Submit your commercial solutions to solve national security challenges with the help from DIU.

Problem Statement

To maintain superiority in the evolving maritime domain, the U.S. Navy seeks to enhance the warfighting capabilities of its next-generation surface destroyers. These vessels must remain adaptable and lethal against both conventional and asymmetric threats.

Achieving this requires a compact, lightweight, and highly efficient power generation system capable of supporting increasingly demanding high-power electrical loads, such as advanced sensors, directed energy weapons, and propulsion systems. A transformative power and propulsion architecture is essential to meet these operational and technical demands.

Surface Ship Attributes:

• Length Between Perpendiculars: 160 – 180 meters
• Beam Overall: 22 – 25 meters
• Full Load Displacement: 13 – 15K tonnes
• Maximum Speed: 30+ Knots
• Endurance Speed: 16 Knots
• Up to 40MW of Electrical power generation, in excess of ship service requirements at 16 knots
• Increased range, time-on-station, and reduction in annual fuel-burn over legacy Navy destroyers

Desired Solution

The Navy seeks proven Integrated Power System technology to inform and de-risk power and propulsion design for the next generation Navy destroyer. Solution providers selected for prototype should expect to deliver a software-based Integrated Power and Propulsion (IPS) architecture model and ship IPS test assets to the Navy’s land-based testing facility.

Power and propulsion architecture proposals must incorporate integrated power distribution capabilities to support the full range of mission demands to include propulsion, power generation and distribution, auxiliary and damage control systems, combat systems, and energy storage. Solution architectures should account for power quality management, dark ship mitigation, casualty power, and electric start for proposed engine types.

All proposed solutions must be capable of conforming to applicable Navy maritime (or equivalent commercial) standards for safety, performance, and environmental conditions. In early prototyping, a “design to” work plan can be adopted, while physical testing and verification will be required in development phases to demonstrate compliance. Solutions must ultimately meet relevant shock, vibration, noise, EMI, enclosure, power, thermal management, and battery safety requirements as defined by authoritative military specifications and NAVSEA guidance.

Successful solutions should consider:

• Diesel Fuel Marine (DFM) will be the primary fuel source; Nuclear Power or Ammonia will not be considered
• Different motor and drive technologies to achieve ideal Integrated Power System (IPS) architecture
• Provision of a very high operational availability (Ao)
• Survivability with graceful degradation
• Signatures Performance (i.e. acoustic radiated noise, radar-cross section, and magnetic signature)
• Lifecycle and sustainment burden, as well as flexibility for future upgrades
• Secure supply chains for all components

Prototype

Execution Stage 1: Modeling and Simulation

Successful vendors will deliver a software-based system model compatible with the Navy’s preferred modeling & simulation software (Matlab Simulink, real-time compatible) utilizing real (not idealized or generic) vendor models of equipment. Models should characterize component-level and system-level performance (i.e. impedance characteristics, response to step and ramp inputs, behavior under extreme terminal conditions) and support system-level integration for the purpose of real time porting and Controller Hardware and Power Hardware-in-the loop (CHIL/PHIL) applications.

Execution Stage 2: Hardware in the loop evaluation

Select architectures will undergo land-based testing at Navy partner facilities. Prototype test assets to include commercial-off-the-shelf energy storage, generators, converters, control systems, propulsion motor drives (with load), mechanical systems, and other components as defined by the architecture modeled in Stage 1.

Problem Statement

The DoD is experiencing and projecting production bottlenecks for certain traditionally manufactured parts and platforms. This solicitation is seeking solutions to boost production capacity and remove production bottlenecks for cast metal parts used in high-performance aeronautical systems. The Government expects advanced manufacturing techniques that support high rate production, but is open to any novel methods which best achieve government goals such as, but not limited to: survivability, reliability, and affordability. The following information must be included in vendor submissions:

• Maximum part dimensions
• Material types and properties
• Suitability (including data collection, modeling, simulation, etc) for part certification/qualification
• Expected production rates and capacities for parts of at least 21 inches in diameter

Additional relevant details, such as tolerances, past project examples, etc may be included to further demonstrate capabilities.

Teaming/Partnerships

Vendors may submit partial solutions, however the Government strongly encourages teaming for responses to this Area of Interest if vendors are unable to propose complete solutions. As part of the selection process, the Government may seek to team companies with complementary solutions. Traditional defense contractors are reminded that under 10 U.S.C. § 4022, that if you do not qualify as a non-traditional company that the government will seek either a one-third cost share in the prototyping effort or that the proposal must demonstrate that significant work is being performed with a non-traditional partner. Selected vendors may be required to engage in partnerships with other vendors to achieve government objectives.

Awarding Instrument

This solicitation will be awarded in accordance with the Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) process detailed within HQ0845-20-S-C001 (DIU CSO), posted to SAM.gov on 13 Jan 2020, updated 02 Oct 2023. This document can be found at: https://sam.gov/opp/e74c907a9220429d9ea995a4e9a2ede6/view

Vendors are reminded that in order to utilize an Other Transaction (OT) agreement the requirements of 10 USC 4022 must be satisfied. Specifically reference 10 USC 4022(d), which requires significant contribution from a nontraditional defense contractor, all participants to be small business concerns, or at least one third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government.

Follow-on Production

Companies are advised that any prototype OT agreement awarded in response to this AOI may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of further competitive procedures. The follow-on production contract or transaction will be available for use by one or more organizations in the Department of Defense and, as a result, the magnitude of the follow-on production contract or agreement could be significantly larger than that of the prototype OT. As such, any prototype OT will include the following statement relative to the potential for follow-on production: "In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 4022(f), and upon a determination that the prototype project for this transaction has been successfully completed, this competitively awarded prototype OT may result in the award of a follow-on production contract or transaction without the use of competitive procedures.”

Area of Interest (AoI): Low Collateral Defeat Post date 05 May 2025 

Problem Statement: 

The proliferation of highly accessible Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), or drones, by both commercial and state actors raises complex security challenges to critical assets in the U.S. and around the world. These UAS increasingly operate in densely populated areas, in air space congested by commercial and recreational air traffic, and in an electromagnetic environment dominated by lawful users.   To meet the evolving challenges in countering UAS, the Department of Defense (DOD) must identify and employ Low Collateral Defeat (LCD) capabilities to protect high value assets from a range of threats including negligent, or uninformed drone operators -  to the malicious use of numerous platforms, capable of higher speeds, and utilizing rapidly evolving communications domestically. 

The DOD is seeking Low Collateral Defeat (LCD) solutions to counter group one and two small UAS in situations where friendly forces and/or civilians are in close proximity to the threat, or where local regulation does not allow for solutions that have broad range impact.   Low collateral defeat measures are specifically tailored to avoid harming innocent bystanders, structures, and other non-targeted assets, and are designed with precision and control requirements with high accuracy and extremely low probability of collateral damage.  Defeat is defined as neutralizing drone threats, and preventing them from achieving its intended objective, or mission, through disrupting, disabling, capturing, or destroying the threat. 

Low Collateral Defeat solutions must be scalable to many locations and integrate into existing Program of Record (POR) Counter small Unmanned Aerial Systems (CsUAS) with existing radars, cameras, library-based radio frequency detectors, jammers, and command and control across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and USMC.

This is a bilateral solicitation involving collaboration between the U.S. and UK. Submitted solutions will be assessed by both U.S. and UK government innovation teams with the aim of identifying potential vendors for suitability toward U.S. and UK defense applications. Please note the “Export Control” section of this AoI.

System Characteristics and Submission Requirements of Solution Briefs:

Below, outlines various groups of details from any submitted solutions briefs. Additionally, solutions must be capable of supporting a Low Collateral Defeat evaluation at a Govt identified test range within 60 days of receipt of a Prototype OTA award.

Physical and Performance Characteristics

As long as the solution is low-collateral, proposed solutions may be in, but are not restricted to, the below general categories:

Kinetic: To destroy or negate the ability of the threat sUAS to complete its mission through physical impact (i.e. low kinetic energy impact interceptor, low-collateral  ballistic projectiles).

Energy:  Localized,  non-kinetic incapacitation of the threat sUAS through the application of energy (i.e. coherent monochromatic light, electromagnetic radiation).  The use of electronic warfare systems to deny the enemies use of the threat small UAS  that are utilizing unknown or non-commercial controlled UAS  with the ability to degrade, neutralize, or destroy threat sUAS using novel Electronic Attack (EA) methods. EA solutions submitted cannot be only traditional Electronic Attack (receiver jamming/manipulation) nor can they only be library based.

Capture/Entanglement: The ability to seize, disrupt or physically disable an sUAS in-flight and deliver it to a safe location so that it can be rendered inert. 

Solutions briefs will describe the ability to address multiple, fast, or UAS that have nascent or non-commercial command and control to include no Radio control of UAS posing a threat.   Briefs should describe how the LCD effect mechanism or technology maximizes effect on targets while limiting impacts on protected high-value assets/infrastructure and surrounding civilian populations. 

Solutions briefs will identify the range that they will be able to defeat UAS. 

Solutions briefs will describe the Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) requirements and constraints of the LCD and identify if the solution can be utilized for fixed site operation and dismounted (mobile) operations.

Hardware/Software Integration

Solution briefs will describe the ability of the proposed LCD solution to integrate software and hardware components (including payloads) into existing traditional CsUAS POR systems utilized across the DoD.  This description must include cueing requirements (TSPI - time, space, position information) accuracy, update rates, etc. required for the effector to operate (if required). 

Solutions should employ a Modular Open Systems Architecture approach in order to rapidly integrate with current and future command and control architecture and components. 

The DoD prefers solutions that:

• Minimize the cost per defeat
• Do not rely on radio frequency library of commercially available drones to be effective
• Operates within existing CUAS policies for operation in the U.S (US Code 130i) and in the UK.
• Reduce operator burden (ex: leverages automatic target recognition (ATR) or automated functions) allowing a single operator to manage multiple engagements simultaneously
• Have an ability to affect multiple small UAS (salvos or swarms) in a single engagement. Identify the anticipated number of threats that could be neutralized.
• Have an ability to affect small UAS operating at high speeds and maneuvering dynamically 
• Solutions that can demonstrate 70%+ effectiveness to improve the percentage defeat rate for group 1 and 2 threats. 
  •  Additionally,  identify if the solution has the ability to defeat Group 3 threats.
• Solutions that have a reduced “time to defeat” meaning the time from target identification to defeat
• Solution that can engage at a greater range to enable decision space and time for operators to leverage additional effectors and options 
• Solutions that are capable of day and nighttime operations
• Capable of operating in varied environments from urban to austere tropical and frigid, and areas such as littoral environments (coastal).
• Do not require Precision Fire Control Quality track data, to avoid using high cost external sensors for cueing. 
• Able to mitigate or defeat small UAS equipped with collision avoidance sensing.
• Able to operate on unclassified or classified networks, and can be sanitized if required to operate temporarily on classified networks.
• Maintained and reset between missions by US Govt military or civilian personnel. 
• Solutions that can operate in a GPS-denied and an environment with electro-magnetic interference (EMI).

Existing Test and Evaluation Findings

Provide details on the precision, accuracy, and reliability of the proposed solution, number of tests conducted to date with your LCD solution, as well as any information about testing environments, production facilities, and projected production capacities.

Solution providers should expect to participate in shared testing events with other vendors, operators and government developers to rapidly iterate on solutions. Solutions providers may be asked to collaborate and/or participate in cross functional efforts that may exist under new or previously established contractual vehicles. 

If selected for prototype OTA,  vendors can anticipate a DoD sponsored evaluation within 60 days from award that will utilize Government Furnished Equipment (sensing) to provide tracks and identification of targets to their solution in order to demonstrate the solution’s ability to complete the kill chain and defeat targets.  

Regulatory Requirements and Teaming Considerations:

All solutions must be in compliance with the Fiscal Year 2024 NDAA Section 848, the Fiscal Year 2023 NDAA Section 817, the 2024 American Security Drone Act, and be able to meet a cyber-security evaluation conducted in accordance with DoD Instruction 8510.01 Risk Management Framework for DoD Systems.

Export Controls:

U.S. EAR:  Information sharing with the UK will be in accordance with the Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce's Interim Final Rule, dated April 19th, 2024, that removed export licensing requirements for 600 series items and missile technology from Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to the United Kingdom.

U.S. ITAR:  Information sharing with the UK will be in accordance with 22 CFR § 126.4, Transfers by or for the United States Government, paragraph (b), that removes the licensing requirement for the export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import of a defense article or the performance of a defense service, when made by another person for a department or agency of the U.S. Government. 

Submitted solutions from UK companies have export control relief from the General Export Authorisation No. 001 (Partner Countries). Consideration to further home nation export controls on technical information may apply to non U.S. based companies and should be considered when drafting solutions briefs that will be reviewed by U.S. and UK government teams.

Teaming solutions will be considered but all proposals need to address the stated area of interest holistically.  

We strongly recommend all proposals be formatted as presentations no more than 15 slides in length.