Quantum Solutions for Proactive Advanced Response in Cyber Warfare - QSPARX

**Key Changes to Q&A:** **New Answer Added:** - **Q1 now has Answer A1:** Clarifies that Phase I must use a **base-only approach** (not base-plus-option) in alignment with DAF SBIR guidelines. **Significantly Updated Answer:** - **Q2 Answer A2 (expanded):** Now provides actionable guidance on DoD Patent Holiday technologies: - Contractors **should** work with stakeholders during Phase I to identify and evaluate Patent Holiday IP - Specific assets should be evaluated **post-award** through formal licensing/tech transfer coordination with Government - This replaces previous absence of guidance on Patent Holiday integration timing and process **Summary:** Two changes clarify critical Phase I structuring requirements: mandatory base-only budgeting approach and a defined process for incorporating DoD Patent Holiday technologies (evaluation during Phase I, formal licensing post-award).

**Summary of Q&A Changes:** Added 2 new questions (Q1–Q2) addressing Phase I structure and DoD Patent Holiday technologies. Q1 asks whether Phase I should include options or base-only approach. Q2 (two-part) clarifies that Phase I proposals may evaluate and incorporate DoD Patent Holiday IP for quantum/cryptography/cybersecurity, but doesn't prescribe when to identify specific assets versus post-award evaluation. Remaining Q&As (Q3–Q11) reordered from previous version with no substantive answer changes.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Answer Added:** - **Q1 (FFRDCs Eligibility):** Now answered with guidance that DoD SBIR permits FFRDC/National Lab subcontracting subject to work-share limits and agency approvals, but recommends contacting AFWERX for binding clarification on specific organizations (ORNL, LANL, JPL, NIST, Sandia, etc.). **No other questions or answers changed.** All 10 previously answered questions (Q2–Q10) remain substantively identical.

**Changes to Q&A:** 1. **New Q1 added** – Clarifies FFDC eligibility (ORNL, LANL, NIST, MITRE, etc.) as subcontractors/consultants on DoD SBIR awards. *Answer not yet provided.* 2. **Questions renumbered** – Previous Q1-Q10 shifted to Q2-Q11 due to new FFDC question insertion. 3. **Q10 truncated** – Answer to the dual-objective question (AI advancement vs. legacy system transition mechanisms) appears incomplete in updated version. **Net change:** One substantive new eligibility question added; one answer incomplete. No technical requirement changes to Phase I scope, data requirements, or evaluation criteria.

Status changed from Pre-Release to Open

# Q&A Changes Summary **No substantive changes detected.** The updated Q&A appears identical to the previous version across all 10 questions and answers. Answer A10 is truncated in both versions at the same point ("Phase 1: A..."), suggesting this is a display artifact rather than a meaningful update. All content, clarifications, and guidance remain consistent between versions.

**Q&A Updates Summary:** Added answer to Q2 clarifying that offerors should NOT assume access to actual AFDW data; Phase I must use contractor-generated simulated data only. Added answer to Q3 clarifying that Phase I need only demonstrate a representative subset or minimum viable implementation of the Quantum Value Pipeline (all four stages not required). Added answer to Q6 explicitly stating performers are not required to access, store, or transmit CUI; all Phase I work should use simulated datasets. Updated answer to Q7 providing specific guidance that AI/ML capabilities receive primary emphasis in evaluation, but must be practically applicable to mission tasks (discovery, pattern recognition, risk inference, prioritization) rather than experimental approaches.

**Q&A Changes:** One new answer added: **A1** now clarifies that "response times" should measure **end-to-end operational latency** — from data ingestion/event detection through actionable insight delivery (risk assessment + recommended response). This defines the success metric for Phase I prototype performance.

**Q&A Changes Summary:** Two new questions added: Q1 clarifies "response times" refers to AI/ML detection latency, assessment generation time, and migration recommendations; Q2 addresses whether Phase I should use Government-provided or contractor-generated simulated cryptographic data. Previously answered Q6 (A6) was renumbered to Q8 with identical answer. No substantive answer updates to existing questions.

Added Q1 clarifying that Phase I should demonstrate feasibility of the complete Quantum Value Pipeline architecture rather than all four stages (Discover, Assess, Migrate, Monitor). Previously unanswered Q5 and Q6 now renumbered as Q5 and Q6 with identical responses.

**Q&A Changes Summary:** Added 1 new question (Q1) with 3 sub-questions clarifying: priority environment (NIPRNet/SIPRNet/both), availability of 844th lab/test environment for integration, and specific NIST PQC algorithms (ML-KEM, ML-DSA, SLH-DSA) and DoD migration guidance to prioritize. Previous Q2-Q4 renumbered to Q2-Q4; previous Q4 renumbered to Q5 with identical answer.

**Changes to Q&A Section:** - Added Q1 asking for clarification on "response times" success criteria for Phase I (answer not provided) - Renumbered previous Q&A: original Q3 now Q4 with identical answer - Q2 (CUI access) and Q3 (AI/ML weighting) remain unchanged

# Q&A Changes Summary **Two new questions added:** 1. **Q1 (now Q2):** Data handling in Phase I – clarifies whether performers must access/store/process CUI or can use simulated/sanitized datasets. 2. **Q2 (now Q3):** Weighting guidance – asks Government to specify relative emphasis on AI/ML capabilities versus practical cryptographic modernization and PQC transition. **Original Q1 renumbered to Q3** with identical answer preserved (both objectives equally valued; legacy protection strongly encouraged; Phase I focuses on conceptual design and feasibility validation).

This Q&A clarifies that the government funding opportunity seeks both AI-driven cryptographic assessment capabilities AND practical mechanisms to protect and migrate legacy systems to post-quantum cryptography, with Phase I focusing on technical feasibility and Phase II transition planning.

New opportunity: Quantum Solutions for Proactive Advanced Response in Cyber Warfare - QSPARX