodology for evaluating implementations of distributed trust schemes - or modifications of existing schemes, such as those focused on recovery - at large scales, under realistic connectivity (or intermittent connectivity) constraints. This methodology shall employ novel lightweight virtualization approaches to create simulation approaches that allow simulating relevant behaviors of up to hundreds of millions of nodes, with realistic link topologies and models. The new architectural approach to simulation shall faithfully emulate small relevant code segments of implementations under test, while aggressively aggregating non-relevant aspects of node and network behaviors. These methodologies and simulation tools will help pose and answer operational questions about distributed trust, including introduction of new features into PKIs and KMIs, and allow creation of meaningful operational benchmarks for trust engineering. For example, they will create the capability to experimentally test in simulation whether a trust scheme is likely to perform a given mix of operations on a given scale, under given connectivity constraints, and to pose challenges for cryptographic engineering in terms of such scale benchmarks. The methodology shall enable the study of principled loss-of-trust recovery methods based on distributed graph algorithms, such as trust path manipulations generalizing the ad hoc Firefox recovery example. Furthermore, the methodology will allow exploration of scenarios that involve migration of the root-of-trust, which become increasingly important with the ageing of IoT roots of trust, and threats of wide-spread compromises of trusted boot chains (cf. [3]). Finally, a principled simulation framework will enable not only stochastic simulation experiments but, with modifications, will support sound reasoning about protocol properties under probabilistic network models. EPiC EagLe will leverage formal reasoning, simulation, and modern cryptographic primitives to develop the first of its kind PKI frameworks that can recover from emergent loss of trust events. Successful offerors in their proposals will demonstrate a strong understanding of the technology area and they will articulate a compelling necessity for S&T funding to support their respective proposed technology approaches over existing capabilities. Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables Phase II fixed payable milestones for this program shall include:•Month 2: New Capabilities Report, that identifies additions and modifications that will be researched, developed, and customized for incorporation in the pilot demonstration.•Month 4: PI meeting presentation material, including demonstration of progress to date, PowerPoint presentations of accomplishments and plans. •Month 6: Demonstration Plan that identifies schedule, location, computing resources, and any other requirements for the pilot demonstration. •Month 9: Initial demonstration of stand-alone pilot application to DARPA; identification of military transition partner(s) and other interested DoD organizations •Month 12: PI meeting presentation material, including demonstration of progress to date, PowerPoint presentations of accomplishments and plans. •Month 15: Demonstration to military transition partners (s) and other DoD organizations. •Month 18: PI meeting presentation material, including demonstration of progress to date, PowerPoint presentations of accomplishments and plans. •Month 21: PI meeting presentation material, including demonstration of progress to date, PowerPoint presentations of accomplishments and plans. •Month 24: Final software and/or hardware delivery, both object and source code, for operation by DARPA or other Government personnel for additional demonstrations, with suitable documentation in a contractor proposed format. Deliver a Final Report, including quantitative metrics on decision making benefits, costs, risks, and schedule for implementation of a full prototype capability based on the pilot demonstration, along with the novel designs of PKIs and KMIs for networks with special link, bandwidth, and latency requirements and constraints. This report shall include an identification of estimated level of effort to integrate the pilot capability into an operational environment, addressing computing infrastructure and environment, decision making processes, real-time and archival data sources, maintenance and updating needs; reliability, sensitivity, and uncertainty quantification; and transferability to other military users and problems. The report shall also document any scientific advances that have been achieved under the program. (A brief statement of claims supplemented by publication material will meet this requirement.) Provide Final PI meeting presentation material. Phase II Option: The option shall address preliminary steps toward the certification, accreditation and/or verification of the resulting base effort's sound experimental methodologies and operational benchmarks for evaluating distributed trust solutions. Proposed solutions shall include a summary of how the methodologies are likely to succeed on DoD and IoT scales and under link, bandwidth, and latency constraints specific to DoD environments and missions. Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables for Phase II Option: Phase II fixed payable milestones for this program option shall include: •Month 2: Plan that identifies the schedule, location, computing resources and/or any other requirements for the experimental methodologies and operational benchmarks and infrastructure for evaluating distributed trust solutions required for transition to the DoD. •Month 4: Presentation on the detailed software and hardware plan for the technical capability. •Month 7: Interim report on progress toward certification, accreditation and/or verification of the technical capability for DoD use. •Month 10: Review and/or demonstration of the prototype capability with the documentation supporting certification, accreditation and/or verification. •Month 12: Final Phase II option report summarizing the certification, accreditation and/or verification approach, architecture and algorithms; data sets; results; performance characterization and quantification of robustness.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The DoD and the commercial world have similar challenges with respect to maintaining the cyber integrity of their computing and communications infrastructure. The Phase III effort will see the developed methodology and testbed transitioned into a DoD cyber environment capable of testing large-scale software deployments (including distributed trust software) in simulations consisting of virtual machines (VMs), up to tens of thousands of emulated nodes. Government ranges and commercial systems such as national telecom providers, major cloud computing services, and critical transportation systems have similar challenges in their PKI and KMI infrastructures and face severe scaling challenges for IoT and IoT-like battlespace uses. Thus, the resulting methodology and operational benchmarks are directly transitionable to both the DoD and the commercial sectors: military and commercial air, sea, space and ground communication systems; commercial hardening of critical industrial plant (i.e. control systems, manufacturing lines, chemical processes, etc.) through PKI and KMI infrastructures; securing cloud infrastructure associated with optimization of industrial processes and condition-based maintenance of air, sea, space and ground networked communication systems.As part of Phase III, the developed capability should be transitioned into an enterprise level system that can be used to test large-scale software deployments (including distributed trust software) in simulations consisting of virtual machines (VMs), up to tens of thousands of emulated nodes. The resulting capability is directly transitionable to the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, and the National Security Agency for experimenting with Research & Development (R&D) concepts of Tactical Certificate Authorities (CAs) that employ flexible policies, extensions, and protocols for battlefield use. This is a dual-use technology that applies to both military and commercial software environments affected by cyber adversaries.REFERENCES:1.Eric Rescorla, Technical Details on the Recent Firefox Add-on Outage, https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/05/technical-details-on-the-recent-firefox-add-on-outage/2.Scott Helme, The Impending Doom of Expiring Root CAs and Legacy Clients, https://scotthelme.co.uk/impending-doom-root-ca-expiring-legacy-clients/3.Mark Ermolov, Intel x86 Root of Trust: loss of trust, http://blog.ptsecurity.com/2020/03/intelx86-root-of-trust-loss-of-trust.html4.Corinne Reichert, Ericsson: Expired certificate caused O2 and SoftBank outages, https://www.zdnet.com/article/ericsson-expired-certificate-caused-o2-and-softbank-outages/, 20185.John Ribeiro, Microsoft's Azure service hit by expired SSL certificate, https://www.computerworld.com/article/2495453/microsoft-s-azure-service-hit-by-expired-ssl-certificate.html, 20136.Dennis Fisher, Final Report on DigiNotar Hack Shows Total Compromise of CA Servers, https://threatpost.com/final-report-diginotar-hack-shows-total-compromise-ca-servers-103112/77170/, 20127.Nihal Krishan, Internet goes down for millions, tech companies scramble as key encryption service, expires, https://www.yahoo.com/now/internet-goes-down-millions-tech-021400230.html, 20218.Tae H. Oh et al., Teaching High-Assurance Internet Protocol Encryption (HAIPE) Using OPNET Modeler Simulation Tool, SIGITE’09, https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1631728.1631771, 20099.J. Liu, X. Tong et al., A Centralized Key Management Scheme Based on McEliece PKC for Space Network, IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 42708-42719, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2976753. KEYWORDS: Battlespace Environments, Information Systems Technology, Public Key Infrastructures

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced computing and softwareThe technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (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 the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) 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.OBJECTIVE: Develop polyglots (dual embedded formats) for existing 2-dimensional codes (e.g., QR codes) that enable high-bandwidth, secure data transfer. Assess potential security vulnerabilities in polyglot approaches.DESCRIPTION: DoD employees are interacting with physical-cyber data transfers at an ever-increasing rate; simply walking through an airport might require scanning 2-dimensional (2D) codes numerous times to receive basic goods and services, such as food menus and flight boarding passes. One of the most prevalent types of 2D codes is Quick Response (QR) code originating in 1994 from a Japanese automotive company. With the widespread adoption of mobile phones, QR codes have become a standard to store and transfer data in a physical format. The convenience that QR codes provide comes with certain limitations, such as the amount of data it can store and a balance between usability and security. 2D codes (e.g., QR codes, Data Matrix, MaxiCode, PDF417) are designed and optimized for a specific task; for example, data matrix codes used by shipping are fast to scan, however they only store 1.55kb of data as compared to 3kb for QR v4. 2D codes are often represented pictographically as part of printed media, such as a menu in a restaurant. They have low data density as a result of error correction and robustness to environmental effects (e.g., scratches). To increase the data density, preserve the inherent optimizations of each format, and ensure backwards compatibility, this study will investigate combining formats into 2D polyglots. In this context, a polyglot is a format that is valid in multiple computer programs. Polyglots are possible by combining two or more formats, each of which are able to be interpreted by multiple programs as having a valid format, for example, a file which is both a picture and a PowerPoint presentation. This study will investigate the effects that 2D polyglots have in QR codes and their potential to reduce the attack surface and increase data density. A basis of confidence that polyglots can exist in 2D codes is the known, trivial case of a 2D code imbedded in another 2D code [D14]. For more than a decade it has been widely known that current 2D codes have inherent vulnerabilities [D15, F19, K10]. Usability was heavily favored over security in the design of these codes. This imbalance led to a widely adopted standard with pervasive vulnerabilities. Attacks can take advantage of error correction algorithms and data sparsity to exploit 2D formatting assumptions and the inconsistences which software makes when interpreting a 2D code. For example, standard QR codes have orientation markers and data is only parsed in one direction; polyglot QR codes can contain multiple, non-conflicting formats that can be read independently based on approach direction.Finally, to ensure current systems and software can still be used, any enhancements to the SOTA must also be backwards compatible. Introducing new software and standards would inevitably have new and possibly unintended effects on security and efficiency.PHASE I: This topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only. Proposers interested in submitting a DP2 proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described above have been met and describe the potential commercial applications. DP2 documentation should include: •Technical reports describing results and conclusions of existing work, particularly regarding the commercial opportunity or DoD insertion opportunity, and risks/mitigations, and assessments; •Presentation materials and/or white papers; •Technical papers; •Test and measurement data; •Prototype designs/models; •Performance projections, goals, or results in different use cases; and, •Documentation of related topics such as how the proposed SUP solution can enable more realistic cyber training. This collection of material will verify mastery of the required content for DP2 consideration. DP2 proposers must also demonstrate knowledge, skills, and ability in networking, computer science, mathematics, and software engineering. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer to the DoD BAA and the DARPA Instructions for this topic.PHASE II: The goal of 2D Polyglots is to develop a QR code that can hold more data while maintaining backwards compatibility and to identify vulnerabilities present in current 2D codes.DP2 proposals should propose a research design to achieve the following goals: •Develop a protype system to demonstrate feasibility for producing 2D polyglots in a platform independent language (e.g., python 3.0, Golang);•Identify vulnerabilities and possible mitigations in 2D and 2D polyglot codes; •Detail a test plan, complete with proposed metrics and scope, for verification and validation of the system performance. Phase II will culminate in a system demonstration using one or more compelling use cases consistent with commercial opportunities and/or insertion into a DARPA program. The below schedule of milestones and deliverables is provided to establish expectations and desired results/end products for the Phase II effort. •Month 1: Phase I Kickoff briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA Program Manager (PM) (in person or virtual, as needed) including: any updates to the proposed plan and technical approach, risks/mitigations, schedule (inclusive of dependencies) with planned capability milestones and deliverables, proposed metrics, and plan for prototype demonstration/validation. •Months 3, 4, 5: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, major risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (while this will normally report progress against the plan detailed in the proposal or presented at the Kickoff briefing, it is understood that scientific discoveries, competition, and regulatory changes may all have impacts on the planned work and DARPA must be made aware of any revisions that result), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 6: Interim technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM (in-person or virtual as needed) detailing progress made (include quantitative assessment of capability developed to date), tasks accomplished, major risks/mitigations, planned activities, and technical plan for the second half of Phase II, the demonstration/verification plan for the end of Phase II, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 7, 8, 9: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, major risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (with necessary updates as in the parenthetical remark for Months 4, 7, and 10), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 10/Final Phase II Deliverables: Final architecture with documented details, demonstrating diagnosing a malicious activity and unauthorized modification on software/hardware; documented application programming interfaces; any other necessary documentation (including, at a minimum, user manuals and a detailed system design document; and the end of phase commercialization plan).PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The Phase III work will be oriented towards transition and commercialization of the developed 2-D Polyglots technologies. The proposer is required to obtain funding from either the private sector, a non-SBIR Government source, or both, to develop the prototype software into a viable product or non-R&D service for sale in military or private sector markets. Phase III refers to work that derives from, extends, or completes an effort made under prior SBIR funding agreements, but is funded by sources other than the SBIR Program. Outcomes have the potential to significantly benefit the DoD and numerous commercial entities by improving knowledge of 2D codes including capabilities and vulnerabilities. Specifically, in the DoD space, 2D Polyglots technologies will be able to provide new data transfer methods utilizing 2D codes and highlight any potential vulnerabilities in current 2D codes used across the DoD enterprise. The development of polyglot technologies will have security benefits across the defense industrial base (DIB).REFERENCES:1.Dabrowski, A., Krombholz, K., Ullrich, J. and Weippl, E.R., 2014, November. QR inception: Barcode-in-barcode attacks. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on security and privacy in smartphones & mobile devices (pp. 3-10). 2.Dabrowski, A., Echizen, I. and Weippl, E.R., 2015, May. Error-correcting codes as source for decoding ambiguity. In 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (pp. 99-105). IEEE.3.Kieseberg, P., Leithner, M., Mulazzani, M., Munroe, L., Schrittwieser, S., Sinha, M. and Weippl, E., 2010, November. QR code security. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia (pp. 430-435). 4.Focardi, R., Luccio, F.L. and Wahsheh, H.A., 2019. Usable security for QR code. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 48, p.102369.KEYWORDS: Information assurance, computing and software technology, electro-optical sensors, cybersecurity, authentication, confidentiality, QR codes, Data Matrix, PDF417, MaxiCode, and 2D codes.

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Advanced computing and SoftwareOBJECTIVE: The Passive Analytics for Remote Quantification of External Resources (PARQER) SBIR topic seeks to develop and demonstrate novel techniques to passively assess the security posture of remote networks/subnetworks, without requiring any special network accesses.DESCRIPTION: The near-constant stream of news reports on the compromise of systems and networks across government and commercial sectors reveals the challenges of securing large networks of systems with complicated topologies [1] [2] [3] [4]. The inherent asymmetry of effort required to defend an asset vs. effort to gain illicit access to an asset favors attackers that can spend as much time as necessary to locate vulnerable targets (e.g., a server that administrators neglected to patch [5], or a network configured with overly permissive firewall policies [6]). In such an environment where the attacker is advantaged, network administrators and security officers practice defense in depth [7] [8] by reducing the network attack surface and deploying an array of security mechanisms and technologies such as firewalls and intrusion detection/ prevention systems. The extent of an organization’s efforts to minimize network attack surfaces and deploy defensive mechanisms can be largely unknown (e.g., due to poor documentation), even to the organization itself [9]. Often and unfortunately, details about the deployed security mechanisms (or the lack thereof) are only made available after an organization’s network is compromised, and when forensic analysts conduct a postmortem of the attack [10] [11]. For the Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community (IC), the same problem exists and is compounded by the distinction between, and respective operational responsibilities of, network owners/operators and defenders such as Cybersecurity Service Provider (CSSPs) and Cyber Protection Teams (CPTs). Within the DoD/IC, CPTs are tasked with defending critical military networks; whereas CSSPs are responsible for the continuous monitoring and vulnerability patching of networks, and conducting threat-oriented missions to defeat cyber adversaries. [12] Similar to commercial organizations, critical details of network topology, configuration [13], and security posture [14] are often poorly documented and not immediately available to external responders (such as CPTs). An additional complicating factor of having network knowledge spread among different organizations and individuals (CPTs and CSSPs) is that it makes it difficult to have an accurate holistic picture of the security posture of lower-tier networks at any given time. It is therefore of critical importance for the DoD/IC and large commercial network owners to be able to quickly and passively assess the defensive posture of a remote network/subnetwork in a way that does not require any special access to the network.PHASE I: The PARQER SBIR topic is soliciting Direct to Phase II (DP2) proposals only, which must include supporting documentation of Phase 1 feasibility. Phase I feasibility must be demonstrated through evidence of: a completed proof of concept/principal or basic prototype system; definition and characterization of system properties/technology capabilities desirable for DoD/IC/Government and civilian/commercial use; and capability/performance comparisons with existing state-of-the-art technologies/methodologies (competing approaches). Entities interested in submitting a DP2 proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific/technical merit and feasibility described above has been achieved and also describe the potential commercial applications. DP2 Phase I feasibility documentation should include, at a minimum: •technical reports describing results and conclusions of existing work, particularly regarding the commercial opportunity or DoD/IC insertion opportunity, risks/mitigations, and technology assessments; •presentation materials and/or white papers; •technical papers; •test and measurement data; •prototype designs/models; •performance projections, goals, or results in different use cases; and, •documentation of related topics such as how the proposed PARQER solution can enable passive, remote assessment of network/subnetwork security posture. The collection of Phase I feasibility material will verify mastery of the required content for DP2 consideration. DP2 proposers must also demonstrate knowledge, skills, and abilities in the technical areas of software engineering, data analytics, network security, and cybersecurity. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer to the DoD Broad Agency Announcement and the DARPA Instructions for this topic.PHASE II: The PARQER DP2 SBIR topic seeks to develop and demonstrate novel techniques to enable passive assessment of the security posture of remote networks/subnetworks, without requiring any special access to the network. Most current tools and techniques employed by security operations centers are based on active interrogation. The tools and techniques are often too noisy (e.g., high volumes of alerts and high false positive rates), do not generalize across security mechanisms (i.e., the tools are siloed), and have significant blind spots (e.g., false negatives). Ideal PARQER solutions would overcome such limitations of active techniques, as well as be resistant to intentional misdirection and evasion. PARQER solutions must have the ability to provably scale yet provide fine resolution of the analyzed network. Successful PARQER proposals should clearly describe how proposed combinations of data and analytic techniques will provide high accuracy results in a landscape of ever-evolving security products.Phase II will culminate in a prototype system demonstration using one or more compelling use cases consistent with commercial opportunities and/or insertion into a DARPA program (e.g., Signature Management using Operational Knowledge and Environments (SMOKE), which seeks to develop data-driven tools to automate the planning and execution of threat-emulated cyber infrastructure needed for network security assessments). The Phase II Option period will further mature the technology for insertion into a DoD/Intelligence Community (IC) Acquisition Program, another Federal agency; or commercialization into the private sector. The below schedule of milestones and deliverables is provided to establish expectations and desired results/end products for the Phase II and Phase II Option period efforts. Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables: Proposers will execute the research and development (R&D) plan as described in the proposal, including the below: •Month 1: Phase I Kickoff briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA Program Manager (PM) including: any updates to the proposed plan and technical approach, risks/mitigations, schedule (inclusive of dependencies) with planned capability milestones and deliverables, proposed metrics, and plan for prototype demonstration/validation; •Months 4, 7, 10: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress to date, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (while this would normally report progress against the plan detailed in the proposal or presented at the Kickoff briefing, it is understood that scientific discoveries, competition, and regulatory changes may all have impacts on the planned work and DARPA must be made aware of any revisions that result), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM; •Month 12: Interim technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM detailing progress made (including quantitative assessment of capabilities developed to date), tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, planned activities, technical plan for the second half of Phase II, the demonstration/verification plan for the end of Phase II, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM;•Months 15, 18, 21: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (with necessary updates as in the parenthetical remark for Months 4, 7, and 10), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM; •Month 24: Final technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM. Final architecture with documented details; a demonstration of the passive assessment of the security posture of remote networks/subnetworks; documented APIs; and any other necessary documentation (including, at a minimum, user manuals and a detailed system design document; and the commercialization plan); •Month 30 (Phase II Option period): Interim report of matured prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, documenting key technical gaps towards productization; and, •Month 36 (Phase II Option period): Final Phase II Option period demonstration and technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM including prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, including quantitative metrics of system performance.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Phase III Dual use applications (Commercial DoD/Military): PARQER has potential applicability across DoD/IC/Government and commercial entities. For DoD/IC/Government, PARQER is extremely well-suited to address one of the biggest issues in government information security today by providing the ability to quickly and passively assess the defensive posture of a remote network/subnetwork. PARQER has the same applicability for the commercial sector. Phase III refers to work that derives from, extends, or completes an effort made under prior SBIR funding agreements, but is funded by sources other than the SBIR Program. The Phase III work will be oriented towards transition and commercialization of the developed PARQER technologies. For Phase III, the proposer is required to obtain funding from either the private sector, a non-SBIR Government source, or both, to develop the prototype into a viable product or non-R&D service for sale in government or private sector markets. Primary PARQER support will be to national efforts to help secure government and commercial networks. Results of PARQER are intended to improve the ability of network owners across government and industry to quickly find the root causes of network compromise incidents, and rapidly mitigate the situation, ultimately improving the security posture of their networks.REFERENCES:1.PortSwigger. 2022. The Daily Swig, Cybersecurity News and Views. https://portswigger.net/daily-swig/data-breach2.SecureLink. 2022. Recent Data Breaches in the News. https://www.securelink.com/resources/data-breach-news/3.Cybersecurity Ventures. 2022. Today’s Top Cybersecurity News Stories. https://cybersecurityventures.com/cybercrime-news/4.The New York times. “How a Cyberattack Plunged a Long Island County Into the 1990s.” 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/28/nyregion/suffolk-county-cyber-attack.html5.Robb, Drew. “Is Neglect Driving the Surge in Cybersecurity Breaches?” 2022. https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/technology/pages/neglect-driving-surge-cybersecurity-breaches.aspx6.Fugue. “A Technical Analysis of the Capital One Cloud Misconfiguration Breach.” 2019. https://www.fugue.co/blog/a-technical-analysis-of-the-capital-one-cloud-misconfiguration-breach7.The Department of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center and Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team. Recommended Practice: Improving Industrial Control System Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies. 2016. (Available at https://www.cisa.gov/uscert/sites/default/files/recommended_practices/NCCIC_ICS-CERT_Defense_in_Depth_2016_S508C.pdf) 8.National Security Agency. Defense in Depth: A practical strategy for achieving Information Assurance in today’s highly networked environments. 2010. (Available at https://citadel-information.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/nsa-defense-in-depth.pdf)9.Burton, Dave. “The Dangers of Firewall Misconfigurations and How to Avoid Them.” 2020. https://www.akamai.com/blog/security/the-dangers-of-firewall-misconfigurations-and-how-to-avoid-them10.Gartner. “Is the Cloud Secure?” 2019. https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/is-the-cloud-secure11.Whittaker, Zack. “Equifax breach was ‘entirely preventable’ had it used basic security measures, says House report.” 2018. https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/10/equifax-breach-preventable-house-oversight-report/12.Joint Publication 3-12. Cyberspace Operations. 2018. Available at https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_12.pdf 13.Marius Musch, Robin Kirchner, Max Boll, and Martin Johns. 2022. Server-Side Browsers: Exploring the Web's Hidden Attack Surface. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ASIA CCS '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1168–1181. https://doi.org/10.1145/3488932.3517414. Available at https://loxo.ias.cs.tu-bs.de/papers/2022_AsiaCCS_SSBrowsers.pdf 14.Bo Lu, Xiaokuan Zhang, Ziman Ling, Yinqian Zhang, and Zhiqiang Lin. 2018. A Measurement Study of Authentication Rate-Limiting Mechanisms of Modern Websites. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274694.3274714. Available at https://yinqian.org/papers/acsac18a.pdf KEYWORDS: network security, cybersecurity, defense in depth, passive network analytics

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Advanced computing and SoftwareOBJECTIVE: The Assessing Virtual Private Network (VPN) Networthiness (AVN) SBIR topic seeks to develop and demonstrate techniques and systems for automatically analyzing third-party commercial VPN solutions to determine the actual operational privacy profile/performance of such services.DESCRIPTION: Following the COVID-19 pandemic, and the concomitant increase in remote work, organizations and teleworkers sought solutions to keep their connections private and their workplace communications confidential. In other scenarios around the world, populations have sought private and secure solutions to circumvent restrictions on internet access placed on them by authoritarian regimes. It is therefore unsurprising that commercial VPN services have experienced substantial increases in demand over recent years [1, 2, 3]. The surge in VPN service demand has caused an increase in supply to the extent that (for example) the Google Play Store houses several hundred different apps that offer free (for examples, see [4]) and paid VPN services advertising increased privacy, high-speed bandwidth, large numbers of egress servers, access to censored websites, etc. [5] Even though users may be able to easily differentiate between fast and slow VPN services by merely using the service, unfortunately there are no outward signs they can use to quantify the privacy provided by VPN services. As such, users who employ such services to increase their privacy, may in fact be revealing their data to remote networks of less trustworthiness than their own local networks [6, 7]. It is therefore important to be able to proactively and continuously evaluate the properties and quality of protection that a commercial VPN solution offers. With rare exception [8], existing reviews of VPN services are typically conducted by technology journalists and are therefore limited to assessments of the VPN performance (e.g., speed), price, user friendliness (e.g., ease-of-use), features and supported protocols (e.g., see [9]).The AVN SBIR topic seeks to address this shortfall by developing and demonstrating techniques and systems for automatically analyzing third-party commercial VPN solutions to determine their networthiness, where networthiness considerations align with those of the Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community (IC) [10].PHASE I: The AVN SBIR topic is soliciting Direct to Phase 2 (DP2) proposals only, which must include supporting documentation of Phase I feasibility. Phase I feasibility must be demonstrated through evidence of: a completed proof of concept/principal or basic prototype system; definition and characterization of system properties/technology capabilities desirable for DoD/IC/government and civilian/commercial use; and capability/performance comparisons with existing state-of-the-art technologies/methodologies (competing approaches). Entities interested in submitting a DP2 proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific/technical merit and feasibility described above has been achieved and also describe the potential commercial applications. DP2 Phase I feasibility documentation should include, at a minimum: •technical reports describing results and conclusions of existing work, particularly regarding the commercial opportunity or DoD/IC insertion opportunity, risks/mitigations, and technology assessments; •presentation materials and/or white papers;•technical papers;•test and measurement data;•prototype designs/models;•performance projections, goals, or results in different use cases; and,•documentation of related topics such as how the proposed AVN solution can enable accurate and reliable analysis of third- party VPN solutions. The collection of Phase 1 feasibility material will verify mastery of the required content for DP2 consideration. DP2 proposers must also demonstrate knowledge, skills, and abilities in the technical areas of software engineering, network security, privacy, analytics, and machine learning. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer to the DoD Broad Agency Announcement and the DARPA Instructions for this topic.PHASE II: The AVN DP2 SBIR topic seeks to develop and demonstrate techniques and systems for automatically analyzing third-party commercial VPN solutions to determine the actual operational privacy profile/performance of such services. AVN solutions will provide an objective quantification of the privacy-related performance of third-party VPN services across platforms (e.g., Android, iPhone, PC, MAC, Ubuntu, etc.). Ideal solutions would require limited manual intervention and not rely on information elicited by the VPN service provider. AVN approaches will need to provably scale with the large number of available and future commercial VPN services. Ideally, AVN solutions would enable a user to tailor analyses to specific requirements as VPNs offer varying privacy protections that are not uniformly valuable to every user. DP2 proposals should:•describe a proposed framework design/architecture to achieve the above stated goals;•present a plan for maturation of the framework to a demonstrable prototype system; and•detail a test plan, complete with proposed quantitative metrics for privacy, and for verification and validation of the prototype system performance. Phase II will culminate in a prototype system demonstration using one or more compelling use cases consistent with commercial opportunities and/or insertion into a DARPA program, for example, the Signature Management using Operational Knowledge and Environments (SMOKE) [11] program, which seeks to develop data-driven tools to automate the planning and execution of threat-emulated cyber infrastructure needed for network security assessments.The Phase II Option period will further mature the technology for insertion into a DoD/ IC Acquisition Program, another Federal agency, or commercialization into the private sector.The below schedule of milestones and deliverables is provided to establish expectations and desired results/end products for the Phase II and Phase II Option period efforts.Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables: Proposers will execute the research and development (R&D) plan as described in the proposal, including the below:•Month 1: Phase I Kickoff briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA Program Manager (PM) including: any updates to the proposed plan and technical approach, risks/mitigations, schedule (inclusive of dependencies) with planned capability milestones and deliverables, proposed metrics, and plan for prototype demonstration/validation. •Months 4, 7, 10: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress to date, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (while this would normally report progress against the plan detailed in the proposal or presented at the Kickoff briefing, it is understood that scientific discoveries, competition, and regulatory changes may all have impacts on the planned work and DARPA must be made aware of any revisions that result), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM.•Month 12: Interim technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM detailing progress made (including quantitative assessment of capabilities developed to date), tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, planned activities, technical plan for the second half of Phase II, the demonstration/verification plan for the end of Phase II, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM.•Month 15, 18, 21: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (with necessary updates as in the parenthetical remark for Months 4, 7, and 10), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 24: Final technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM. Final architecture with documented details; a demonstration of the ability to automatically analyze third-party commercial VPN solutions; documented application programming interfaces; and any other necessary documentation (including, at a minimum, user manuals and a detailed system design document; and the commercialization plan). •Month 30 (Phase II Option period): Interim report of matured prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, documenting key technical gaps towards productization.•Month 36 (Phase II Option period): Final Phase II Option period technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM including prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, including quantitative metrics for assessment of privacy features/capabilities.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: AVN has potential applicability across DoD/IC/government and commercial entities. For DoD/IC/government, AVN is extremely well-suited for proactive and continuous assessment of privacy features/performance of various VPN services. AVN has the same applicability for the commercial sector and has the potential to provide individuals worldwide with reliable private connections and communications. Phase III refers to work that derives from, extends, or completes an effort made under prior SBIR funding agreements, but is funded by sources other than the SBIR Program. The Phase III work will be oriented towards transition and commercialization of the developed AVN technologies. For Phase III, the proposer is required to obtain funding from either the private sector, a non-SBIR Government source, or both, to develop the prototype into a viable product or non-R&D service for sale in government or private sector markets. Primary AVN support will be to national efforts to help secure government, commercial, and personal networks and devices against advanced persistent threats that target vulnerable VPN devices. Results of AVN are intended to improve understanding of the risks associated with VPNs, across government and industry.REFERENCES:1.“The Impact of COVID-19 on VPN Usage and Streaming Habits”, https://www.cartesian.com/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-vpn-usage-and-streaming-habits/ 2.“VPN Demand Surges Around the World”, https://www.top10vpn.com/research/vpn-demand-statistics/ 3.“Four Risks to Consider with Expanded VPN Deployments”, https://www.f5.com/labs/articles/cisotociso/four-risks-to-consider-with-expanded-vpn-deployments4.“Free VPN Ownership & Security Investigations Update”, https://www.top10vpn.com/research/free-vpn-investigations/ownership-risk-index-update/5.Muhammad Ikram, Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez, Suranga Seneviratne, Mohamed Ali Kaafar, and Vern Paxson. 2016. An Analysis of the Privacy and Security Risks of Android VPN Permission-enabled Apps. In Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1145/2987443.2987471. Available at https://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2017/cmsc818O/papers/vpn-app-risks.pdf6.O. Akgul, R. Roberts, M. Namara, D. Levin and M. L. Mazurek, "Investigating Influencer VPN Ads on YouTube," 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2022, pp. 876-892, doi: 10.1109/SP46214.2022.9833633. Available at https://www.cs.umd.edu/~akgul/papers/vpn-ads.pdf7.Free VPNs are bad for your privacy”, https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/24/free-vpn-bad-for-privacy/8.Grauer, Yael. “Security and Privacy of VPNs Running on Windows 10.” Consumer Reports Digital Lab. 2021. Available at https://digital-lab-wp.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/VPN-White-Paper.pdf 9.https://www.top10vpn.com/reviews/10.https://www.nsa.gov/Press-Room/News-Highlights/Article/Article/2791320/nsa-cisa-release-guidance-on-selecting-and-hardening-remote-access-vpns/11.Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, SMOKE Broad Agency Announcement HR001122S0006 (2021) (Available at https://sam.gov/opp/6ab1fdaedfd6411ba966025cd74e467c/view)KEYWORDS: custom analytics, network security, privacy, virtual private network

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): FutureG, Trusted AI and Autonomy, Advanced Computing and Software, Integrated Sensing and CyberOBJECTIVE: The objective of the Electronic Control Unit Authentication in Autonomous Vehicles (ECU2A) Direct to Phase 2 (DP2) SBIR topic is to develop prototype systems to authenticate, monitor, and detect malicious activities in Electronic Control Units (ECUs) of modern intelligent military and civilian vehicles.DESCRIPTION: ECUs are one of the most critical embedded systems that control many subsystems in a vehicle [1]. A vehicle’s distributed network of ECUs is responsible for the control/functionality of the engine and transmission system, as well as for the control/functionality of the vehicle’s comfort and entertainment systems. Due to the extensive and growing use of ECUs in modern vehicles, and the associated increased costs and complexities they bring (e.g., due to multiple manufacturers, system integration requirements) [2], many vehicle manufacturers have adapted their manufacturing models and design flows to use the intellectual property of third-party ECU manufacturers, and outsource the fabrication of ECU hardware to offshore foundries to reduce the cost and time-to-market for their vehicles. Unfortunately, outsourcing ECU fabrication raises important security concerns [3, 4] for intelligent vehicles used by the civilian sector as well as US expeditionary forces abroad.The various Internet-of-Things (IoT) networks (e.g., Cellular, Local and Personal Area Networks, Low Power Wide Area Networks, and Mesh networks [5]) and the continuing increases in the scale of networked systems offers unprecedented interconnectivity of electronic devices, to include ECUs. Because of the ubiquitous nature and large attack surfaces of IoT networks, threats such as man-in-the-middle attacks, denial of service attacks, and hijacking of services attacks [6] can be successfully executed through bypassing the authentication process of ECUs. The consequences of such attacks can increase in severity if the ECUs are tampered with during production [7, 8, 9], prior to installation in the vehicle. Therefore, it is critical to have the ability to securely authenticate vehicular ECUs and to continuously monitor them for detection of malicious activity.PHASE I: The ECU2A SBIR topic is soliciting DP2 proposals only, which must include supporting documentation of Phase I feasibility. Phase I feasibility must be demonstrated through evidence of: a completed proof of concept/principal or basic prototype system; definition and characterization of system properties/technology capabilities desirable for DoD/IC/government and civilian/commercial use; and capability/performance comparisons with existing state-of-the-art technologies/methodologies (competing approaches). Entities interested in submitting a DP2 proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific/technical merit and feasibility described above has been achieved and also describe the potential commercial applications. DP2 Phase I feasibility documentation should include, at a minimum: •technical reports describing results and conclusions of existing work, particularly regarding the commercial opportunity or DoD/IC insertion opportunity, risks/mitigations, and technology assessments; •presentation materials and/or white papers; •technical papers; •test and measurement data; •prototype designs/models;•performance projections, goals, or results in different use cases; and, •documentation of related topics such as how the proposed ECU2A solution can enable secure authentication and continuous monitoring of ECUs in modern intelligent vehicles. The collection of Phase I feasibility material will verify mastery of the required content for DP2 consideration. DP2 proposers must also demonstrate knowledge, skills, and abilities in the technical areas of software engineering, network security, cyber security, analytics, and machine learning. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer to the DoD Broad Agency Announcement and the DARPA Instructions for this topic.PHASE II: The objective of the ECU2A DP2 SBIR topic is to develop prototype systems to authenticate, monitor, and detect malicious activities in ECUs of modern intelligent military and civilian vehicles.ECU2A will develop new hardware/software/component verification methods, algorithms, and machine learning models to improve vehicular ECU security. Strong ECU2A proposals should address several technical challenges, such as:•effective tools and algorithms for one-time ECU authentication and continuous ECU monitoring schemes;•models capable of rapidly identifying compromised ECUs;.•ECU software/hardware validation techniques, prior to and after installment;•zero-overhead, non-intrusive monitoring schemes, that do not require direct ECU access, for easy and secure deployment;•techniques to rapidly minimize the connection/communication between the source of malicious activity and a targeted ECU;•capabilities to detect hardware/software trojans with no reverse-engineering techniques;•monitoring methods for devices operating on a broad range of ECU components, and which have an air-gapped nature.Phase II will culminate in a demonstration of the application and validation of ECU2A-developed technologies for detecting malicious activity against one or more concrete technological use cases of integrated software systems.Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables: Proposers will execute the research and development (R&D) plan as described in the proposal, including the below: •Month 1: Phase I Kickoff briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA Program Manager (PM) including: any updates to the proposed plan and technical approach, risks/mitigations, schedule (inclusive of dependencies) with planned capability milestones and deliverables, proposed metrics, and plan for prototype demonstration/validation. •Months 4, 7, 10: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress to date, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (while this would normally report progress against the plan detailed in the proposal or presented at the Kickoff briefing, it is understood that scientific discoveries, competition, and regulatory changes may all have impacts on the planned work and DARPA must be made aware of any revisions that result), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 12: Interim technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM detailing progress made (including quantitative assessment of capabilities developed to date), tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, planned activities, technical plan for the second half of Phase II, the demonstration/verification plan for the end of Phase II, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 15, 18, 21: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (with necessary updates as in the parenthetical remark for Months 4, 7, and 10), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 24: Final technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM. Final architecture with documented details; a demonstration of the ability to authenticate, monitor, and detect malicious activities in ECUs; documented application programming interfaces; and any other necessary documentation (including, at a minimum, user manuals and a detailed system design document; and the commercialization plan). •Month 30 (Phase II Option period): Interim report of matured prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, documenting key technical gaps towards productization. •Month 36 (Phase II Option period): Final Phase II Option period technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM including prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, including quantitative metrics for assessment of prototype features/capabilities.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: ECU2A has potential applicability across DoD/IC/government and commercial entities. For DoD/IC/government, ECU2A is extremely well-suited for improving the security of intelligent vehicles used by US expeditionary forces abroad. ECU2A has the same applicability for the commercial sector.Phase III refers to work that derives from, extends, or completes an effort made under prior SBIR funding agreements, but is funded by sources other than the SBIR Program. The Phase III work will be oriented towards transition and commercialization of the developed ECU2A technologies. For Phase III, the proposer is required to obtain funding from either the private sector, a non-SBIR Government source, or both, to develop the prototype into a viable product or non-R&D service for sale in government or private sector markets. Primary ECU2A support will be to national efforts to help secure military and commercial intelligent vehicle ECUs against threats that target vulnerabilities. Results of ECU2A are intended to improve understanding of the threats and vulnerabilities associated with the increasing use of intelligent vehicles, across government and industry.REFERENCES:1.Jaks, L. (2014). Security Evaluation of the Electronic Control Unit Software Update Process. Available at: http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:934083/FULLTEXT01.pdf 2.Electronics Sourcing. (2022). How Many Chips are in Our Cars?https://electronics-sourcing.com/2022/05/04/how-many-chips-are-in-our-cars3.R. Kurachi et al., "Evaluation of Security Access Service in Automotive Diagnostic Communication," 2019 IEEE 89th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2019-Spring), 2019, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/VTCSpring.2019.8746714. Available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8746714. 4.Spaan, R.. Secure updates in automotive systems. Nijmegen: Radboud University(2016): 1-71. Available at: https://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/769526/z_remy_spaan.pdf5.IotaComm. 2020. Four Types Of IoT Wireless Networks. https://www.iotacommunications.com/blog/types-of-iot-networks/6.Huq, N. et al. “Cybersecurity for Connected Cars: Exploring Risks in 5G, Cloud, and OtherConnected Technologies.” Trend Micro Research. 2021. Available at: https://documents.trendmicro.com/assets/white_papers/wp-cybersecurity-for-connected-cars-exploring-risks-in-5g-cloud-and-other-connected-technologies.pdf7.Cho, Kyong-Tak, and Kang G. Shin. "Fingerprinting electronic control units for vehicle intrusiondetection." 25th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 16). 2016. Available at https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity16/sec16_paper_cho.pdf8.Kim, Kyounggon, et al. "Cybersecurity for autonomous vehicles: Review of attacks and defense."Computers & Security, Volume 103 (2021): 102150. ISSN 0167-4048, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.102150.9.Wasicek, A. and Weimerskirch, A. “Recognizing manipulated electronic control units,” . SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-0202, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-0202.. Available at https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/projects/chess/pubs/1111/autoids_v2_preprint1.pdf.KEYWORDS: Electronic Control Units, Cyber Security, Intrusion Detection, Intelligent Vehicles

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Advanced computing and SoftwareOBJECTIVE: The Network Black Box Direct to Phase 2 (DP2) SBIR topic seeks to develop and demonstrate a system prototype capable of automatically retaining, retrieving, and analyzing network data to support threat detection and response efforts by cyber security operations teams.DESCRIPTION: Today’s enterprise networks are challenged by a myriad of cyber threats that can jeopardize the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of a network. An organization’s enterprise security controls aim to protect the organization’s networks against threats from hackers, malicious software, and attempts to steal sensitive information [1]. Threat hunting and incident response tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) employed by an organization’s cyber security operations teams help protect the networks by continuously monitoring for threats in progress that evade security controls and breach the network [2]. Despite significant investment in enterprise security controls, and the collection and use of diverse and voluminous datasets for threat hunting and incident response, many organizations lack the infrastructure capacity and resources to store key enterprise network security data in a reliable, efficient, and cost-effective way, for durations comparable to the average dwell time [3] of cyber attackers (i.e., the amount of time an attacker spends on a target network before being detected). Dwell times, which vary based on region and other factors, can average up to two months, giving attackers plenty of time to wreak havoc on the target network [4]. In addition, shortfalls in infrastructure capacity and resources adversely impacts an organization’s ability to efficiently and effectively conduct incident response forensics on the network security data, once intrusion is detected.Organizations across government and industry would benefit from a simple, yet powerful, reliable, efficient, and cost-effective mechanism to support automated retention, retrieval, and analysis of key enterprise network data for security operations teams to conduct incident response forensics, such as root cause analysis [5] and lateral movement [6] detection, ex post facto.PHASE I: The Network Black Box SBIR topic is soliciting Direct to Phase 2 (DP2) proposals only, which must include supporting documentation of Phase 1 feasibility. Phase I feasibility must be demonstrated through evidence of: a completed proof of concept/principal or basic prototype system; definition and characterization of system properties/technology capabilities desirable for DoD/IC/government and civilian/commercial use; and capability/performance comparisons with existing state-of-the-art technologies/methodologies (competing approaches). Entities interested in submitting a DP2 proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific/technical merit and feasibility described above has been achieved and also describe the potential commercial applications. DP2 Phase I feasibility documentation should include, at a minimum: •technical reports describing results and conclusions of existing work, particularly regarding the commercial opportunity or DoD/IC insertion opportunity, risks/mitigations, and technology assessments; •presentation materials and/or white papers;•technical papers;•test and measurement data;•prototype designs/models;•performance projections, goals, or results in different use cases; and,•documentation of related topics such as how the proposed Network Black Box solution can enable the retention, retrieval, and analysis of network data to support threat detection and response efforts by security operations teams. The collection of Phase 1 feasibility material will verify mastery of the required content for DP2 consideration. DP2 proposers must also demonstrate knowledge, skills, and abilities in the technical areas of cyber operations, software engineering, network security, data analytics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer to the DoD Broad Agency Announcement and the DARPA Instructions for this topic.PHASE II: The Network Black Box DP2 SBIR topic seeks to develop and demonstrate a system prototype capable of automatically retaining, retrieving, and analyzing network data to support threat detection and response efforts by security operations teams. It is envisioned that Network Black Box approaches will take the form of a physical or virtual appliance with an intuitive user interface supporting at least the two use cases stated previously, namely root cause analysis and lateral movement detection. Proposed solutions should enable organizations to retain and analyze enterprise network data for at least one year for a network consisting of at least 10,000 hosts. Strong Network Black Box proposals will provide experimental evidence and a quantitative analysis on the cost, capacity, and scalability of such a capability, and present preliminary evidence on the usefulness of the retained data for root cause analysis, lateral movement detection, and any additional use cases.DP2 proposals should:•describe a proposed framework design/architecture to achieve the above stated goals;•present a plan for maturation of the framework to a demonstrable prototype system; and•detail a test plan, complete with proposed quantitative metrics for verification and validation of the prototype system performance.Phase II will culminate in a prototype system demonstration using compelling use cases consistent with commercial opportunities and/or insertion into a DARPA program (e.g., the Cyber Agents for Security Testing and Learning Environments (CASTLE) [7] program which seeks to generate data-driven, machine-readable descriptions of how attacker tools behave, how attack paths unfold, and how to label observable attack behavior; and the Signature Management using Operational Knowledge and Environments (SMOKE) [8] program which seeks to assist red teams with planning with deploying TTPs to evade network defenders in order to achieve assessment objectives (e.g., lateral movement in networks) and assess how networks perform against malicious cyber actors (MCAs)).The Phase II Option period will further mature the technology for insertion into a DoD/ IC Acquisition Program, another Federal agency, or commercialization into the private sector.The below schedule of milestones and deliverables is provided to establish expectations and desired results/end products for the Phase II and Phase II Option period efforts.Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables: Proposers will execute the research and development (R&D) plan as described in the proposal, including the below:•Month 1: Phase I Kickoff briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA Program Manager (PM) including: any updates to the proposed plan and technical approach, risks/mitigations, schedule (inclusive of dependencies) with planned capability milestones and deliverables, proposed metrics, and plan for prototype demonstration/validation. •Months 4, 7, 10: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress to date, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (while this would normally report progress against the plan detailed in the proposal or presented at the Kickoff briefing, it is understood that scientific discoveries, competition, and regulatory changes may all have impacts on the planned work and DARPA must be made aware of any revisions that result), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 12: Interim technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM detailing progress made (including quantitative assessment of capabilities developed to date), tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, planned activities, technical plan for the second half of Phase II, the demonstration/verification plan for the end of Phase II, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM.•Month 15, 18, 21: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (with necessary updates as in the parenthetical remark for Months 4, 7, and 10), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 24: Final technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM. Final architecture with documented details; a demonstration of the ability to automatically retain, retrieve, and analyze network data to support threat detection and response efforts by security operations teams; documented application programming interfaces; and any other necessary documentation (including, at a minimum, user manuals and a detailed system design document; and the commercialization plan). •Month 30 (Phase II Option period): Interim report of matured prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, documenting key technical gaps towards productization.•Month 36 (Phase II Option period): Final Phase II Option period technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM including prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, including quantitative metrics for assessment of privacy features/capabilities.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Network Black Box has potential applicability across DoD/IC/government and commercial entities. For DoD/IC/government, Network Black Box is extremely well-suited for forensic analysts tasked with conducting postmortems after an organization’s network is compromised. Network Black Box has the same applicability for the commercial sector. Phase III refers to work that derives from, extends, or completes an effort made under prior SBIR funding agreements, but is funded by sources other than the SBIR Program. The Phase III work will be oriented towards transition and commercialization of the developed Network Black Box technologies. For Phase III, the proposer is required to obtain funding from either the private sector, a non-SBIR Government source, or both, to develop the prototype into a viable product or non-R&D service for sale in government or private sector markets. Primary Network Black Box support will be to national efforts to help secure government and commercial networks against MCAs that target critical networks. Results of Network Black Box are intended to improve understanding of MCA threats and improve detection and response actions across government and industry.REFERENCES:1.NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5. 2020. “Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations.” https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r5.pdf2.Waqas, Iam. PrivacyAffairs. 2022. .https://www.privacyaffairs.com/threat-hunting-vs-incident-response/ \3.Armor Defense. 2021. “Dwell Time as a Critical Security Success Metric.” https://cdn.armor.com/app/uploads/2020/04/Ebook-DwellTime.pdf4.Nayyar, Saryu. “Why The Dwell Time Of Cyberattacks Has Not Changed.” 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/03/why-the-dwell-time-of-cyberattacks-has-not-changed/?sh=1ddedc37457d5.Gross, Natalie. CDW StateTech. 2021. “Incident Response: The Steps to a Root Cause Analysis for State Government.”6.Cybertalk.org. 2022. https://www.cybertalk.org/what-is-lateral-movement-computing/ 7.DARPA I2O. 2022. Broad Agency Announcement, Cyber Agents for Security Testing and LearningEnvironments (CASTLE) HR001123S0002. Available at https://sam.gov/opp/5fa7645fdf464f70b5c67e24585926f7/view.8.DARPA I2O. 2021. Broad Agency Announcement, Signature Management using Operational Knowledge and Environments (SMOKE) HR001122S0006. Available at https://sam.gov/opp/8832e2b8d9864169a234834eea89e5f1/viewKEYWORDS: Network Security, Cybersecurity, Incident Response, Threat Hunting, Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Automation, Data Analytics

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Integrated Sensing and Cyber, Advanced computing and SoftwareOBJECTIVE: The objective of the 5GTE Direct to Phase 2 (DP2) SBIR topic is to develop a scalable, open-source Internet of Things (IoT) fifth generation (5G) test environment capability to support research and development of nascent 5G technologies.DESCRIPTION: 5GTE seeks to develop a 5G test environment for IoT devices to enable research, development, and experimentation with a broad range of 5G-capable devices, both static and mobile. The focus of 5GTE is to provide an open-source, realistic 5G radio access network to enable rapid prototyping of wireless protocols and applications including, but not limited to: cyber security, artificial intelligence, and edge-computing. A key requirement of 5GTE is the ability to rapidly and accurately scale as new technologies and devices are introduced/become available. 5GTE must also provide remote access and device update capabilities. To broaden the range of supported devices and to facilitate development, 5GTE should have the ability to support different wireless communication technologies (e.g., fourth generation, wireless fidelity).5GTE’s network access should support high-fidelity quality of service for experimentation with different 3rd Generation Partnership (3GPP) [1] Project Release 17 [2] use cases.While open-source 5G testbed architectures do exist [3], they do not fully support remote accessibility and management to allow for multiple experiments and tests to co-exist simultaneously.PHASE I: The 5GTE SBIR topic is soliciting DP2 proposals only, which must include supporting documentation of Phase I feasibility. Phase I feasibility must be demonstrated through evidence of: a completed proof of concept/principal or basic prototype system; definition and characterization of system properties/technology capabilities desirable for DoD/IC/government and civilian/commercial use; and capability/performance comparisons with existing state-of-the-art technologies/methodologies (competing approaches). Entities interested in submitting a DP2 proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific/technical merit and feasibility described above has been achieved and also describe the potential commercial applications. DP2 Phase I feasibility documentation should include, at a minimum: •technical reports describing results and conclusions of existing work, particularly regarding the commercial opportunity or DoD/IC insertion opportunity, risks/mitigations, and technology assessments; •presentation materials and/or white papers; •technical papers; •test and measurement data; •prototype designs/models;•performance projections, goals, or results in different use cases; and, •documentation of related topics such as how the proposed 5GTE solution can enable research and development of nascent 5G technologies. The collection of Phase I feasibility material will verify mastery of the required content for DP2 consideration. DP2 proposers must also demonstrate knowledge, skills, and abilities in the technical areas of: mobile communications, software engineering, network security, cyber security, programmable networking, and artificial intelligence. For detailed information on DP2 requirements and eligibility, please refer to the DoD Broad Agency Announcement and the DARPA Instructions for this topic.PHASE II: The objective of the 5GTE DP2 SBIR topic is to develop a scalable, open-source IoT 5G test environment capability to support research and development of nascent 5G technologies.5GTE DP2 proposals should:1.describe a proposed design/architecture to achieve the 5GTE goals, along with application programming interfaces that allow for an open IoT testbed infrastructure;2.present a plan for maturation of the architecture to a prototype testbed to demonstrate accurate and scalable experimentation capabilities; and,3.detail a test plan, complete with proposed metrics and scope (e.g., testbed structure, types/numbers of devices, etc.) for verification and validation of the testbed capabilities.5GTE should have the ability to support multiple isolated environments to enable testing in parallel with security guarantees. Each isolated environment would support full standards compliant user authentication on the 5G core side, where the end devices can use programmable subscriber identity module cards; and the core would support network slicing capabilities.Strong 5GTE proposals would include:•additional scaling capabilities enabled via emulation of various end devices; •solutions based on components with strong open-source development and community support, such as the technology projects that reside within the Linux Foundation [5]; and,•a commercialization plan for the proposed 5GTE which articulates a clear vision for the potential business opportunities as 5G capabilities and standards evolve.Phase II will culminate in a testbed demonstration using one or more compelling IoT use cases consistent with commercial opportunities and/or insertion into the DARPA/I2O Open, Programmable, Secure 5G (OPS-5G) program [4]. The below schedule of milestones and deliverables is provided to establish expectations and desired results/end product for the DP2 effort.Schedule/Milestones/Deliverables: Proposers will execute the research and development (R&D) plan as described in the proposal, including the below: •Month 1: Phase I Kickoff briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA Program Manager (PM) including: any updates to the proposed plan and technical approach, risks/mitigations, schedule (inclusive of dependencies) with planned capability milestones and deliverables, proposed metrics, and plan for prototype demonstration/validation. •Months 4, 7, 10: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress to date, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (while this would normally report progress against the plan detailed in the proposal or presented at the Kickoff briefing, it is understood that scientific discoveries, competition, and regulatory changes may all have impacts on the planned work and DARPA must be made aware of any revisions that result), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 12: Interim technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM detailing progress made (including quantitative assessment of capabilities developed to date), tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, planned activities, technical plan for the second half of Phase II, the demonstration/verification plan for the end of Phase II, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 15, 18, 21: Quarterly technical progress reports detailing technical progress made, tasks accomplished, risks/mitigations, a technical plan for the remainder of Phase II (with necessary updates as in the parenthetical remark for Months 4, 7, and 10), planned activities, trip summaries, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the DARPA PM. •Month 24: Final technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM. Final architecture with documented details; a demonstration of the ability to authenticate, monitor, and detect malicious activities in ECUs; documented application programming interfaces; and any other necessary documentation (including, at a minimum, user manuals and a detailed system design document; and the commercialization plan). •Month 30 (Phase II Option period): Interim report of matured prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, documenting key technical gaps towards productization. •Month 36 (Phase II Option period): Final Phase II Option period technical progress briefing (with annotated slides) to the DARPA PM including prototype performance against existing state-of-the-art technologies, including quantitative metrics for assessment of test environment features/capabilities.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: 5GTE has potential applicability across DoD/IC/government and commercial entities. For DoD/IC/government, 5GTE is extremely well-suited for supporting research to investigate 5G capability enhancements and cyber risks. 5GTE has the same applicability for the commercial sector.Phase III refers to work that derives from, extends, or completes an effort made under prior SBIR funding agreements, but is funded by sources other than the SBIR Program. The Phase III work will be oriented towards transition and commercialization of the developed 5GTE technologies. For Phase III, the proposer is required to obtain funding from either the private sector, a non-SBIR Government source, or both, to develop the prototype into a viable product or non-R&D service for sale in government or private sector markets. Primary 5GTE support will be to national efforts to advance US 5G capabilities and to promote awareness of 5G risks to national security. Results of 5GTE are intended to enable accurate test and evaluation of nascent 5G technologies at scale, across government and industry.REFERENCES:1.3GPP. 3GPP - A Global Initiative. https://www.3gpp.org/ 2.3GPP. 3GPP – The 5G Standard. https://www.3gpp.org/specifications-technologies/releases/release-17 3.Institute for the Wireless Internet of Things at Northeastern University. Testbeds to develop and experiment with open, programmable, 5G networks. https://open5g.info/testbeds/ 4.DARPA Broad Agency Announcement: Open Programmable Secure 5G (OPS-5G), HR001120S0026, January 30, 2020. Available at https://beta.sam.gov/opp/6ee795ad86a044d1a64f441ef713a476/view 5.The Linux Foundation. The Linux Foundation. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/ KEYWORDS: Fifth Generation (5G), Internet of Things (IoT), Test Environment, Scalability, Open-source, Security, Cyber Security, Artificial Intelligence, and Edge-computing

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): BiomedicalOBJECTIVE: The goal of BELLS is to demonstrate and commercialize practical sources of intense, tunable electrons and monochromatic hard x-rays. These sources would support transformative capabilities for applications such as non-destructive inspection, medical diagnostics, and treatments.DESCRIPTION: BELLS will develop compact sources of monoenergetic electrons and photons suitable for demonstrating a range of transformative medical and non-destructive inspection applications with the overall goal of defining a minimum viable product (MVP) for commercialization. BELLS contains two subtopics that will be executed in parallel. Subtopic 1 focuses on maturing existing laboratory scale systems to demonstrate application feasibility and further productization. Subtopic 2 seeks to mature specific component technologies to be integrated into Subtopic 1 laboratory-scale systems that provide brightness enhancements enabling additional applications and productization opportunities. Subtopic 1: Demonstration and Productization. High-quality electron and photon sources are of broad interest for a range of security, industrial, and medical applications. Recent advances in photoinjectors[1], linear accelerators[2], high power lasers[3], and a range of ancillary technologies have resulted in several prototype systems that provide novel, compact testbeds for investigating these applications. However, further maturation and demonstration of these technologies is needed to realize systems with commercialization potential. The purpose of this subtopic is to mature testbed system(s) demonstrating one or more applications and to define minimum viable commercial product(s). High-quality electrons produced from photoinjectors and linear accelerators offer utility by themselves as well as the ability to produce bright monoenergetic x-rays through laser-Compton interactions[4]. Controlling the accelerator power allows the energy of electrons and x-rays to be tuned. For x-rays, it is possible to achieve synchrotron-like performance while achieving higher energies (100s of keV to MeV energies) in highly compact form factors. Very high-energy electron beams (100s of MeV) and bright light sources enable a range of applications including, but not limited to: •Medical imaging, including phase contrast •Medical radiotherapy, including FLASH and theranostics •Nondestructive test and evaluation, including high resolution tomography and semiconductor metrology.The effort will not just explore the technical applications of these sources, but also the business cases, economic impacts, and regulatory requirements for such technologies to be broadly employed. These studies will support jump-starting medical and industrial activity in this sector, leading to commercially viable system designs.Subtopic 2: Brightness Enhancements. Application performance can often be improved with increased source brightness, i.e. intensity and purity. This subtopic seeks to enhance the testbed(s)/prototype(s) of Subtopic 1 by advancing and integrating new component technology. Examples of such technology could include improvements in laser systems, electron systems, spot size reduction strategies, Fabry-Perot cavities, pulse stacking, and pulse recirculation.PHASE I: BELLS is a direct to Phase II SBIR XL program only; there is no Phase I. Proposers must provide experimental evidence of their approach concept commensurate to a Phase I effort that achieves significant performance. Specifically, proposers must provide evidence of existing performance in the three technology areas described below: •Photoinjector oC-band or higher frequency oSupport microamp or greater average currents oSupport micropulse structures at RF frequencies at macro system repetition rates of 100 Hz or greater o> 10 pC of charge produced per incident laser pulse oSupport electron energy of 5 MeV or greater oNormalized emittance of 1 µm or better •Electron accelerator oC-band or higher frequency oAcceleration gradients 50 MV/m or greater oSupport electron energy of 50 MeV or greater oSupport 10 micron or smaller laser-Compton interaction spot sizes •Interaction laser oSupport 10 micron or smaller laser-Compton interaction spot sizes oSufficient energy to support laser-Compton applications generating > 30 keV photonsPHASE II: Subtopic 1: Demonstrations and Productization Proposers must apply to Subtopic 1 to be eligible to apply to Subtopic 2. Subtopic 2 will run concurrently with Subtopic 1. The purpose of this subtopic is to mature existing laboratory scale systems into platforms demonstrating one or more applications, and defining a minimum viable commercial product for supporting those applications. Proposers must clearly and quantitatively describe the existing laboratory system that can support laser-Compton x-ray generation. This includes key subsystems such as photoinjector, linear electron accelerator, interaction laser, and precision subsystem synchronization. Proposers must also choose at least one application (preferably more) and describe in detail how the existing laboratory scale system can be used to develop and mature a testbed enabling productization. This must include both a technical description and an economic analysis supporting commercial viability of the approach. This analysis must also include participation by one or more relevant stakeholders able to employ this product for the described application(s). In addition, the system must support the performance metrics in the table below for photon production. ParameterThresholdObjectiveIntensityIntensity (photons/s)> 10^9> 10^10Repetition Rate (Hz) > 100 > 1000EnergyMinimum (keV)> 100> 300PurityBandwidth (dE/E)< 10%< 0.1%Here, “threshold” indicates the minimum acceptable performance levels while “objective” levels are highly desired. The base period will focus on completing a BELLS testbed capable of producing relevant levels of electrons and laser-Compton photons for the chosen application(s). Performers will conduct outreach to customers, stakeholders, industrial partners, and regulators to engage in testbed use. Option period 1 will focus on testbed demonstration and characterization activities, and develop system requirements for a minimum viable product. System characterization supporting the laser-Compton performance metrics above is expected. Option period 2 continues testbed activities while further developing the minimum viable product through a critical design review. Active participation of customers, stakeholders, industrial partners, and regulators (as appropriate) is required throughout both option periods. Base period (6 months) milestones: •Month 1: Kickoff slide deck summarizing technical approach to meet overall goals, risks, and risk mitigations, and quantified milestone schedule •Month 3: Testbed build interim report •Month 6: Testbed build final report Option period 1 (6 months) milestones: •Month 1: Testbed demonstration kickoff materials, with stakeholder participation •Month 3: Testbed characterization report •Month 6: Testbed demonstration interim report, MVP system requirements review report Option period 2 (6 months) milestones: •Month 1: Testbed stakeholder engagement and transition report •Month 3: MVP preliminary design review report •Month 6: Testbed demonstration final report, MVP critical design review report Monthly written technical progress reports will supplement the above milestones (see template under SBIR/STTR BAA DOCUMENTS at https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/for-small-businesses/participate-sbir-sttr-program). Subtopic 2: Brightness Enhancements Proposers can propose to Subtopic 2 within their Subtopic 1 proposal.This subtopic seeks to enhance the testbed(s) of subtopic 1 by advancing and integrating component technology – specifically, laser-Compton performance to improve brightness, supporting commercially-relevant applications. Proposers must clearly describe the new component technology and anticipated testbed performance increases. Increases in performance must enable an additional application or improve the commercial prospects of the minimum viable product. Development timelines must align to integration into the testbed by the end of the option period 1. The Base period will focus on developing component technology to enhance brightness. During the option period 1, components will be refined and integrated into the testbed. During the option period 2, the enhanced testbed will be tested to verify performance, assess improvements in testbed capabilities, and enable further minimum viable product definition. Base period (6 months) milestones: •Month 1: Kickoff slide deck summarizing technical approach to meet overall goals, risks, and risk mitigations, and quantified milestone schedule •Month 3: Testbed enhancement preliminary design review report •Month 6: Testbed enhancement critical design review report Option period 1 (6 months) milestones: •Month 1: Testbed enhancement integration readiness report •Month 3: Testbed enhancement interim report •Month 6: Testbed enhancement final report Option period 2 (6 months) milestones: •Month 1: Enhanced testbed stakeholder engagement and transition report •Month 3: Enhanced testbed characterization report •Month 6: Final system performance report Monthly written technical progress reports will supplement the above milestones (see template under SBIR/STTR BAA DOCUMENTS at https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/for-small-businesses/participate-sbir-sttr-program).PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The successful development of such electron and x-ray sources supports a range of medical and non-destructive inspection applications. These include microbeam radiation diagnostic procedures, FLASH e-beam/x-ray radiotherapy, and innovations in theranostics. These sources would also be of high interest to the semiconductor industry for nanometrology and in-line inspection at semiconductor foundries, to include fraud detection. Successful proposals for this SBIR offering must make significant arguments supporting the commercial viability of their approach. Hence, proposals must provide initial evidence that their laboratory scale systems have sufficient technical maturity and performance characteristics that would support economically viable applications with development into a minimally viable product. Proposals for Subtopic 2 must make arguments that the proposed enhancement(s) could significantly advance the economics of productization of their system concepts. Transition and commercialization (T-C) milestones have been added as part of the option periods to aid in assuring commercial viabilityREFERENCES:1.Performance of a second generation X-band rf photoinjector, Marsh et al., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 21, 073401, 20182.Design and demonstration of a distributed-coupling linear accelerator structure, Tantawi et al., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23, 092001, 20203.1 kHz repetition rate 1.1 J picosecond laser, Wang et al., Laser Congress AM2A.4, 20214.Photon flux and spectrum of ?-rays Compton sources, V. Petrillo et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res A, 693, 109-116, 2012KEYWORDS: Monochromatic hard x-rays, tunable electrons.

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Combat Casualty CareOBJECTIVE: Develop a drug that would be useful in a pre-hospital setting for treatment of hemorrhagic shock in humans.DESCRIPTION: Severe blood loss, such as may be experienced in combat or other settings, if left untreated, will result in a deficiency of oxygen that will lead to the death of cells, tissues, and organs, and ultimately death. A pharmaceutical solution is required to address, in a pre-hospital setting, this life-threatening situation. The desired benefits of the drug are that its administration would increase the probability of survival, reduce the need for other treatment products, and reduce the need for prompt medical evacuation. The following characteristics are considered desirable: (1) The drug would most likely be administered promptly after injury, before blood or blood components are administered; however, a drug that would be administered as a pre-treatment, prior to injury, would also be of interest. (2) The drug would be administered in a low volume, perhaps 5 to 20 milliliters, to minimize the burden of transporting it and administering it. (3) The drug would be stable (retain its effectiveness) for at least one year over a broad temperature range such as 2 to 40 degrees Celsius. (4) The drug would be amenable to administration by several routes, such as oral, intravenous, intraosseous, inhalation, and intramuscular.PHASE I: DoD seeks the identification of an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), administration of which will provide effective treatment of shock in a pre-hospital setting. The performer will determine the scientific, technical, and commercial merit and feasibility of such an API. Upon conclusion of Phase I, the performer will have: •Identified a concept for the mechanism of action for the API.•Ascertained key elements (chemical moieties) of the API.•Produced a candidate formulation, for one or more routes of administration, for the API.•Performed a detailed analysis of predicted performance (safety and efficacy) of the API as formulated for administration.•Defined key technological milestones for development of the API into a drug approvable bythe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for human use.•Demonstrated the feasibility of analyzing the safety and efficacy of the API when formulatedfor administration and outlined the criteria for success. This topic is accepting Direct to Phase II (DPII) proposals ONLY. Proposers submitting a DPII proposal must provide documentation to substantiate that the scientific and technical merit and feasibility described above has been met and describes the potential commercial applications.Documentation should include all relevant information including, but not limited to, technical reports, test data, and performance goals/results.PHASE II: The expectations and required deliverables for Phase II work are: •Using results from Phase I, produce a batch of candidate ASD-PH formulated foradministration to one or more vertebrate species as part of pre-clinical testing.•Test a candidate ASD-PH for efficacy in a suitable animal model. The animal model mustinvolve blood loss that, untreated, would reproducibly lead to death of most test subjectsfrom shock within approximately 60 minutes after blood loss.•Prepare a Product Development Plan and seek comments from the FDA on its acceptability.•Manufacture a batch of candidate ASD-PH suitable for pre-clinical testing of safety under Good Laboratory Practices (GLPs).•Perform Investigational New Drug (IND)-enabling studies.•Update/revise the Product Development Plan to take into account the results of pre-clinicaltesting and FDA advice.•Deliver a Technical Data Package containing submissions to the FDA, communications fromthe FDA, and the Product Development Plan.•Upon request by the Government sponsor, deliver a sample of candidate ASD-PH to the Government for retention and/or analyses at no cost to the performer. The quantity of sample delivered to the Government will not be so great as to interfere with the performer’s plans for development.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Phase III will culminate in an FDA-approved treatment for shock suitable for use in role 1 of military health care and in similar non-military austere settings such remote areas where paramedics and other personnel provide emergency medical treatment. It will be the logical conclusion of product development conducted in phases I and II. Phase III work will include the engagement of relevant stakeholders within DoD to ensure that product labeling and packaging are accomplished with due consideration of military operational requirements and logistical support.REFERENCES:1.Campion EM, Pritts TA, Dorlac WC, Nguyen AQ, Fraley SM, Hanseman D, Robinson BR.Implementation of a military-derived damage-control resuscitation strategy in a civiliantrauma center decreases acute hypoxia in massively transfused patients. J Trauma Acute CareSurg. 2013 Aug;75(2 Suppl 2):S221-7. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318299d59b. PMID:23883912; PMCID: PMC4245019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4245019/2.Huang Q, Gao S, Yao Y, Wang Y, Li J, Chen J, Guo C, Zhao D, Li X. Innate immunity andimmunotherapy for hemorrhagic shock. Front Immunol. 2022 Aug 25;13:918380. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.918380. PMID: 36091025; PMCID: PMC9453212. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9453212/KEYWORDS: Trauma; energy metabolism; hemorrhagic shock; hypoxia

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Combat Casualty CareOBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is the development of a non-surgical prototype technology capable of obtaining approval/clearance by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that is simple enough for medical personnel to administer in a theater of operations (TO) with minimal additional training that will temporarily stabilize suspected full thickness corneal and corneoscleral injuries during transport to a higher echelon of care where surgical intervention is available. This award will seek offerors to engage the FDA, conduct Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) animal studies, and deliver prototype devices to the government.DESCRIPTION: Ocular injuries are common occurrences among warfighters, occurring disproportionately compared to injuries affecting more protected areas of the body. The cornea is the first tissue of the ocular structure and often impacted first in trauma. Combat corneal injuries often have a significant impact on vision and there can be significant delays in receiving specialty care for combat ocular trauma. In recent combat operations corneal puncture injuries resulted in poor visual outcomes often resulting in blindness. This is predominantly due to inadequate battlefield interventions to close the open ocular wounds and restore intraocular pressure. A study published in 2020 describes the cause and type of ocular injuries in modern warfare and analyzed all patients with eye injuries from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts who were treated at Military Treatment Facilities (MTF). They reported 67,586 persons were admitted to either a United States or United Kingdom MTF for treatment of injuries. 8-10% of wounded soldiers had ocular injuries. 82% of those injuries occurred in battle and 71% were from explosions, and 56% had open globe injuries. [1]If an open globe (OG) injury is suspected on the battlefield, a rigid eye shield is applied to protect the eye, and the injured warfighter is evacuated to an ophthalmic specialist. Then, OG injuries are closed with sutures to create a watertight seal. This may occur up to 24 hr post-injury currently and is expected to increase up to 72 hr in future combat operations where air evacuation may not be guaranteed. [2-4] However, 53% of OG injured eyes retain intraocular foreign body upon injury and require evacuation to an ophthalmic specialist for surgical intervention. [5] In order to address corneal and corneoscleral injuries earlier and in a way that is relevant to thethe austerity encountered in a TO, a product that allows for temporary stabilization of corneal and corneoscleral injuries is needed. The temporary cornea repair (TCR) will serve as a bridge management strategy that will remain in place until more definitive care is available. The TCR capability will be in support of MTFs associated with the Military Healthcare System at Role of Care (RoC) 2 (Forward Resuscitative Surgical Team) and RoC 3 (Combat Support Hospital). For a description of RoC please see the reference section.PHASE I: This topic is intended for technology proven ready to move directly into Phase II. Therefore, the offeror shall provide detail and documentation which demonstrates the accomplishment of a "Phase I-like" effort, including a feasibility study. This includes, insofar as possible, the scientific and technical merit of a non-surgical prototype that will temporarily stabilize suspected full thickness corneal and corneoscleral injuries. Feasibility documentation of particular interest is prior evidence leading to: •Preliminary data to support the safety and efficacy of the prototype. •Design specifications for the prototype.•GLP-biocompatibility (in vitro and in vivo) safety validation data if available.•Statistically significant performance data if available.PHASE II: This phase will focus on refinement and optimization of a non-surgical prototype that will temporarily stabilize suspected full thickness corneal and corneoscleral injuries and can be tested in a military relevant environment.Offerors should propose technology solutions ranging from initial testing of design concepts and evaluation of candidate(s) where study endpoints are defined, and animal models are proposed. ((Technology Readiness level (TRL) 3)) to component validation in a non-GLP laboratory environment to refine hypothesis and identify relevant statistical data required for further technological assessment (TRL 4). Further information regarding DOD Biomedical TRLs can be found in the reference section.The work may include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: •Prototype refinement/maturation progressing towards clinical product•Preclinical studies (as needed) to support an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) (or•other appropriate FDA) submission•Preclinical studies under GLP (as needed) to support IDE (or other appropriate FDA) submission•IDE (or other appropriate FDA) submission•Stability and shelf-life studies if performed•Establishment of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) planning for clinical trials and for market release•The performer is expected deliver up to 4 prototypes for military relevant testing. The desired prototype should be simple enough for medical personnel to administer in a TO with minimal additional training, safe enough to use on any suspected corneal or corneoscleral injuries, capable of maintaining a tight seal for an extended period during transport, and effective at stabilizing the eye such that it preserves eyesight.PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The goal for this Phase is to further development and testing of the prototype through commercialization and FDA approval for its intended use as a temporary stabilization of corneal and corneoscleral injuries. The temporary cornea repair would need to serve as a bridge management strategy that will remain in place until more definitive care is available. Military uses of this technology would support RoC 2 and 3, as well as a mass casualty event where casualties greatly overwhelm first responders and patients need to be triaged to preserve life, limb, and sight.REFERENCES:1.[1] Breeze J, Blanch RJ, Mazzoli R, DuBose J, Bowley DM, Powers DB. Comparing the Management of Eye Injuries by Coalition Military Surgeons during the Iraq and Afghanistan Conflicts. Ophthalmology. 2020 Apr;127(4):458-466.1.[2] Linde, A. S., Mcginnis, L. J. & Thompson, D. M. Multi-battle domain-perspective in military medical simulation trauma training. J Trauma Treat https:// doi. org/ 10. 4172/ 2167- 1222. 10003 91 (2017).2.[3] Riesberg, J., Powell, D. & Loos, P. The loss of the golden hour. Special Warfare Mag. 30(1), 49–51 (2017).3.[4] Army, U. S. The US army in multi-domain operations 2028. TRADOC Pamphlet 525, 3–1 (2018).4.[5] Vlasov, A. et al. Corneal and Corneoscleral Injury in Combat Ocular Trauma from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Mil. Med. 182, 114–119, https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00041 (2017).5.Roles of Care doctrine: https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp4_02ch1.pdf6.Combat Ocular Trauma: Open-globe wounds in operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom: risk factors for poor visual outcomes and enucleation; Harris JP, Justin GA, Brooks DI, Woreta FA, Agrawal RV, Ryan DS, Weichel ED, Colyer MH.; Acta Ophthalmol. 2021 Dec.7.Military Relevant Testing: Development and Characterization of a Benchtop Corneal Puncture Injury Model; Eric J. Snider, Lauren E. Cornell, Jorge M. Acevedo, Brandon Gross, Peter R. Edsall, Brian J. Lund, and David O. Zamora; Sci Rep. 2020; 10: 4218.KEYWORDS: Cornea injuries, corneoscleral injuries, corneal repair, combat ocular trauma, open globe injuries, roles of care

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their country of origin, and what tasks each would accomplish in the statement of work in accordance with section 5.4.c.(8) of the solicitation. Additionally, Offerors will describe compliance mechanisms offerors have in place or will put in place to address any ITAR issues that arise during the course of agreement administration.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to develop applied research toward an innovative capability to automatically detect, track, and differentiate the evolution of narratives over time in the information environment. This study should explore the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as natural language processing, to project long-term narratives among social networks and track changes associated with micro-changes in narratives based on responses, tracked online, to events shared by a social network. IMPORTANT: For SOCOM instructions: please visit: https://www.defensesbirsttr.mil/SBIR-STTR/Opportunities/. Go to the bottom of the page and click “DoD SBIR 23.4 Annual”. Once there, go to the SOCOM SBIR 23.4 Release 1DESCRIPTION: As a part of this feasibility study, the proposers shall address all viable overall system design options with respective specifications for detection and tracking the evolution of narratives across time and social networks. Current research captures proto-narratives at a snapshot in time and can track the engagement of audiences with a particular proto-narrative over a time period. However, narratives are not static; they evolve in the course of engagement by audiences. The main features of technology development should focus on constructing a quantitative model for tracking the evolution of narratives over time, including the transformation of one narrative into another, the dissolution of existing narratives, and the merging and splitting of strategic narratives from / into sub-narratives.PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraphs entitled “Objective” and “Description.” The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study (“Technology Readiness Level 3”) to investigate what is in the art of the possible within the given trade space that will satisfy a needed technology. The feasibility study should investigate all options that meet or exceed the minimum performance parameters specified in this write up. It should also address the risks and potential payoffs of the innovative technology options that are investigated and recommend the option that best achieves the objective of this technology pursuit. The funds obligated on the resulting Phase I SBIR contracts are to be used for the sole purpose of conducting a thorough feasibility study using scientific experiments and laboratory studies as necessary. Operational prototypes will not be developed with USSOCOM SBIR funds during Phase I feasibility studies. Operational prototypes developed with other than SBIR funds that are provided at the end of Phase I feasibility studies will not be considered in deciding what firm(s) will be selected for Phase II.PHASE II: Develop, install, and demonstrate a prototype system determined to be the most feasible solution during the Phase I feasibility study on an advanced analytic capability to detect, track, manage, and differentiate the evolution of narratives across social networks in the information environment. PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This system has applicability in a broad range of other broader DoD, USG, or private company applications where planners, operators, and assessors must determine the most appropriate target audience for engagement to create effects in the information and cognitive domain, leading to physical behavior change. Advanced narrative detection would allow for better predictive analysis and create flexibility and more rapid responsiveness to changes in the information environment. This responsiveness is paramount for DoD strategic communications, intelligence agencies, and can benefit private companies needing to track shifts in conversation regarding social trends related to their products. Importantly, advanced narrative detection presents opportunity to track, measure, and assess changes over time, and to better assess effectiveness by correlating changes to events in the information environment.REFERENCES: 1.Bail, C. A. (2016). Combining natural language processing and network analysis to examine how advocacy organizations stimulate conversation on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(42), 11823–11828. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1607151113a.Link – https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.16071511132.Davis, J. T., Perra, N., Zhang, Q., Moreno, Y., & Vespignani, A. (2020). Phase transitions in information spreading on structured populations. Nature Physics, 16(5), 590– 596. doi: 10.1038/s41567-020-0810-3 a.Link – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-0810-33.Measuring coordinated vs. spontaneous activity in online social movements. SocArXiv. doi: 10.1177/14614448211041176a.Link – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354281278_Measuring_coordinated_versus_spontaneous_activity_in_online_social_movementsKEYWORDS: Artificial intelligence (AI); Machine Learning (ML); social network analysis; narrative detection; narrative modeling; narrative evolution; narrative transformation; coordinate activity; cultural convergence; misinformation; disinformation; quantitative; qualitative; target audience; natural language processing; network analysis; social media

The technologies within these topics that are restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, require Offerors to disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their country of origin, and what tasks each would accomplish in the statement of work in accordance with the solicitation. Additionally, Offerors will describe compliance mechanisms, offerors have in place or will put in place, to address any ITAR issues that arise during the course of agreement administration.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this SBIR Open Topic is to develop applied research toward an innovative capability within USSOCOM Program Offices. The following are the Program Offices and their areas of interest.DESCRIPTION: The objective of this SBIR Open Topic is to develop applied research toward an innovative capability within USSOCOM Family of Special Operations Vehicles (FOSOV) Program Offices. Computer dependency is becoming a foundation of vehicle development. In 2015, Digital Trends Magazine posted an article stating that the Ford GT has close to 3 million more lines of code than a Boeing 787 Airliner. These additional lines of code translate to additional overhead in physical space, programming, sustainment, safety and security. With vehicle trends moving more towards electric vehicles, to include military vehicles, industry is introducing new attack vectors for highly motivated and resourced enemies. This increases the demand for military vehicles to address the growing cyber threat within all environments. The technology areas of interest aim at addressing these attack vectors and exploring options to seamlessly integrate applicable technologies into Team Awareness Kit.PROGRAM OFFICE: Family of Special Operations Vehicles (FOSOV)The technology areas of interests are:1.Navigation and Team Awareness Kit Integration: Inertial navigation systems within vehicles, vehicle positioning based on vehicle speed, steering and internal CANbus data, processing data from the Onboard Diagnostics II port, Global Positioning System integration, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML), Team Awareness Kit, telematics and cybersecurity.2.Force Protection: Onboard Diagnostics II port, CANbus, Global Positioning System, Wi-Fi, on-board entertainment (infotainment) and information, facial recognition prevention, license place obfuscation, smart city data protection, residual and stored data from previous users, Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C5ISR), Fly Away Kits, Special Operation Forces (SOF) peculiar devices and cybersecurity. Platforms may include indigenous operating vehicles (IOVs) of Special Operations modified Commercial Vehicles (Non-Standard Commercial Vehicles or NSCV).3.Open Architecture Electronic Control Unit: The technology areas of interest are original equipment manufacturer (OEM) electronic control unit (ECU), Government owned ECU, onboard vehicle systems. (Traction control, GPS transmission, onboard telematics, prognostics, vehicle skid control, antilock brakes, airbag operation, fuel shutoff, limp home mode, exterior light output). vehicle type, make and model independence and cybersecurity.i)Navigation and Team Awareness Kit Integration: Internal navigation system to navigate in Compromised, unreliable, and denied environment, deciphering vehicle position such as based on input of a known location, calculating movement and positioning based on vehicle speed, steering and direction, AI/ML to identify patterns of errors in vehicle data and correct errors to increase accuracy of location; detect and alert the user in real time of Global Positioning System jamming and/or interference. Navigation system data will be formatted and passed to integrate seamlessly with the on-board vehicle Team Awareness Kit to provide feedback for all occupants. The innovative research should focus beyond analyzing Global Positioning System -like data to discover other capabilities and opportunities to utilize onboard vehicle data for future capabilities and includes all viable system design options with respective specifications provided. ii)Force Protection: The sensor should plug into the Onboard Diagnostics II port, read data on the CANbus, ensure data and mission integrity, and communicate cyber risk to the operator while allowing them to manually disable telematics, such as Global Positioning System, Wi-Fi, on-board information and entertainment (“infotainment” systems”) on the fly. The sensor should include options to prevent facial recognition through the windshield, prevent recording data from the license plate and provide protections in an urban operating environment to include smart cities. The result of this topic should describe mechanisms disallowing a vehicle operator the ability to pull a previous operator’s data that has been recorded and stored onboard the vehicle. the Phase I report must present the integration of carry-on and carry-off Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) equipment to include radios, and amplifiers with vehicle systems.iii)Open Architecture Electronic Control Unit: Implement SOCOM’s unique requirements to selectively enable and/or disable standard vehicle features (traction control, GPS transmission, onboard telematics, prognostics, vehicle skid control, antilock brakes, airbag operation, fuel shutoff, limp home mode, exterior light output). Develop open architecture ECU that replaces the restrictive OEM ECUs. This will replace the process of “hacking” OEM ECUs in order to meet Non-Standard Commercial Vehicle requirements. This topic includes all viable system design options with respective specifications provided.Note: Please make sure to read the USSOCOM Instructions in full detail at https://www.defensesbirsttr.mil/SBIR-STTR/Opportunities/ at the bottom of the page under the tab titled “DoD SBIR 23.4 Annual”PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraphs entitled “Objective” and “Description.” The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study (“Technology Readiness Level 3”) to investigate what is in the art of the possible within the given trade space that will satisfy a needed technology. The feasibility study should investigate all options that meet or exceed the minimum performance parameters specified in this write up. It should address the risks and potential payoffs of the innovative technology options that are investigated and recommend the option that best achieves the objective of this technology pursuit. The funds obligated on the resulting Phase I SBIR contracts are to be used for the sole purpose of conducting a thorough feasibility study using scientific experiments and laboratory studies as necessary. Operational prototypes will not be developed with USSOCOM SBIR funds during Phase I feasibility studies. Operational prototypes developed with other than SBIR funds that are provided at the end of Phase I feasibility studies will not be considered in deciding what firm(s) will be selected for Phase II.A Phase II proposal is expected at the conclusion of the Phase I effort. PHASE II: Develop, install, and demonstrate a prototype system determined to be the most feasible solution during the Phase I feasibility study. PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This system could be used in a broad range of military and commercial applications. REFERENCES:1.Modernization Strategy: Investing in the Future from https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/2019_army_modernization_strategy_final.pdf (Army, 2019) 2.Department of Defense National Defense Strategy of 2022 found at https://media.defense.gov/2022/Oct/27/2003103845/-1/-1/1/2022-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-NPR-MDR.PDF (Department of Defense, 2022)3.National Cybersecurity Strategy from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/National-Cybersecurity-Strategy-2023.pdf (White House, 2023)KEYWORDS: Ground Combat Vehicles (GCV), Non Standard Commercial Vehicles (NSCV), electronics, On Board Diagnostics II, Global Positioning System, vehicle data, telematics, maintenance predictions, cybersecurity, Team Awareness Kit, Fly-Away Kits, Wi-Fi, infotainment, smart city, urban mission profile, Indigenous operating vehicle, Electronic Control Unit (ECU)