UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND17.2 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)

Proposal Submission Instructions

 Introduction: 

The United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) seeks small businesses with strong research and development capabilities to pursue and commercialize technologies needed by Special Operations Forces (SOF).  The USSOCOM Program Executive Officers (PEOs) submitted the topics to the USSOCOM SBIR Program Manager (PM) as topics that may transition to an acquisition Program of Record or Concept of Operation.  In turn, the USSOCOM SBIR PM submitted the topics to the Department of Defense (DoD) for inclusion in the DoD 17.2 SBIR announcement.

A thorough reading of the “U.S. Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program: Program Announcement FY 17.2” prior to reading these USSOCOM instructions is highly recommended. These USSOCOM instructions explain certain unique aspects of the USSOCOM SBIR Program that differ from the DoD announcement and its instructions. Technical Inquiries: 

During the Pre-release Period of the DoD 17.2 SBIR Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), any questions should be limited to specific information that improves the understanding of a particular topic's requirements. All questions must be submitted in writing either by email to sbir@socom.mil (if the question(s) includes company sensitive information not to be released to the general public) or to the online SBIR/STTR Interactive Topic Information System (questions and answers will be released to the general public). USSOCOM does not allow inquirers to talk directly or communicate in any other manner to the topic authors (differs from Section 4.15.c. of the DoD 17.2 SBIR Program Announcement instructions). All inquiries must include the topic number in the subject line of the e-mail.

During the Open Period, follow the instructions in section 4.15.d of the DoD 17.2 SBIR BAA instructions.

Site visits will not be permitted during the Pre-release and Open Periods of the DoD 17.2 SBIR BAA.

Phase I Proposal Submission: 

Potential Offerors shall submit Phase I proposals in accordance with the DoD 17.2 SBIR BAA.

Companies submitting a Phase I proposal under this BAA must complete the Cost Volume using the on-line form, within a total cost not to exceed $150,000 over a period of up to six months.

Phase I proposals shall NOT include:1) Travel expenses to USSOCOM. Phase I Kick-Off and Phase I Out-Brief Meetings will be

conducted via electronic media only. 2) Priced or Unpriced Options.3) Discretionary Technical Assistance.4) A Technical Volume exceeding 20 pages. USSOCOM will only evaluate the first 20 pages of the

Technical Volume. Additional pages will not be considered or evaluated.

USSOCOM - 1

Phase II Proposal Submission:

Small business concerns awarded a Phase I contract may choose to submit a Phase II proposal no later than thirty (30) calendar days following the end of the Phase I contract.  Submission of a Phase II proposal is not included as part of the Phase I contract. 

Potential Offerors shall submit Phase II proposals in accordance with Section 5.0, specifically the format and content instructions located in Section 5.4, of the DoD 17.2 SBIR BAA via the following link https://sbir.defensebusiness.org.  Offerors must also complete the cost volume using the Cost Proposal Form posted on the USSOCOM section of the submission site. Offerors can contact the SBIR Help Desk at SBIRHelp@ByteCubed.com or 1-800-348-0787 for assistance in obtaining the Cost Proposal Form. The Cost Proposal information (PDF format) shall be appended to and submitted with the Phase II Technical Volume. The Excel format of the Cost Proposal shall be submitted to sbir@socom.mil. The Technical Volume shall not exceed 20 pages. USSOCOM will only evaluate the first 20 pages of the Technical Volume. Additional pages will not be considered or evaluated. The appended Cost Proposal does not count toward the 20-page Technical Volume limit, nor does the Company Commercialization Report.

USSOCOM does not provide Discretionary Technical Assistance in its Phase II awards.

Phase I and II Evaluations:

USSOCOM evaluates Phase I and II proposals using the evaluation criteria specified in sections 6.0 and 8.0 of the DoD 17.2 SBIR BAA.

For Phase I only, USSOCOM will evaluate price as follows: 1) Proposals priced in excess of $150,000.00 will not be considered for award. 2) The appropriateness and reasonableness of the proposed price will only be evaluated on those

proposals recommended for award based on the non-price evaluation criteria identified in Section 6.0 of the DoD 17.2 SBIR BAA.

Additionally, input on technical aspects of the proposals may be solicited by USSOCOM from non-Government consultants and advisors who are bound by appropriate non-disclosure requirements.  Non-Government personnel will not establish final assessments of risk, rate, or rank Offeror’s proposals.  These advisors are expressly prohibited from competing for USSOCOM SBIR awards.  All administrative support contractors, consultants, and advisors having access to any proprietary data will certify that they will not disclose any information pertaining to this announcement, including any submission, the identity of any submitters, or any other information relative to this announcement; and shall certify that they have no financial interest in any submission. Submissions and information received in response to this announcement constitutes the Offeror’s permission to disclose that information to administrative support contractors and non-Government consultants and advisors.

Selection Notifications:

E-mail will be used by the Government Contracting Officer to notify the Offeror if they have or have not been selected for award. The e-mail notification will only be sent to the Corporate Official (Business) identified by the offeror.

USSOCOM - 2

Informal Feedback:

A non-selected Offeror can make a written request, within 30 calendar days of receipt of notification of non-selection, for informal feedback. USSOCOM will provide informal feedback within 30 calendar days of an Offeror’s written request rather than a debriefing as specified in paragraph 4.10, entitled "Debriefing," of the DoD 17.2 SBIR announcement.

Foreign Nationals (Foreign Citizens): 

The definition of a foreign national is included in Section 3.4 of the DoD 17.2 SBIR Program Announcement.  Consistent with Section 5.4.c. (8) of the DoD 17.2 Program Announcement, the Offeror shall identify all foreign nationals expected to be involved with the USSOCOM Phase I or Phase II effort to include each foreign national’s country of origin and level of involvement (identify specific tasks). The Offeror shall identify all foreign nationals in the appropriate section of the proposal.  The USSOCOM SBIR Program oftentimes pursues technologies that require companies to complete the DoD Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) to protect sensitive Government Furnished Property and Government Furnished Information during the Phase II period of performance.   The identification of foreign national involvement in a USSOCOM SBIR topic is needed to determine if a firm is ineligible for award on a USSOCOM topic that falls within the parameters of the United States Munitions List, Part 121 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR). A firm employing a foreign national(s) (as defined in paragraph 3.4 entitled “Foreign Nationals” of the DoD 17.2 SBIR Announcement to work on a USSOCOM ITAR topic must possess an export license to receive a SBIR Phase I or Phase II contract.

 USSOCOM SBIR Program Point of Contact:

Inquiries concerning the USSOCOM SBIR Program should be addressed to sbir@socom.mil.

USSOCOM - 3

USSOCOM SBIR 17.2 Topic Index

SOCOM172-001 Canine Response InhibitorsSOCOM172-002 Enhanced Canine Performance, Protection and SurvivabilitySOCOM172-003 Foreign Like Weapon Production CapabilitySOCOM172-004 Group 1 (<20 pounds) Unmanned Aerial System for Special Operations Forces Tactical-

Level Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance OperationsSOCOM172-005 Group 2 (<55lbs) Unmanned Aerial System for Special Operations Forces Tactical-Level

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance OperationsSOCOM172-006 High Accuracy Mortar Fire Control System

USSOCOM - 4

USSOCOM SBIR 17.2 Topic Descriptions

SOCOM172-001 TITLE: Canine Response Inhibitors

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Biomedical

OBJECTIVE: Develop response inhibitors for adversarial domesticated and feral canines to preclude operators from having to temporarily move from an objective area.

DESCRIPTION: Special Operations Forces must be able to walk or run undetected through rural and urban areas without alerting adversarial domesticated and feral canines. Advance, remote delivery of effects to inhibit response or deter canines from the area will increase unit effectiveness and reduce the possibility of compromise.

The goal of this technology pursuit is to develop innovative Canine Response Inhibitors such as sound, light, scent or a combination of these effects that will reduce or eliminate the ability of an adversarial canine to detect operators moving through an area. The inhibitors can be permanent or temporary. Canine Response Inhibitors cannot be observable by human inhabitants in the area where used. Acceptable Canine Response Inhibitors include but are not limited to the following:• Inhibit barking, howling and whining• Inhibit hearing• Inhibit vision• Inhibit scent• Induce unconsciousness• Induce movement away from the area where the effects are deployed

The Canine Response Inhibitors must be safe to humans or be mitigated using personal protective equipment and be effective for a minimum of thirty (30) minutes. The preferred Canine Response Inhibitors will not cause death.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to determine if innovative Canine Response Inhibitors described in the above paragraph titled “Description” can be developed. The feasibility study should include analysis to determine what is in the art of the possible to inhibit the detection and alerting of adversarial canines and/or cause canines to move away from an area. The feasibility study shall also investigate the ability to remotely deliver the Canine Response Inhibitors and the scale-up potential of the Canine Response Inhibitors and delivery methods.

The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study 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 known 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 and demonstrate the Canine Response Inhibitors determined to be the most feasible solution during the Phase I feasibility study.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Large scale production and delivery methodologies will be determined to support effects and deployment requirements. The Canine Response Inhibitors will have potential commercial applications outside of USSOCOM for law enforcement applications. Various Government and state agencies that encounter adversary canines would also benefit from Canine Response Inhibitors of this nature.

USSOCOM - 5

REFERENCES:1. “Context Specificity of Inhibitory Control in Dogs”: Emily E. Bray, Evan L. MacLean, Brian A. Hare. http://evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu/sites/evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu/files/site-images/context-specificty-of-inhibitory-control-in-dogs-bray-et-al-201

2. “Increasing Arousal Enhances Inhibitory Control in Calm but Not Excitable Dogs”: Emily E. Bray, Evan L. MacLean, Brian A. Hare;https://evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu/sites/evolutionaryanthropology.duke.edu/files/file-attachments/Increasing%20arousal%20enhanc

KEYWORDS: Dogs, Inhibitory Control, Canine, Cognition

SOCOM172-002 TITLE: Enhanced Canine Performance, Protection and Survivability

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Biomedical

OBJECTIVE: Develop novel nutraceutical and/or pharmaceuticals to enhance important USSOCOM Multi-Purpose Canine (MPC) performance attributes that optimize their performance, improve recovery time when wounded and increase their survivability.

DESCRIPTION: The optimization of an MPC’s ability to perform at very high levels for long durations and to process the operational environment under high levels of stress and distraction will significantly improve their operational effectiveness and recovery. The goal of this technology pursuit is to develop innovative nutraceutical and/or pharmaceutical compounds that will optimize the performance, improve recovery time and increase the survivability of MPCs by:• Increasing endurance• Improving ability to regulate body temperature• Improving hydration• Improving acclimatization to acute extremes in temperature, altitude, and/or time zone changes• Increase the speed of recovery from strenuous work• Improving hearing• Improving vision• Improving scent• Decreasing adverse effects and increase surviving trauma due to loss of a high volume of blood loss

The nutraceutical and/or pharmaceuticals must be safe, affordable and easily administered.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to optimize the capabilities of the proposed nutraceutical and/or pharmaceuticals to meet the canine performance enhancements described in the above paragraph titled “Description”. The feasibility study should include both in vitro and/or in vivo (e.g. rodents or mice) studies to determine what is in the art of the possible to enhance the performance attributes of the USSOCOM MPC’s. The feasibility study shall also investigate the stability and scale-up potential of the nutraceutical and/or pharmaceuticals as well as to optimize the performance or performance markers observed during the feasibility studies.

The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study 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 known 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.

USSOCOM - 6

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: Conduct a proof of concept. Develop and demonstrate a prototype determined to be the most feasible solution during the Phase I feasibility study. Acute toxicology testing will be performed using at least two species (with one of the species being canines) to determine safety. Additionally, tests will be conducted to validate the optimized properties of proposed nutraceutical and/or pharmaceuticals. Baseline and optimized canine test subjects will be assessed and documented on specific abilities such as, but not limited to: endurance, blood flow, muscle fatigue, recovery, vision, hearing, cognitive processing, and trauma survivability. Phase II will result in a Business Plan to describe the plan to develop and produce the nutraceutical and/or pharmaceuticals.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: A larger canine study will be conducted to assess and validate the toxicology and performance optimization abilities of the nutraceutical and/or pharmaceuticals. Large scale production and delivery methodologies will also be determined to support nutraceutical and/or pharmaceuticals deployment requirements.

The nutraceutical and/or pharmaceuticals will have potential commercial applications outside of USSOCOM in the sporting, hunting, and agility applications. Various Government and state agencies with canine units would also benefit from nutraceutical and/or pharmaceuticals of this nature.

REFERENCES:1. Diverio S1, Guelfi G2, Barbato O2, Di Mari W3, Egidi MG4, Santoro MM4. Non-invasive assessment of animal exercise stress: real-time PCR of GLUT4, COX2, SOD1 and HSP70 in avalanche military dog saliva. Animal. 2015 Jan;9(1):104-9. doi: 10.1017/S1751731114002304. Epub 2014 Sep 23. https://www.nc

2. Huntingford JL1, Kirn BN2, Cramer K2, Mann S3, Wakshlag JJ4. Evaluation of a performance enhancing supplement in American Foxhounds during eventing. J Nutr Sci. 2014 Sep 25;3:e24. doi: 10.1017/jns.2014.38. eCollection 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4473135/

3. de Godoy MR1, Beloshapka AN1, Carter RA2, Fascetti AJ3, Yu Z3, McIntosh BJ4, Swanson KS5, Buff PR2. Acute changes in blood metabolites and amino acid profile post-exercise in Foxhound dogs fed a high endurance formula. J Nutr Sci. 2014 Sep 30;3:e33. doi: 10.1017/jns.2014.46. eCollection 2014.

4. Zanghi B1, Middleton R2, Reynolds A. Effects of post exercise feeding of a supplemental carbohydrate and protein bar with or without astaxanthin from Haematococcus pluvialis to exercise-conditioned dogs. 2014 Sep 22, AJVR, Vol 76, No 4, April 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25815575

5. Nogueiras R1, Habegger KM2, Chaudhary N3, Finan B4, Banks AS5, Dietrich MO6, Horvath TL7, Sinclair DA8, Pfluger PT9, Tschöp MH10. Physiol. Sirtuin 1 and sirtuin 3: physiological modulators of metabolism. Rev. 2012 Jul; 92(3):1479-514. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00022.2011. Review. PMID: 22811431. ht

6. Yang H1, Yang T2, Baur JA3, Perez E4, Matsui T5, Carmona JJ6, Lamming DW7, Souza-Pinto NC8, Bohr VA9, Rosenzweig A10, de Cabo R11, Sauve AA12, Sinclair DA13. Nutrient-sensitive mitochondrial NAD+ levels dictate cell survival. Cell. 2007 Sep 21; 130(6):1095-107. PMID: 17889652. https://www.ncbi

KEYWORDS: Canine, Performance, Endurance, Trauma, Nutraceutical, Pharmaceutical

SOCOM172-003 TITLE: Foreign Like Weapon Production Capability

USSOCOM - 7

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Materials/Processes, Weapons

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 Announcement.

OBJECTIVE: Develop an innovative domestic capability to produce fully functioning facsimiles of foreign made weapons that are equal to or better than what is currently being produced internationally.

DESCRIPTION: For decades surrogate forces and allies have depended on foreign made weapons which are used in conflicts around the world. USSOCOM intermittently supplies surrogate forces and allies with foreign made weapons from international intermediaries. These foreign made weapons lack interchangeability and standardization which hinders field and depot level part replacement. Developing a domestic production capability for foreign like weapons addresses these issues while being cost effective as well as strengthens the nation’s military-industrial complex, ensures a reliable and secure supply chain, and reduces acquisition lead times.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraph entitled “Description.” As a part of this feasibility study, proposers shall address all viable system design options with respective specifications to reverse engineer or reengineer and domestically produce the following foreign like weapons: 7.62×54R belt fed light machine gun that resembles a PKM (Pulemyot Kalashnikova Modernizirovany), and a 12.7×108mm heavy machine gun that resembles a Russian designed NSV (Nikitin, Sokolov, Volkov). Hereafter, foreign like weapons is defined as a 7.62×54R belt fed machine gun and a 12.7×108mm heavy machine gun.

Offerors must describe their approach to replicate foreign made weapons and mass produce foreign like weapons with the same form, fit and function as the foreign made weapon counterpart. The approach must describe all facets of design to production to include the actions, activities and processes necessary to: 1) develop drawings and specifications to replicate foreign weapons, 2) acquire and manufacture materials and parts, 3) bring together a production capability, and 4) develop methods for testing and evaluating the manufactured weapon to drawings and specifications. The approach shall also address the manufacture of spare parts to support fielded weapons.

The approach shall describe how the offeror will employ only domestic labor, acquire domestically produced material and parts, and ensure weapon manufacture and assembly in domestic facilities. Domestic is defined as the fifty United States (US), Washington, DC, US territories and US possessions. Offers will not be considered if the offeror includes one or more of the following that are not acquired, hired, produced, manufactured, assembled or utilized domestically: labor, materials, parts, weapons, and manufacturing facilities.

The Government will not supply or make available for review any drawings, such as Technical Development Drawings (TDP) or Technical Production Drawings (TPD). Such drawings will be produced as part of Phase II.

The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study 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 known 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, laboratory studies, and manufacturing processes 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: Demonstrate a production readiness, capability, and capacity to achieve precision manufacturing of foreign like weapons to Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) 7.

USSOCOM - 8

The demonstration involves providing conclusive substantiation of the proposer’s ability to maintain production cost, schedule, and performance. Proposers will be required to demonstrate their capability and capacity to produce foreign like weapons by describing how they cost out production weapons, develop and deliver TPD and TDP for each weapon, bring together effective production processes, acquire and maintain necessary tooling, reconfigure or assemble a production line to accommodate the production of the various foreign like weapon types, disassemble the production line and restart the program (if necessary), and scale production to account for varying order sizes. Proof of concept will be demonstrated by building to TDP specifications and delivery of five fully functional prototypes, to include firing of live ammunition, of a foreign like weapon that resembles the form, fit, and function of a Russian designed NSV 12.7×108mm heavy machine gun.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Assemble a production capability to supply the US Government with foreign like weapons for use by surrogate and allied forces.

REFERENCES:1. MIL-STD-810G titled “Department of Defense Test Method Standard: Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Tests – Thermal Shock Chambers,” Revision G, dated 31 October 2008. http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-0800-0899/MIL-STD-810G_12306/

2. AECTP-100 (ED 3) titled “Environmental Guidelines for Defense Materiel,” Edition 3, dated January 2006; http://everyspec.com/NATO/NATO-AECTP/AECTP-100-3_3977/

3. Test Operation Procedure (TOP)-3-2-045 titled “Test Operations Procedure: Small Arms - Hand and Shoulder Weapons and Machineguns”; dated 17 September 2007; http://everyspec.com/ARMY/Test-Operations-Procedure/TOP-3-2-045_32068/

4. MIL-STD-1474E titled “Department of Defense Design Criteria Standard: Noise Limits”, Version E, dated 15 April 2015; http://everyspec.com/MIL-STD/MIL-STD-1400-1499/MIL-STD-1474E_52224/

5. Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 03-2-504A titled “Safety Evaluation of Small Arms and Medium Caliber Weapons,” dated 29 May 2013: www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA587409

6. “The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering,” Volume 111, Number 7, May 2002, by Pamela Samuelson and Suzanne Scotchmer: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/the-law-and-economics-of-reverse-engineering

7. MIL-HDBK-115C titled “Department of Defense Handbook: US Army Reverse Engineering Handbook (Guidelines and Procedures)”, Revision C, dated 21 March 2016: http://everyspec.com/MIL-HDBK/MIL-HDBK-0099-0199/MIL-HDBK-115C_54170/

KEYWORDS: Fire Arms, Weapons, Engineering Manufacturing, Production, Foreign Weapons

SOCOM172-004 TITLE: Group 1 (<20 pounds) Unmanned Aerial System for Special Operations Forces Tactical-Level Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Operations

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform, Sensors

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to develop innovative Group 1 (< 20 pounds) Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) to satisfy intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability gaps that support United States Army Special Operations Forces missions.

DESCRIPTION: This topic is seeking innovative proposals for Group 1 UAS (< 20 pounds) with respect to air vehicle development (fixed or rotary wing) and non-lethal, external payload-carrying capacity/delivery mechanism

USSOCOM - 9

development. This topic effort is not seeking to develop a new intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sensor per se, rather, emphasis is placed on developing the air vehicle itself and its corresponding external payload-carrying capacity (i.e., the ability to pick and up deliver a box/non-lethal item). An electro-optical/infra-red sensor is required as part of this topic and a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf solution meeting the performance specifications listed below may be deemed acceptable. However, any Commercial-Off-The-Shelf hardware included as part of the system may not be built or owned by a foreign entity. Systems must support operations including, but not limited to, Operational Preparation of the Environment, Advance Force Operations, and Intelligence Operations to shape ongoing operations and to set the conditions for future operations. Proposals should address the following functions: situational awareness tools, sensor employment devices, equipment delivery and recovery, and short-range reconnaissance.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraph entitled “Description.” As a part of this feasibility study, proposers shall address all viable overall system design options and seek to achieve as close as possible, the following objective (O) performance parameter specifications {minimum threshold (T) parameters included where required}:

1. Mission Range (How far the UAS can travel in one direction and return): O=10 kilometers.

2. Time on Station (How long the UAS can remain on-station at max range with maximum payload weight at density altitude up to 6000 feet Mean Sea Level): O=5 hours.

3. System Transport (How this system is moved or transported): O =1 man portable.

4. Manning (Number of personnel required to operate the UAS): O =1 person.

5. Weight (Total weight of UAS including any payload): T=20 pounds (air vehicle + payload) / O= <3lbs (air vehicle only).

6. Mission Payload Capacity (Amount of weight the UAS can effectively carry/transport): O=15 pounds.

7. Payload Delivery (Aircraft accuracy for the delivery of non-lethal payloads): O<= 1 meter of specified delivery location.

8. System Tracking (UAS can be tracked to provide situational awareness of the UAS real-time location): O= UAS location displayed on moving map application.

9. Flight Controls: UAS shall have the ability to be flown/payloads controlled via two independent users.

10. Command and Control Link: (The UAS shall be controlled through user specified and selectable protocols): T=Platform specific protocol/O=Threshold plus military standard protocols and commercially available civilian protocols, Iridium short burst data wave relay or a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf similar solution.

11. Payload Modularity: UAS should be capable of having external payloads changed on an as-required basis.

12. Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) Full-Motion-Video: The UAS shall maintain an Electro-Optical and Infra-Red Full-Motion-Video capability to identify dismounts carrying small arms (Video-National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scale 7) and activity while maintaining acoustic and visual signature requirements.

13. Audio/Visual Signature: The UAS must be capable of maintaining an altitude and standoff distance that is not acoustically or visually detectable by unaided human senses in remote open areas while meeting Electro-Optical/Infra-Red requirements.

14. System Power: The UAS shall have a removable electrical power system (battery) directly supplying the system.

15. Set-up and Pack-up Time (The UAS shall be able to be unpacked and ready-to-launch in an expeditious manner.

USSOCOM - 10

The UAS shall be able to be packed-up and ready to move out rapidly upon completion of flight operations): O=10 minutes or less.

16. System Security (UAS shall be capable of deleting all critical data if lost): T=delete flight and Command and Control data/O=zeroize all memory stored on UAS.

17. Command and Control Link Security (System should be capable of employing Low Probability of Intercept/Low Probability of Detection command and control links): O=Frequency Hopping Command and Control link.

The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study 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 known 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 and demonstrate four (4) unmanned aerial prototype systems (System = Ground Station Controller and three (3) Air Vehicles with sensors) determined to be the most feasible solution during the Phase I feasibility study on a Group 1 UAS for tactical-level intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This system could be used in a broad range of military applications at the tactical level (platoon-sized element and smaller) where a Group 1 UAS would provide critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities without reliance on larger, strategic intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms.

REFERENCES:1. “Unmanned Aircraft System Airspace Integration Plan,” Department of Defense, Version 2.0, March 2011. <http://www.acq.osd.mil/sts/docs/DoD_2011_UAS_Airspace_Integration_Plan_(signed).pdf>.

2. “Video-National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scale” – Published by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency-Motion Imagery Standards Board, 27 February 2014. <http://www.gwg.nga.mil/misb/docs/standards/ST0901.2.pdf>.

KEYWORDS: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Unmanned Aerial Systems, UAV, SUAV, UAS

SOCOM172-005 TITLE: Group 2 (<55lbs) Unmanned Aerial System for Special Operations Forces Tactical-Level Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Operations

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Air Platform, Sensors

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to develop innovative Group 2 (< 55 lbs.) Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) to satisfy intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability gaps that support United States Army Special Operations Forces missions.

DESCRIPTION: This topic is seeking innovative proposals for Group 2 UAS (< 55 lbs.) with respect to air vehicle development (fixed or rotary wing) and non-lethal, external payload-carrying capacity/delivery mechanism development. This topic effort is not seeking to develop a new intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sensor

USSOCOM - 11

per se, rather, emphasis is placed on developing the air vehicle itself and its corresponding external payload-carrying capacity (i.e., the ability to pick and up deliver a box/non-lethal item). An electro-optical/infra-red sensor is required as part of this topic and a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf solution meeting the performance specifications listed below may be deemed acceptable. However, any Commercial-Off-The-Shelf hardware included as part of the system may not be built or owned by a foreign entity. Systems must support operations including, but not limited to, Operational Preparation of the Environment, Advance Force Operations, and Intelligence Operations to shape ongoing operations and to set the conditions for future operations. Proposals should address the following functions: situational awareness tools, sensor employment devices, equipment delivery and recovery, and short-range reconnaissance.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to assess what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraph entitled “Description.” As a part of this feasibility study, proposers shall address all viable overall system design options and seek to achieve as close as possible, the following objective (O) performance parameter specifications {minimum threshold (T) parameters included where required}:

1. Mission Range (How far the UAS can travel in one direction and return): O=150 kilometers.

2. Time on Station (How long the UAS can remain on-station at max range with maximum payload weight at density altitude up to 6000 feet Mean Sea Level): O=10 hours.

3. System Transport (How this system is moved or transported): O =1 man portable.

4. Manning (Number of personnel required to operate the UAS): O =1 person.

5. Weight (Total weight of UAS including any payload): T=55 pounds (air vehicle + payload) / O= <20lbs (air vehicle only).

6. Mission Payload Capacity (Amount of weight the UAS can effectively carry/transport): O=50lbs.

7. Payload Delivery (Aircraft accuracy for the delivery of non-lethal payloads): O<= 1 meter of specified delivery location.

8. System Tracking (UAS can be tracked to provide situational awareness of the UAS real-time location): O= UAS location displayed on moving map application.

9. Flight Controls: UAS shall have the ability to be flown/payloads controlled via two independent users.

10. Command and Control Link: (The UAS shall be controlled through user specified and selectable protocols): T=Platform specific protocol/O=Threshold plus military standard protocols and commercially available civilian protocols, Iridium short burst data wave relay or a Commercial-Off-The-Shelf similar solution.

11. Payload Modularity: UAS should be capable of having external payloads changed on an as-required basis.

12. Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) Full-Motion-Video: The UAS shall maintain an Electro-Optical and Infra-Red Full-Motion-Video capability to identify dismounts carrying small arms (Video-National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scale 7) and activity while maintaining acoustic and visual signature requirements.

13. Audio/Visual Signature: The UAS must be capable of maintaining an altitude and standoff distance that is not acoustically or visually detectable by unaided human senses in remote open areas while meeting Electro-Optical/Infra-Red requirements.

14. System Power: The UAS shall have a removable electrical power system (battery) directly supplying the system.

15. Set-up and Pack-up Time (The UAS shall be able to be unpacked and ready-to-launch in an expeditious manner. The UAS shall be able to be packed-up and ready to move out rapidly upon completion of flight operations): O=10

USSOCOM - 12

minutes or less.

16. System Security (UAS shall be capable of deleting all critical data if lost): T=delete flight and Command and Control data/O=zeroize all memory stored on UAS.

17. Command and Control Link Security (System should be capable of employing Low Probability of Intercept/Low Probability of Detection command and control links): O=Frequency Hopping C2 link.

The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study 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 known 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 and demonstrate four (4) unmanned aerial prototype systems (System = Ground Station Controller and three (3) Air Vehicles with sensors) determined to be the most feasible solution during the Phase I feasibility study on a Group 2 UAS for tactical-level intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: This system could be used in a broad range of military applications at the tactical level (platoon-sized element and smaller) where a Group 2 UAS would provide critical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities without reliance on larger, strategic intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms.

REFERENCES:1. “Unmanned Aircraft System Airspace Integration Plan,” Department of Defense, Version 2.0, March 2011. <http://www.acq.osd.mil/sts/docs/DoD_2011_UAS_Airspace_Integration_Plan_(signed).pdf>.

2. “Video-National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scale” – Published by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency-Motion Imagery Standards Board, 27 February 2014. <http://www.gwg.nga.mil/misb/docs/standards/ST0901.2.pdf>.

KEYWORDS: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Unmanned Aerial Systems, UAV, SUAV, UAS

SOCOM172-006 TITLE: High Accuracy Mortar Fire Control System

TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Weapons

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 Announcement.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this topic is to develop innovative technologies that increase the probability of a first round hit or effects on target with a standard 60mm, 81mm or 120mm mortar tube; using standard munitions and charges; out to the maximum effective range of the weapon system. Focus will be on an easy to operate, self-

USSOCOM - 13

contained suite of sensors and computational power mounted to the weapon.

DESCRIPTION: Mortar systems are widely used within the Special Operations Force to provide organic fire support due to their light weight, low cost, and maneuvablility characteristics. However, aiming systems for mortars have remained largely unchanged over the last 60 years. Recent developments in ballistic microprocessors, positioning systems, and direction measurement offer an opportunity to greatly improve the first round effectiveness across the family of mortars with little or no modification to the existing systems. The envisioned aiming system will operate day and night and very accurately measure the primary variables of a ballistic calculation including elevation, azimuth orientation and cant angle of the barrel and the local environmental conditions, including temperature, barometric pressure and humidity. The system should accept gunner inputs, either via manual input or direct digital input of the target position and wind conditions. The system will combine measured data and gunner inputs with the data from known firing tables of existing munitions and charges to provide the required barrel orientation adjustments to engage the target. System should provide a firing solution in either direct lay, with gunner measured range and bearing to the target; or in indirect lay with target coordinates provided by a forward observer. The ultimate objective of this development effort is a system that will provide high accuracy of fire with minimal system set up and minimum information (or variables) the gunner has to track during the engagement sequence.

PHASE I: Conduct a feasibility study to determine what is in the art of the possible that satisfies the requirements specified in the above paragraph entitled “Description”. Conduct market analysis and design studies, and cost analysis to provide an initial system design that minimizes weight, withstands the shock loads associated with extended usage, is simple to operate and has low manufacturing risk. Conduct laboratory evaluations to predict expected accuracy and durability of the proposed design. The results of Phase I will be a detail technical report of analysis completed. The objective of this USSOCOM Phase I SBIR effort is to conduct and document the results of a thorough feasibility study 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 known 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, laboratory studies, and manufacturing processes 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: Demonstrate that what was determined to be feasible in Phase I can be brought into reality. Based on the results and recommendations generated during Phase I, produce full functioning prototypes and test those systems in a simulated operational environment. Modify design as necessary based on test results and retest. The final deliverable of Phase II will be a sufficient quantity of prototypes, with improvements incorporated to conduct an operational evaluation and a report of all test activities, findings and corrective actions.

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: The prototype systems delivered during Phase II will be formally evaluated during a structured Combat Evaluation which will include transition planning. While the primary application for this technology will be all the Services within the Department of Defense that use a mortar system, it would also be highly desirable to United States allies. Additionally, commercial applications could include mortar based line delivery and avalanche prevention systems.

REFERENCES:1. Army Field Manual 3-22.90 titled “Mortars,” Department of the Army, dated December 2007. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-90/fm3-22-90.pdf

USSOCOM - 14

2. Army Field Manual 3-22.91 titled “Mortar Fire Direction Procedures,” Department of the Army, dated July 2008. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-91/fm3-22-91.pdf

KEYWORDS: Mortar, Fire Control, MEMS, Laser Range Finder, GPS, North Finding, Targeting, Ballistics

USSOCOM - 15