Replanning for Evasive Autonomy to Counter Threats

Status changed from Open to Closed after topic disappearance

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Questions Added (6):** - Q6: Government provides range/airspace access for flight testing - Q7: Prototype delivery to Edwards AFB is same asset as hardware demo - Q8: Hardware demo typically occurs in final quarter (Months 18–24) of 24-month period - Q10: A2E/FANTOM Futures architecture documentation provided as GFI - Q11: No preferred TAK variant; integration specs/API not provided as GFI - Q12: Clarified swarm agent parameters: Group 1-3 heterogeneous UAS with camera/IR sensors and SoC compute aligned to SWaP-C constraints **Renumbered Questions:** Original Q6–Q10 renumbered to Q9–Q13 (content unchanged, including CMMC Level 2 self-assessment clarification and template guidance) **Key Changes:** Flight testing logistics, prototype specifications, and swarm sensor/compute requirements now clarified. Government will provide GFI documentation and airspace support.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Question Added:** - Q6: Classification level expectations for feasibility study and Phase II deliverables — clarifies that work can and should be performed entirely at Unclassified/CUI level. **Renumbered Questions:** - Previous Q6 (templates guidance) → Now Q7 - Previous Q7 (hardware demonstration) → Now Q8 - Previous Q8 (Section K template) → Now Q9 - Previous Q9 (CMMC requirements) → Now Q10 - Previous Q10 (target detection scope) → Now Q11 **Key clarification added:** Classification guidance was a notable gap that is now addressed, confirming unclassified/CUI-level work is acceptable for this topic.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New questions added:** - Q1: Clarification on whether a Phase I SBIR previously existed for this opportunity - Q2: Format specifications for Feasibility Study submission - Q5: Whether feasibility evidence from licensed partner simulation/testbed environments satisfies Phase I requirements (with new emphasis that work must be performed and owned by offeror/PI) **Key clarification in updated answers:** - **Q5 (new)** adds critical data ownership requirement: "Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been performed and be owned (data rights) by the offeror and/or the Principal Investigator (PI)." This significantly restricts use of third-party simulation results. **Reorganization:** - Previous Q&A content consolidated and renumbered (9 original questions became 11 in updated version) - No substantive changes to previously answered questions; answers remain identical **Impact:** Primary change is stricter feasibility documentation requirements emphasizing offeror ownership and data rights for all submitted work.

# Q&A Changes Summary **Added 2 new questions:** - **Q1 (now renumbered):** Foreign national personnel restrictions – clarifies all SBIR R&D must be performed in the U.S., with strict controls on non-U.S. persons and mandatory export control compliance disclosure (ITAR/EAR). - **Q2 (now renumbered):** Third-party simulation documentation – requires sufficient technical documentation (methodology, validation approach) in feasibility submissions to substantiate simulation-based results. **Structural reorganization:** Previous Q&A entries (template guidance, demonstrations, Section K, CMMC, target detection, Commander's Intent/TAK integration) were renumbered Q3–Q8 but retain their original answers without material changes. **Key additions:** The new foreign national/ITAR guidance represents a compliance clarification not previously addressed. The simulation documentation requirement adds specificity to feasibility submission expectations.

**Key Changes to Q&A:** 1. **New Q2 added** – Clarifies hardware demonstration and prototype delivery requirements: demonstrations are contractor-led with Government participation at Kick-Off; travel not required; air vehicles/flight-test resources contractor-provided; VANGUARD demonstration is a transition requirement, not part of SOO. 2. **Q6 renumbered to Q7** – Previous Q6 (6-10 multi-part technical questions) retained without changes. 3. **Previous Q3-Q5 renumbered to Q3-Q5** – No substantive answer changes to Section K, CMMC requirements, or target detection scope.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Questions Added (3):** - Q1: Clarification on proposal templates for Direct-to-Phase II (DPII) submissions and Feasibility Appendix format - Q2: Section K (Reps & Certs) template location and submission requirements - Q3: CMMC Level 2 requirement clarification—self-assessment vs. C3PAO certification at award **Key Answers:** - Phase I Technical Volume template applies to both Phase I and DPII; no mandatory Feasibility Appendix template required - Section K will be provided by Contracting Officer post-award - CMMC Level 2 self-assessment required (Phase II certification suspended by DoD as of July 13, 2026) **Previous Q&As Retained:** Technical questions on multi-agent planning, utility functions, modeling frameworks, degraded communications, TAK integration, and Phase II performance metrics remain unchanged.

Status changed from Pre-Release to Open

**NEW Q&A ADDED:** Q1 (new): Clarifies that target detection, classification, identification, and terminal-approach guidance are NOT required deliverables—proposers should treat these as inputs from existing Government or third-party capabilities. Focus should be on multi-agent planning capabilities only. **KEY CHANGE:** This significantly narrows the scope and reduces development burden by explicitly excluding sensor-to-engagement pipeline tasks.

# Q&A Changes Summary **New Questions Added (9 total):** - Questions 6-10 added comprehensive guidance on utility function design, modeling frameworks, degraded communications assumptions, simulation/integration artifacts, and performance metrics - Questions 1-5 added clarification on Direct-to-Phase-II maturity requirements, operational scenarios, swarm composition, platform constraints, and threat models **Previously Incomplete Answers Now Completed:** - Q1 A1: Now specifies Indo-Pacific scenario assumptions (GPS-denied, kinetic/non-kinetic threats, swarm survivability) - Q3 A1: Now clarifies TAK integration is **required by end of performance period** (previously blank) **Key Technical Clarifications:** - Utility function should be **operator-adjustable weighted combination** (mission success, survivability, target custody) - Proposers must **recommend framework and justify transition path** rather than use prescribed one - Must handle **GPS denial, comms degradation, latency, message loss, network partitioning** - Solutions should target **heterogeneous Group 1-3 platforms, low-cost/attritable, 10-20 mile line-of-sight comms** - Minimum prior evidence: **simulation results or multi-agent autonomy testing** - Focus scenario: **Maritime Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess** (100+ NM offshore)

**Key Changes to Q&A:** - Added 3 new substantive questions about Commander's Intent timing, Direct to Phase II feasibility requirements, and integration expectations with TAK/A2E FANTOM - Q1 and Q3 answers remain incomplete (no substantive response provided) - Q2 answer redirects to official DoD/SBA policy documents rather than providing direct guidance - Reorganized existing Q&As; simulation environment and format questions moved to Q2-Q4 with unchanged answers

Added 1 new Q&A clarifying simulation environment selection: Government approved modeling frameworks are acceptable; simulators must validate multi-agent planner performance against threats with reasonable real-world generalization and test-time visualization capability. No specific preferred environments mandated.

This Q&A clarifies that applicants for Topic SOC26BZ04-DV005 Direct to Phase II submissions must consult the USSOCOM Specific Instructions and Technical Volume (Appendix A) on the portal for detailed formatting requirements, page limits, and any SOCOM-specific proposal guidelines beyond standard DoD SBIR/STTR instructions.

New opportunity: Replanning for Evasive Autonomy to Counter Threats