DON26BZ05-DV081 TITLE: DIRECT TO PHASE II: Intelligent Data Analysis of Post-Mission Reporting Artifacts & Data
OUSW (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI)
COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY PRIORITY AREA(S): Trusted AI and Autonomy
PROJECTED CMMC LEVEL REQUIREMENT: Level 2 (Self)
The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.
OBJECTIVE: Establish a framework using advanced, automated analytics, allowing various users to parse and query different data types from large datasets. The framework will use innovative and automated methods for comprehensive and efficient data analysis to support data-driven decisions based on post-mission reporting databases.
DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Navy collects vast amounts of high-quality data for training and operational use. While the quantity and quality of this data are crucial for advanced automation and smart systems, effectively using it presents a significant challenge. The Navy requires a solution that enables personnel who are not data scientists to easily connect, analyze, and visualize data from various sources. The goal is to empower them to make data-driven decisions that improve operational and training efficiency.
The increasing volume and complexity of data within the Fleet demand an advanced analysis solution that surpasses traditional methods. This topic seeks a platform that allows personnel to "conversationally" access and utilize extensive data resources, thereby enhancing the Fleet's analytical capabilities. The ideal solution will be a user-friendly platform for creating and sharing interactive reports and dashboards, fostering a culture of data-driven collaboration and decision-making.
Key Solution Requirements:
The proposed solution must be robust, scalable, and capable of efficiently handling large, heterogeneous datasets. It should include the following features:
• Connect to a wide range of data sources, including spreadsheets, SQL databases, cloud services, and on-premises resources. It must also transform raw data by cleaning and preparing it for analysis.
• Offer an intuitive interface that allows naval personnel of varying expertise to interact with the tools and interpret results in real-time or near real-time. Users should be able to create relationships between data tables, define measures, and build calculations.
• Enable users to ask questions and propose analyses in plain language and receive relevant visualizations as answers. This conversational approach will bridge the gap between data experts and non-specialists.
• Provide comprehensive data visualization functions, allowing users to explore and present insights through interactive charts, graphs, tables, and other visual representations like maps and figures.
• Integrate automated data preprocessing and cleansing techniques to ensure data quality and consistency.
• The accuracy of the outputs is paramount. The solution must provide transparent, explainable methods so personnel can understand and trust the rationale behind data-driven recommendations. Users must also have access to manual methods to verify the results.
• The solution must adhere to the Department of War’s (DoW) ethical principles (Responsible, Equitable, Traceable, Reliable, Governable), current policies on automated technology, and all Risk Management Framework (RMF) guidance.
Work produced in Phase II may become classified. Note: The prospective contractor(s) must be U.S. owned and operated with no foreign influence as defined by 32 U.S.C. § 2004.20 et seq., National Industrial Security Program Executive Agent and Operating Manual, unless acceptable mitigating procedures can and have been implemented and approved by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) formerly Defense Security Service (DSS). The selected contractor and/or subcontractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances. This will allow contractor personnel to perform on advanced phases of this project as set forth by DCSA and NAVAIR in order to gain access to classified information pertaining to the national defense of the United States and its allies; this will be an inherent requirement. The selected company will be required to safeguard classified material during the advanced phases of this contract IAW the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), which can be found at Title 32, Part 2004.20 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
PHASE I: For a Direct to Phase II topic, the Government expects that the small business will have accomplished the following in a Phase I-type effort and developed a concept for a workable prototype or design to address, at a minimum, the basic requirements of the stated objective above. The following actions would be required to satisfy the requirements of Phase I:
• Previous work designing and developing advanced analytic techniques, methods, and models with technical approaches relevant to this topic.
• Evidence that a previous capability is feasible within a relevant domain or using publicly available training data, with clear parallels to the needs of DoW post-mission analysis use cases.
• The ability to ingest various data types, prepare the data, and output initial visualizations. This includes identifying advanced and automated processing solutions for text, audio, and graphics.
• A clear description of existing prototypes, matured capabilities, or modules to be leveraged, developed, and extended under the Phase II effort.
FEASIBILITY DOCUMENTATION: Offerors interested in participating in Direct to Phase II must include in their response to this topic Phase I feasibility documentation that substantiates the scientific and technical merit and Phase I feasibility described in Phase I above has been met (i.e., the small business must have performed Phase I-type research and development related to the topic NOT solely based on work performed under prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR/STTR work) and describe the potential commercialization applications. The documentation provided must validate that the proposer has completed development of technology as stated in Phase I above.
PHASE II: Develop and prototype the proposed solution, demonstrating its ability to integrate with sample Navy post-mission air data files or similar data types. The prototype must be capable of the following:
• Ingest and prepare a variety of synthetic or real-world data types.
• Allow users to conduct analysis through a natural and user-friendly interface that supports human-in-the-loop and human-on-the-loop interaction.
• Present relevant data visualizations based on the analysis.
• Ensure that all outputs are transparent and include a method for verifying their accuracy.
Given the rapidly evolving nature of this domain, the development strategy should focus on:
• Leveraging available tools and infrastructures to maximize the potential for transition to government users.
• Minimizing lifecycle sustainment costs and accelerating the maturation of the solution.
The project must adhere to all appropriate DoW policies and address cybersecurity requirements to support a future Authority to Operate (ATO).
Work in Phase II may become classified. Please see note in the Description section.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Mature the prototype developed in Phase II and transition it into a fully operational capability for deployment across relevant Navy platforms and acquisition programs. This includes:
• Completing final integration and conducting operational testing and evaluation with designated partners.
• Ensuring the technology is robust, scalable, and ready for sustained use within the Naval Aviation training and/or operational environment.
The intelligent data analysis framework developed under this topic has significant commercial potential across numerous private sectors. Any industry that generates large volumes of complex data, such as finance, healthcare, logistics, and manufacturing, could benefit from a platform that allows non-technical users to perform advanced analytics through natural language queries, with verified results. Commercial applications include business intelligence, market trend analysis, supply chain optimization, and predictive maintenance. The technology's ability to democratize data analysis makes it a highly valuable tool for any organization seeking to foster a data-driven culture and gain a competitive advantage.
REFERENCES:
KEYWORDS: Artificial Intelligence; Machine Learning; Data Analytics; Natural Language Processing; Data Visualization; Big Data
| 8/27/26 | Q. | 1. Should the solution treat connected Navy data sources as read-only and perform cleansing, transformation, derived calculations, and relationship creation within the analysis environment, or is the solution expected to write corrected or transformed data back to source systems?
2. Should the Phase II capability primarily support user-directed descriptive and diagnostic analysis of post-mission data, or does the Navy also expect predictive or prescriptive outputs? 3. How should the solution handle inconsistencies or quality issues in the source data? |
| A. | 1. The proposed solution should treat connected Navy data sources as read-only systems. All automated cleansing, data preparation, relationship modeling, and derived calculations should occur within the isolated analysis environment. There is no expectation for the tool to write transformed, corrected, or annotated data back into the original Navy source databases.
2. The primary focus of the system is descriptive and diagnostic analysis, specifically, empowering users to conversationally query, organize, and understand historical post-mission reports. However, capabilities that support diagnostic insights, such as automated anomaly detection or identifying systemic readiness trends across multiple missions, are highly relevant and within the scope of the advanced analytic techniques sought by this topic (although these techniques would require additional levels of transparency and explainability to ensure users fully comprehend how the system is performing these actions). 3. The solution must integrate automated data preprocessing and cleansing techniques to ensure data quality and consistency, when and where possible. This includes an ability to manage and reconcile a lack of standardization in reporting inputs. User review and verification of these automated steps are essential. In the case of missing or inconsistent data, the solution should be transparent about it with users when leveraging that data (or not being able to leverage that data) for a response. There are a variety of ways to show automation/AI uncertainty that an offeror can choose from. |
|
| 8/27/26 | Q. | 1. Anticipated number of direct-to-phase II awards?
2. The topic requires transparent outputs and a manual method for verifying accuracy. Any additional clarification on what that would look like? 3. What are the significant technical risk issues anticipated? 4. The Phase II guidance encourages leveraging available tools and infrastructures. Are there specific existing NAVAIR/Navy analytics platforms, data environments, visualization tools, cloud environments, or other Government infrastructure that you expect or prefer the proposed capability to integrate with? 5. Are there representative Phase II targets for dataset size, number of files or records, number of concurrent users, and acceptable response time for interactive analysis? |
| A. | 1. The number of Phase II awards is subject to the availability of funding and the technical merit of the proposals received. The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards, a single award, or no awards under this topic solicitation.
2. The Phase II prototype must demonstrate a clear and traceable path from the user's natural-language query to the generated result. The system should allow users to easily inspect the specific source documents, text passages, or data points used to formulate the response. Furthermore, it should provide intuitive manual interfaces that allow users to audit and verify automated data preparation steps or intermediate calculations, ensuring human oversight is maintained before decisions are made. 3. Offerors are responsible for thoroughly reviewing all solicitation requirements, evaluation criteria, and technical thresholds outlined in the topic description to identify and mitigate risks in their proposal. From a mission-support perspective, key areas where the Government anticipates technical risk (and which offerors should clearly address in their proposals) include: The ability to accurately parse and prepare highly unstructured, heterogeneous data types without losing context; Ensuring the accuracy, explainability, and traceability of analytical outputs to prevent algorithmic hallucination; Developing an intuitive conversational interface that requires minimal training for non-specialist Fleet users; Architecting the system to scale efficiently as data volume increases. 4. The Government does not mandate or predetermine specific analytics platforms, visualization tools, or cloud environments for the Phase II design. However, the proposed architecture should utilize open, modular standards and be compatible with standard DoD cloud (e.g., AWS GovCloud/Azure Government) and on-premises environments. Offerors should identify and propose how their solution can leverage or integrate with standard Navy infrastructure to maximize future transition potential. 5. Specific numeric targets for dataset size, concurrent users, and response times are not pre-defined in the solicitation. The system must be designed to be robust and highly scalable. Offerors should propose and justify their own target baseline metrics (e.g., standard squad-level user concurrency and representative dataset sizes) based on their proposed technical architecture, keeping in mind that the system must support real-time or near-real-time user interaction (i.e., query times acceptable to someone sitting at their workstation waiting for a response with minimal delay). |
|
| 8/26/26 | Q. | During Phase II, will the Government provide representative Navy post-mission air data files, data schemas, or sanitized examples for development and validation? If so, approximately when in the effort would those data become available?
*. What data types should offerors consider most representative of the intended post-mission analysis workload? For example, should the prototype prioritize tabular flight data, maintenance or event logs, mission reports, audio, imagery, video, or other artifacts? *.The topic requires transparent outputs and a manual method for verifying accuracy. Would traceability from an analysis or visualization back to the underlying source records, together with reproducible calculations and data lineage, satisfy this requirement, or does the Navy expect a separate verification workflow? *. Are there representative Phase II targets for dataset size, number of files or records, number of concurrent users, and acceptable response time for interactive analysis? *. Should the solution treat connected Navy data sources as read-only and perform cleansing, transformation, derived calculations, and relationship creation within the analysis environment, or is the solution expected to write corrected or transformed data back to source systems? *. The topic states that Phase II work may become classified and that the contractor must be able to acquire and maintain Secret facility and personnel clearances. Must the offeror possess the required FCL and PCLs at proposal submission or contract award, or may the Government sponsor the selected contractor so that these are established before classified work begins? *. Should the Phase II capability primarily support user-directed descriptive and diagnostic analysis of post-mission data, or does the Navy also expect predictive or prescriptive outputs such as anomaly detection, trend prediction, recommended actions, or maintenance recommendations? |
| A. | 1. The Government will not provide a specific data dictionary or schema prior to award. Offerors are responsible for generating or utilizing their own representative synthetic data (or public aviation datasets, such as those from the FAA or NTSB) to demonstrate baseline capabilities within their proposal. For the Phase II effort, the Government will work with the selected contractor to provide relevant schemas, data dictionaries, or sanitized examples as they become available.
2. Offerors should consider unstructured and semi-structured text-based mission reports and associated tabular flight logs as the primary data types for the post-mission analysis workload. However, because the solicitation explicitly seeks to process text, audio, and graphics, a responsive Phase II prototype must demonstrate the capability to integrate and analyze all three of these core formats to provide a comprehensive, multi-modal operational picture. 3. Providing clear traceability from an analytical output or visualization back to the underlying source records, paired with reproducible calculations and clear data lineage, is a highly responsive way to address this requirement. The Government does not mandate a specific, separate verification workflow software; the intent is to ensure human-in-the-loop oversight where users can easily audit, verify, and trust the logic behind any system-generated recommendations. 4. Specific numeric targets for dataset size, concurrent users, and response times are not pre-defined in the solicitation. The system must be designed to be robust and highly scalable. Offerors should propose and justify their own target baseline metrics (e.g., standard squad-level user concurrency and representative dataset sizes) based on their proposed technical architecture, keeping in mind that the system must support real-time or near-real-time user interaction. 5. The proposed solution should treat connected Navy data sources as read-only systems. All automated cleansing, data preparation, relationship modeling, and derived calculations should occur within the isolated analysis environment. There is no expectation for the tool to write transformed, corrected, or annotated data back into the original Navy source databases. 6. A Secret-level Facility Clearance (FCL) and corresponding Personnel Clearances (PCLs) are not required at the time of proposal submission or immediate contract award. The Government can sponsor the selected contractor to initiate the clearance process so that they are established before classified work begins during the advanced stages of Phase II. While possessing an active FCL is not an immediate barrier to award, the lack of an existing FCL and cleared personnel at the time of proposal submission represents a schedule and transition risk. Because clearance processing timelines can delay the start of classified phases—and because Government resources to host classified contractor development are limited—the Government will evaluate this transition risk and the feasibility of the offeror's unclassified/classified testing approach during the source selection process. 7. The primary focus of the system is descriptive and diagnostic analysis—specifically, empowering users to conversationally query, organize, and understand historical post-mission reports. However, capabilities that support diagnostic insights, such as automated anomaly detection or identifying systemic readiness trends across multiple missions, are highly relevant and within the scope of the advanced analytic techniques sought by this topic. |
|
| 8/21/26 | Q. | A few questions:
* For the Direct-to-Phase-II feasibility requirement, must the Phase I-equivalent work demonstrate completed ingestion, preparation, and initial visualization for each of text, audio, and graphics, or may an offeror demonstrate technical feasibility through representative heterogeneous data types while identifying existing modules that extend the same architecture to the remaining types? * For the Direct-to-Phase-II feasibility documentation, may offerors use independently observed technical demonstrations, third-party evaluations, benchmark results, and testing on relevant non-Navy datasets as evidence of completed Phase I-equivalent work, provided the offeror clearly maps that evidence to each Phase I requirement? * During Phase II, will the Government provide representative Navy post-mission air data files, data schemas, or sanitized examples for development and validation? If so, approximately when in the effort would those data become available? * What data types should offerors consider most representative of the intended post-mission analysis workload? For example, should the prototype prioritize tabular flight data, maintenance or event logs, mission reports, audio, imagery, video, or other artifacts? * The topic requires transparent outputs and a manual method for verifying accuracy. Would traceability from an analysis or visualization back to the underlying source records, together with reproducible calculations and data lineage, satisfy this requirement, or does the Navy expect a separate verification workflow? * Are there representative Phase II targets for dataset size, number of files or records, number of concurrent users, and acceptable response time for interactive analysis? * Should the solution treat connected Navy data sources as read-only and perform cleansing, transformation, derived calculations, and relationship creation within the analysis environment, or is the solution expected to write corrected or transformed data back to source systems? * The topic states that Phase II work may become classified and that the contractor must be able to acquire and maintain Secret facility and personnel clearances. Must the offeror possess the required FCL and PCLs at proposal submission or contract award, or may the Government sponsor the selected contractor so that these are established before classified work begins? * Should the Phase II capability primarily support user-directed descriptive and diagnostic analysis of post-mission data, or does the Navy also expect predictive or prescriptive outputs such as anomaly detection, trend prediction, recommended actions, or maintenance recommendations? |
| A. | 1. To demonstrate feasibility, it is not required that your existing prototype already processes all three data types (text, audio, and graphics) simultaneously. Technical feasibility can be demonstrated by showing a working core architecture utilizing representative heterogeneous data types, paired with a clear, logical explanation of how your existing modules will be extended to ingest, prepare, and visualize the remaining data types during the Phase II performance period.
2. Yes, offerors are encouraged to use independently observed technical demonstrations, third-party evaluations, peer-reviewed publications, benchmark performance results, and testing on relevant non-Navy datasets as objective evidence of completed Phase I-equivalent work. The proposal must clearly map this evidence to the foundational requirements of the solicitation to show how the core capabilities have been successfully proven. - Clarifying details on the above: Per the "FEASIBILITY DOCUMENTATION" section of the topic solicitation, offerors must provide concrete documentation substantiating that Phase I-type research and development (R&D) has already been successfully completed. From a technical perspective, a theoretical or conceptual proposal is not sufficient. The evaluation team requires clear, tangible evidence of an existing, working prototype or matured capability that aligns with the topic's objectives. Offerors should reference general SBIR program guidelines to ensure all administrative requirements are met, and focus their technical feasibility documentation on the following key areas: 1. Detailed Technical Description of Existing Technology: Provide a clear, detailed breakdown of your current, working prototype and any matured software modules that are already developed and can be immediately leveraged, integrated, or extended for this Phase II effort. |
|
| 8/18/26 | Q. | A major component of the proposed solution will likely include the use of one or more LLM models running in order to power agentic reasoning and data processing. In that case, is it acceptable for our solution to rely on a powerful LLM that’s hosted within a Navy-controlled network (e.g., on-prem servers, secure cloud enclave), or does the Navy expect the entire system—including the AI model—to run entirely on a single portable machine, without dependence on a larger infrastructure? |
| A. | While the government cannot provide access to its systems for initial prototyping, the topic encourages offerors to propose solutions that leverage available tools and infrastructures to maximize the potential for transition. Offerors should propose a solution and development strategy that best meets the topic's objectives while considering factors like scalability, sustainability, and adherence to security requirements. The initial versions are not anticipated to be ‘edge computing’ use cases, rather workstations that Fleet personnel typically have access to. | |
| 8/17/26 | Q. | 1. Is there an existing system this would extend, replace, or read from (PMATT-TA, MFOQA, DECKPLATE, etc.) or is this a new capability sitting alongside them?
2. Who is the user you picture at the keyboard (an instructor preparing a debrief, operations staff looking across a fleet, a maintainer doing targeted maintenance from post mission data edge cases ) and what decision are they trying to make? |
| A. | 1. Is there an existing system this would extend, replace, or read from (PMATT-TA, MFOQA, DECKPLATE, etc.) or is this a new capability sitting alongside them?
2. Who is the user you picture at the keyboard (an instructor preparing a debrief, operations staff looking across a fleet, a maintainer doing targeted maintenance from post mission data edge cases ) and what decision are they trying to make? |
** 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.
|