DON26BX05-NP004 TITLE: NAVWAR Open Topic for Unified Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Operational Awareness and Decision Support
OUSW (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI)
COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY PRIORITY AREA(S): Human-Machine Interfaces;Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems;Integrated Sensing and Cyber
PROJECTED CMMC LEVEL REQUIREMENT: Level 2 (Self)
OBJECTIVE: Develop and/or adapt innovative software-enabled capabilities that improve operator understanding of Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (APNT) status, confidence, threats, and recovery options across diverse positioning, navigation, timing, and situational awareness systems and providers.
DESCRIPTION: The United States Navy relies on accurate positioning, navigation, and timing information to support maritime operations, distributed forces, mission planning, and operational decision-making. As the Navy continues to field a growing number of APNT capabilities and related situational awareness systems, operators are increasingly required to interact with multiple interfaces and data sources to understand system health, confidence levels, operational risks, and available response options. This fragmented environment increases cognitive workload, complicates training, and slows decision-making.
The Navy’s GPS-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Service (GPNTS) program continues to enhance APNT resilience through the development and integration of a diverse set of technologies and systems. Examples of these data-types include the opensource All-Source Positioning and Navigation (ASPN) and PNT operating system (pntOS). The Navy seeks innovative approaches capable of ingesting, integrating, processing, and presenting information through GPNTS, to include alternate PNT sources, and related situational awareness systems through a unified operational experience. Of particular interest are solutions that provide operators with rapid understanding of APNT system status, confidence levels, threats, degradations, operational impacts, and recommended courses of action. A common operating picture, "single pane of glass," decision-support environment, or similar approach may be employed to achieve these objectives. The solutions are to transform fragmented operational data into actionable decision advantage and improve the ability of operators to rapidly sense, understand, and act in contested environments.
This topic does not seek development of new Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) or APNT sensing technologies, navigation algorithms, timing sources, or hardware systems. Instead, the Department seeks expertise in software architecture, data integration, information management, user experience (UX), human-machine interface (HMI) design, analytics, visualization, and decision-support technologies that improve operator effectiveness. Industry best practices in modern software architecture standards, such as containerization for on-prem isolated runtimes will enable the rapid and secure deployment of this capability while minimizing cybersecurity risks from cross-application dependencies.
Commercial industries such as autonomous transportation, cloud operations, telecommunications, logistics, and industrial automation face similar challenges in integrating information from multiple distributed systems to support rapid operational decision-making. Mature commercial technologies that have demonstrated success in aggregating, correlating, visualizing, and presenting actionable insights from disparate data sources may also be suggested. These may include industrial monitoring systems, transportation management systems, enterprise operations centers, autonomous system operations, telecommunications network management, logistics management platforms, and other environments requiring real-time awareness across disaggregated systems. Solutions do not need to be purpose-built for APNT applications if they can be adapted to address the operational objectives of this topic.
Primary technology areas of interest include, but are not limited to:
• Data integration and orchestration platforms
• Human-machine interface (HMI) design
• User experience (UX) design
• Common operating picture technologies
• Operational data visualization
• Decision-support systems
• Workflow automation
• Human-centered design methodologies
• Data analytics and correlation platforms
• AI-enabled operator assistance
• Containerized software architectures
• Mission management software
• Digital engineering environments
Solutions outside these areas that address the stated objective may also be submitted.
PHASE I: The DON is planning to issue multiple Phase I awards for this topic but reserves the right to issue no awards.
Establish feasibility of the conceptual technology or approach through relevant operational use cases, anticipated integration approach, expected improvements to operator effectiveness, and the path toward implementation within Navy operational environments.
Document the results of Phase I in a Final Report. Prepare a Phase II plan.
Phase I Base Deliverables
• Kick-Off Briefing
• Progress Report
• Final Report
• Initial Phase II Proposal
PHASE II: All Phase I awardees may submit an Initial Phase II proposal for evaluation and selection.
Develop a working prototype that demonstrates measurable improvements in operator situational awareness, information accessibility, decision-making effectiveness, workflow efficiency, confidence assessment, or overall operator effectiveness. Mature, integrate, demonstrate, and validate the proposed capability within a representative operational environment.
(Note: Prototype demonstrations may include integration with representative GPNTS, APNT, situational awareness, or related operational data sources.)
Prepare a final report that includes a transition strategy, deployment considerations, sustainment approach, and commercialization plan.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support transition of the developed capability to Fleet operators and associated Programs of Record.
Commercial organizations increasingly require the ability to integrate, organize, visualize, and act upon information from numerous distributed systems. Technologies developed under this topic may have broad applicability in autonomous transportation systems, commercial shipping and logistics, aviation operations, industrial automation, telecommunications network operations, smart infrastructure management, cloud and data center operations, critical infrastructure monitoring, public safety, and enterprise operations centers.
REFERENCES:
1. U.S. Government Accountability Office. "Defense Navigation Capabilities: DOD is Developing Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Technologies to Complement GPS." GAO-21-320SP; Washington, DC, 2021. https://www.gao.gov/assets/720/714196.pdf
2. Department of the Navy. "Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT); OPNAVINST 9420.1." Office of the Chief of Naval Operations: Washington, DC, 2019. https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/Directives/09000%20General%20Ship%20Design%20and%20Support/09-400%20Command%20and%20Surveillance%20Systems%20Support/9420.1C.pdf
3. Integrated Solutions for Systems (IS4S) Team. "ASPN and ntOS: An Open-Source Ecosystem for Building Navigation Systems." Proceedings of the International Technical Meeting of the Institute of Navigation: ION GNSS+, Denver, CO, pp 1121-1132, 2023. https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=17172
4. U.S, Department of Defense. "Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control Strategy." U.S. Department of Defense, Mar. 2022, media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf.
KEYWORDS: Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing; APNT; GPS-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Service (GPNTS); Alternate PNT; Common Operating Picture; Human-Machine Interface (HMI); User Experience (UX); Data Integration; Data Visualization; Decision Support; Operational Workflows; Information Architecture; Data Analytics; Situational Awareness; Mission Management; Software Architecture
| 8/8/26 | Q. | 1. Information presented to the operator
Are there specific categories of information that the Government considers essential to the final operator experience, such as system health, navigation confidence, detected threats, degradations, operational impacts, alternate sources, and recommended recovery actions, or should performers determine the appropriate information and organization during Phase I?
2. Existing workflow or interface Is this capability intended to improve or replace a particular existing Navy operator interface or workflow, or should performers determine during Phase I how information from multiple existing systems should be brought together into a unified workflow? 3. Measuring operator effectiveness Are there particular measures the Government expects performers to use when evaluating improvements to operator effectiveness, such as time to understand a condition, correct identification of a problem, ability to assess confidence, correct response selection, workload, or time needed to find supporting information? 4. Phase I breadth Should Phase I focus deeply on one representative Navy user group and operational use case, or does the Government expect performers to address multiple platforms, user communities, or assured positioning/navigation/timing use cases during Phase I? 5. Expected Phase I software maturity The Phase I description asks performers to establish feasibility, while Phase II calls for development and integration of a working prototype in a representative operational environment. What level of software maturity does the Government expect by the end of Phase I: design concepts and feasibility evidence, a working software demonstration using representative data, or another level of implementation? 6. Phase I integration approach For the anticipated integration approach required in Phase I, does the Government expect performers to identify specific Navy interfaces and data formats, or is a platform-independent architecture together with a plan for selecting and implementing the appropriate Navy interfaces sufficient? 7. Containerization The topic mentions containerization for isolated on-premise runtimes. Is containerized deployment expected to be implemented during Phase I, or is the intent that the proposed software architecture support secure containerized deployment during later integration phases? |
| A. | 1. The Government considers system health, navigation confidence, detected threats/degradations, operational impacts, and recommended recovery actions (decision aids) to be essential components of the final interface. However, the specific visual hierarchy, organization, and presentation of this data must be determined and validated by the performer during Phase I through human-centered design practices.
2. The goal is to unify information from multiple existing systems into a single, cohesive workflow, rather than replacing a single legacy system. Operators currently monitor several fragmented displays; performers must determine during Phase I the most effective way to aggregate and visualize these disparate streams into a unified common operating picture. 3. Yes. Performers should design evaluations around key cognitive and performance metrics as defined by state of the art activity and development in the field of human centered design. They include, but are not limited to, speed to decision, accuracy of the operator’s understanding of the degradation, decision accuracy and transfer of training. 4. For Phase I, a deep focus on a single, highly representative shipboard operational use case (e.g., a Destroyer transit through a GPS-degraded strait, focusing on the navigation situational awareness interface) is preferred over a shallow attempt to address multiple disparate platforms. Demonstrating deep feasibility on one core use case provides a stronger foundation for Phase II scaling. 5. By the end of Phase I, the Government expects comprehensive design concepts, clear feasibility evidence, and a low to medium fidelity software demonstration running on representative simulated data. 6. A platform-independent, modular software architecture paired with a robust plan for selecting and mapping to Navy interfaces (such as ASPN and pntOS) is sufficient for Phase I. The architecture should emphasize modularity (e.g., loose coupling, API-first design) so it can easily adapt to specific Navy data formats as they are defined in Phase II. 7. While actual deployment to Navy hardware will occur in Phase II, the software architecture proposed in Phase I must be designed from the ground up to support containerization (e.g., Docker, Kubernetes). Demonstrating a containerized proof-of-concept running in an isolated runtime during the Phase I final demo is highly encouraged, as it validates the feasibility of rapid, secure deployment to shipboard host environments. Reference DoD Platform One (https://p1.dso.mil/) Iron Bank for approved images. |
|
| 8/8/26 | Q. | 1. Overall solution scope The topic identifies a broad range of possible approaches, including data integration, human-machine interfaces, user-experience design, common operating pictures, decision-support systems, analytics, workflow automation, artificial intelligence assistance, and mission-management software. Is the Government intentionally open to multiple different software approaches to solving the operator-awareness problem, rather than seeking one particular type of solution? 2. Purpose-built versus adapted commercial solutions The topic states that mature commercial technologies may be adapted and that solutions do not need to be purpose-built for assured positioning, navigation, and timing applications. Are newly developed, purpose-built software solutions also fully within scope when they address the stated operator-awareness and decision-support objectives? 3. Primary operator problem What are the most important operator problems the Government wants performers to address? For example, should the primary focus be understanding system status and confidence, identifying threats and degradations, understanding operational impacts, determining recovery options, or integrating these needs into one operator workflow? 4. Intended users What Navy personnel or operator roles are the intended primary users of this capability? Are there particular watchstations, platform types, operational communities, or other user groups that Phase I performers should focus on? 5. Navy operator access during Phase I Will the Government help Phase I performers identify and connect with representative Navy operators and subject-matter experts for requirements discovery, interface feedback, and usability evaluation? 6. Operator research and usability testing The Phase I description calls for establishing feasibility through relevant operational use cases and expected improvements to operator effectiveness. Is it appropriate for Phase I performers to establish these through structured operator interviews, interface prototyping, a working software demonstration using representative simulated data, and usability evaluation with representative Navy users? 7. Phase I data and system integration Does Phase I require integration with actual Navy positioning, navigation, timing, or situational-awareness systems or data, or may performers establish feasibility using representative simulated data with integration to approved Navy systems deferred to Phase II? 8. Systems and data sources The topic references the GPS-Based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Service, assured positioning/navigation/timing capabilities, situational-awareness systems, All-Source Positioning and Navigation, and the positioning/navigation/timing operating system. Should Phase I performers focus on any particular systems or data sources, or is identifying the appropriate integration targets part of the Phase I effort? |
| A. | 1. Yes. The Government is intentionally keeping the scope open to various innovative software approaches to take advantage of commercial advances in this field. The core objective is to solve the operator cognitive workload and fragmentation challenge. Any software-enabled capability—whether focused on advanced UX/HMI design, decision-support algorithms, data virtualization, or workflow automation—is highly responsive, provided it delivers a unified, "single pane of glass" interface that improves the operator's situational awareness and decision-making speed.
2. The topic states that mature commercial technologies may be adapted and that solutions do not need to be purpose-built for assured positioning, navigation, and timing applications. Are newly developed, purpose-built software solutions also fully within scope when they address the stated operator-awareness and decision-support objectives? 3. The primary problem is integrating all of these needs into one cohesive operator workflow. Currently, operators are overwhelmed by disparate interfaces. A highly successful solution must ingest status, confidence, and degradation data, and then translate that complex information into clear operational impacts and actionable recovery options (such as "switch to an alternate source" or "degrade to fallback mode") within a single, unified interface. 4. The intended user of the interface would be an ETV (electronics technician – navigation). The station is not on a watch floor but is manned if there are navigation issues or during transit of contested environments. The ETV would be most familiar with interacting with Navy standard ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display and Information System) type interfaces so to reduce training requirements, the optimal display would meet those requirements. 5. Yes, we will help selected performers access this type of information/interaction. 6. Yes, a Phase I approach could follow that plan. Do note that there is also innovation required on the ingestion of disparate types of APNT data sources and how to standardize those types of data for assessment, analytics and display. 7. Phase I does not require live integration with actual Navy tactical systems or live classification-level data. Performers may establish feasibility using representative, unclassified simulated or synthetic data. Full physical and software integration with live Navy hardware and systems (like GPNTS) would be deferred to the Phase II prototyping effort. 8. Phase I performers should plan for integration into the Navy GPNTS program. The data sources would include other types of messages from potentially disparate APNT sources via ASPN or pntOS message standards. |
** TOPIC NOTICE ** |
The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the Navy Topics in the DoW FY-26 Release 5 SBIR BAA. Please see the official DoW Topic website at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/solicitation-documents/active-solicitations for any updates. The DoW issued its Navy FY-26 Release 5 SBIR Topics pre-release on August 5, 2026 which opens to receive proposals on August 26, 2026, and closes September 23, 2026 (12:00pm ET). Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (August 5, through August 25, 2026) proposing firms have an opportunity to directly contact the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) to ask technical questions about the specific BAA topic. The TPOC contact information is listed in each topic description. Once DoW begins accepting proposals on August 26, 2026 no further direct contact between proposers and topic authors is allowed unless the Topic Author is responding to a question submitted during the Pre-release period. DoD On-line Q&A System: After the pre-release period, until September 9, 2026, at 12:00 PM ET, proposers may submit written questions through the DoW On-line Topic Q&A at https://www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/login/ by logging in and following instructions. In the Topic Q&A system, the questioner and respondent remain anonymous but all questions and answers are posted for general viewing.
DoW Topics Search Tool: Visit the DoW Topic Search Tool at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/topics-app/ to find topics by keyword across all DoW Components participating in this BAA.
|