NAVAIR & NAVSEA Open Topic for Counter Unmanned Air Systems (C-UAS)

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Answer Added:** Q5 now has complete answers clarifying scope of defeat mechanisms. Government confirmed that physical capture/entanglement effectors (e.g., magnetically-actuated nets) are within scope of the non-kinetic/low-kinetic defeat sub-area, and defeat-effector-only proposals without sensing front-ends are responsive.

# Q&A Changes Summary **Key Update:** Q3 now has a substantive answer clarifying that the Government cannot pre-approve technical approaches or test plans. Proposers have flexibility to use public, non-DoD, or synthetic data for Phase I feasibility demonstration, but must independently justify their methodology and address C-UAS operational challenges (swarm behavior, clutter, data validation). **Status:** Q5 and partial Q15 remain incomplete/pending in the updated version, same as before.

# Summary of Q&A Changes **New Answers Provided:** - **Q6** (3 parts): Added comprehensive answers on DSIAC dataset access (not approved for Phase I), Phase I deliverables (software algorithm on COTS hardware acceptable; prototype expected Phase II), and performance thresholds (none provided). - **Q7**: Clarified that active sensors (LiDAR) and passive sensors are both responsive for Detect/Track/Identify. - **Q10**: Defined "identify" as both distinguishing UAS from clutter AND classifying UAS type. - **Q11**: Clarified no required TRL at Phase I end; all maturity levels considered, though feasibility demonstration required. - **Q12 & Q13**: Explicitly excluded infrastructure hardening from solicitation scope. **Previously Unanswered Questions Now Answered:** Q6 (all 3 sub-questions), Q7, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13 **Key Technical Clarifications:** Phase I expects feasibility demonstration via software/algorithm; full prototype deferred to Phase II. No government-furnished data or DSIAC access for Phase I performers.

**Key Changes to Q&A:** 1. **New Q&As Added (Q1-Q2):** Two new questions addressing Phase I-only requirement and directing proposers to complete Industry Day Q&A document. 2. **Renumbering:** Previous Q1-Q17 renumbered to Q3-Q18 to accommodate new entries. 3. **No New Answers:** All other questions retained previous responses unchanged. No previously pending answers were resolved with new guidance. 4. **No Technical Clarifications Added:** No new guidance on responsive approaches, budget limits, or technical requirements was introduced.

**Summary of Q&A Changes:** One new question added (Q1) addressing feasibility testing approaches using public datasets, controlled field data, and synthetic augmentation for Phase I evaluation. All other Q&As were renumbered; no substantive answers were modified or updated from the previous version.

**New Q&A Added:** Q1 clarifies that the "Content Requirements for Supporting Documentation" form is optional—proposers may use it to consolidate Volume 5 items into a single upload instead of using separate DSIP portal uploads. **Changes to Question Numbering:** All subsequent questions were renumbered (previous Q2-Q16 became Q2-Q16 with internal restructuring). No substantive answer changes occurred; this appears to be organizational reorganization of the same Q&A content.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Answer Added:** - **Q5 (AI/ML Modality):** Clarifies that single-modality proposals (acoustic, etc.) are responsive—multi-sensor fusion is NOT required. **Status:** All other Q&As remain unchanged from previous version. No new questions were added, and no previously pending responses were resolved in this update.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New questions added:** - Q1: Clarifies that physical capture/entanglement effectors (e.g., magnetic nets) fall within non-kinetic/low-kinetic defeat scope - Q2: Confirms defeat-effector-only proposals (without DTI/sensing) are responsive, mirroring DTI-only proposal acceptance **Key clarification:** The solicitation now explicitly accepts both detection-and-tracking-only AND defeat-mechanism-only standalone approaches, establishing symmetrical flexibility in Phase I proposal scope.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Questions Added (3):** - Q1: TPOC endorsement mechanism for DSIAC/SENSIAC ATR database access in Phase I - Q2: Whether validated software algorithm on COTS hardware meets Phase I requirements vs. integrated prototype - Q2 (duplicate numbering): Active EO sensors (LiDAR) responsiveness for DTI **Key Changes:** - Questions renumbered/reorganized (original Q1-Q16 now Q3-Q16, with 3 new questions inserted at top) - All previously unanswered questions now appear to have answers in updated version - No substantive answer changes to existing Q&As; content preserved **No clarifications added to:** Budget ($200K base/$115K option), sensor modality scope, AI/ML approach flexibility, CMMC requirements, kill assessment frameworks, interoperability standards, edge processing preferences, or advanced EO/IR techniques.

# Q&A Changes Summary **Answer Updated:** - **Q1 (Budget/Timeline):** Answer now explicitly states Phase I Base cost is NTE $200,000 and Phase I Option Cost is NTE $115,000 (previously referenced component instructions). **New Question Added:** - **Q16 (Kinetic Interceptor Approach):** Asks whether kinetic interceptor defeat mechanisms are responsive; answer appears truncated in the updated version ("The topic seeks non-kinetic and low-kinet..."). **Note:** Q16's answer is incomplete in the provided update and requires clarification on whether kinetic/low-kinetic defeat approaches are in scope.

**Q&A Changes Summary:** One new question added (Q1) addressing a critical discrepancy: the topic description lists $75,000 for 4-month Base and $100,000 for 6-month option, while DSIP submission site shows $200,000 for 6-month Base and $115,000 for option. Answer directs proposers to component instructions for correct figures. All previous Q&As (Q2-Q16) renumbered to Q2-Q16 but content unchanged, though Q15 (kinetic interceptor) appears truncated in updated version.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Question Added:** - Q1 (new): Clarifies whether AI/ML for acoustic sensor classification alone is responsive, or if multi-sensor fusion (imagery, RF, acoustic, etc.) is required. **Key Changes:** - Previous Q5 (Industry Day reference) moved to Q6 - Previous Q6-Q15 renumbered to Q7-Q15 - All other questions and answers remain substantively unchanged **No material updates to technical requirements, eligibility criteria, or answers to existing questions.**

**Summary of Q&A Changes:** Added 3 new questions (Q1-Q4) addressing: - Target identification level specificity (UAS vs. clutter vs. classification) - Technical maturation expectations for developmental technologies in Phase I - Infrastructure hardening applicability to the solicitation Updated Q6 (previously Q2) with new answer clarifying: no preference between conventional vs. novel AI approaches; Phase I focus on specific applications acceptable; Government will NOT provide GFI (Government Furnished Information) datasets in Phase I. Remaining Q&As (Q7-Q15, previously Q3-Q11) unchanged but renumbered. Answers on CMMC requirements, kill assessment frameworks, interoperability standards, edge processing, EO/IR techniques, kinetic vs. non-kinetic defeat, and mission priorities remain consistent.

# Q&A Changes Summary **Q3 Answer Added:** Universities collaborating as subawardees must meet CMMC Level 2 (Self) requirements if handling award-related material. **Q13 Answer Truncated:** The answer to the CMMC certification timing question appears incomplete in the updated version (cuts off mid-sentence at "As stated in the DON Proposal S..."). **No new questions added.** All other Q&As remain substantively unchanged.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Addition:** - Q1/A1: Added reference to Industry Day held 06/16/2026 with recording, materials, and Q&A available at navysbir.com/ot3-02.htm **Key Change:** - Original Q1 (CMMC Level 2 university subaward requirement) was renumbered to Q2 but received no answer update **No substantive answer changes:** All remaining Q&As (Q2-Q13 in updated version) retain identical answers to previous version. Answers remain unchanged regarding kill assessment frameworks, interoperability standards, edge processing, EO/IR techniques, kinetic/low-kinetic defeat definitions, CMMC timing, drone specifications, and data format preferences.

**Summary of Q&A Changes:** One new question added (Q1) regarding CMMC Level 2 Self certification requirements for university subawardees. Previous Q&A questions 1-13 have been renumbered as Q2-Q13 with no substantive answer changes. The new Q1 answer is pending.

**Changes to Q&A Section:** Q1 and Q2 received new answers clarifying that kill assessment frameworks are acceptable as *additions* to proposals but not responsive if proposed in isolation. This directly contradicts the previous "Response Pending" status and refocuses evaluation toward integrated solutions rather than standalone assessment tools.

Status changed from Pre-Release to Open

# Summary of Q&A Changes **New Answers Added:** - **Q3 (Interoperability Standards):** Clarified that NO specific interoperability standards or requirements (e.g., Cursor-on-Target, UCI, OpenAPI) are mandated in Phase I. - **Q4 (Disconnected Operations):** Confirmed that local autonomous awareness during comms loss is an "advantage" but not explicitly required. - **Q5 (Edge Processing):** Stated that on-sensor edge processing is "encouraged" for reducing bandwidth load. - **Q6 (Advanced EO/IR):** Explicitly confirmed openness to advanced techniques beyond thermal/visual analysis (e.g., polarization signatures). - **Q7 (Kinetic Defeat - EXPANDED):** Provided detailed clarification that non-kinetic and low-kinetic solutions are preferred, with specific definition: effectors must cause minimal/no collateral damage (comparable to model rockets). Government noted they are "considering broadening the definition" and will post updates if changed. **Key Takeaway:** Government added explicit guidance on Phase I flexibility (no standards required, edge processing encouraged) while clarifying low-kinetic defeat thresholds with an indication that definition may expand.

**Changes to Q&A:** Added 2 new questions (Q1 & Q2) regarding Phase I feasibility demonstrations without live effectors. Government clarified that confidence-weighted kill assessment frameworks using sensor fusion, behavioral analytics, and mission impact scoring are acceptable surrogates for evaluating engagement effectiveness when kinetic/non-kinetic defeat systems unavailable. All other Q&As remain substantively unchanged from previous version.