Compact Passive Radar

Compact Passive Radar is topic OSW26BZ06-DV025 under the Office of the Secretary of War, Reliance 21, 2026 SBIR BAA Release 6. The government seeks an affordable, compact passive sensing capability that can progress from feasibility research to a field-demonstrated hardware prototype. This is a research competition. The public record does not establish a production quantity, topic-wide budget, number of awards, or guaranteed follow-on funding.

Government stakeholders

The component identifies Army DEVCOM C5ISR Center, Army Research Laboratory, Naval Research Laboratory, and Air Force Research Laboratory as possible government technical evaluators. It encourages transition support from those organizations and named Army acquisition stakeholders. Phase II planning should address transition across at least two Services. The contracting officer determines the award instrument; the component anticipates firm-fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee actions for Phase II.

Use the official documents to resolve aggregator differences. HigherGov captured a 6 p.m. proposal timestamp, while the BAA specifies noon Eastern. The component’s topic table establishes a 12-month Phase I period. General summaries that describe a six-month period or a broad estimated award range should not drive the bid.

The topic seeks a small-form-factor, attritable sensor that uses external RF illumination. Its stated purpose is radar detection, tracking and imaging under severe size, weight, power and cost constraints. The government distinguishes this objective from systems principally designed for signals intelligence or electronic support. The sensor itself must be 100% receive-only. The Q&A identifies stationary and moving military-sized ground vehicles observed from an airborne passive sensor as the primary operational focus.

Performance objectives are proposer-defined

The government has not established numerical thresholds for range, resolution, accuracy, velocity, update rate, latency, probability of detection, false-alarm rate, or target count. It has also not set fixed numerical size, weight, power or cost thresholds. Those omissions are material: the company must define measurable objectives and justify their usefulness, while keeping projections separate from demonstrated results. They are not permission to omit an evaluable performance case.

For the whole-payload estimate, the Q&A specifically includes antenna, receiver, synchronization, navigation or motion compensation, processing, packaging and thermal-management requirements. A component-only cost or mass estimate will not answer that request. State the accounting boundary and the assumed production volume consistently across the technical and commercialization sections.

Phase I evidence and Phase II deliverables

Data and government support

The government does not plan to provide sample datasets, recorded I/Q data or specific radar waveforms before award. The proposed baseline should use accessible synthetic, open-source, vendor-acquired or self-generated data. After award, the government may help scope representative emitters, waveforms and operating parameters at kickoff. Do not make completion of the base effort depend on uncommitted data, equipment or range access.

Unresolved technical questions

The October 2 question set remains marked Response Pending in the refreshed DSIP record. It asks about prior waveform knowledge, illumination geometry, timing, platform motion, antenna expectations, polarization and the boundary of communications support. Those questions are not new requirements. In particular, a questioner’s suggestion that GNSS is insufficient does not supersede the government’s earlier answer permitting baseline GNSS availability. Recheck the official answers before finalizing assumptions.

For terminology: SAR concerns imaging using an effective aperture developed through sensor motion; GMTI concerns moving-ground-target indication. SWaP-C means size, weight, power and cost. “Attritable” in this topic expresses the intended affordability and deployment context; the government has not supplied a numerical price threshold.

Team premise for this report: Grinalds has identified specialist personnel who believe they can deliver the solution. This revision treats that as the starting point. Proposal preparation should establish the relevant accomplishments, available time, contractual roles and IP rights of those people, then explain how the company will execute the funded effort.

Grinalds presents itself as a Cincinnati engineering consultancy founded in 2019. Its public material describes work across electronics, embedded software, RF and mechanical design, with responsibility extending to production documentation. Its website names Dr. Timothy Tuinstra as Principal Radar Engineer. Cedarville’s biography describes his imaging-radar experience and radar research. The specific proposed team and PI should be selected from the personnel already identified, rather than inferred from website titles.

A focused capture position

Present Grinalds as a specialist-led small business able to carry a research result into an integrated, manufacturable product. The differentiating evidence should connect the radar team’s accomplishments to the company’s ability to build, integrate, document and cost hardware. A generic engineering-capabilities narrative will be less useful than a clear explanation of who owns each required result.

Use a short evidence package for every key contributor: relevant projects, exact role, attributable results, available hours, work location, employer or consultant status, and rights to use prior work. Identify company past performance separately from experience gained at another employer. This gives evaluators a verifiable personnel case while protecting customer and employer information.

Resolve the Direct to Phase II funding conflict

Page 3 of the component instructions contains two different restrictions. One excludes feasibility based on or logically extending from prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR/STTR work. A later passage excludes feasibility solely based on such work. Request written administrative clarification before relying on mixed-funded or related SBIR/STTR evidence. Until clarified, plan against the stricter wording.

For every result proposed as DP2 feasibility evidence, record when it was produced, who substantially performed it, its funding source, the demonstrated result, and ownership or license rights. Required licenses must be in place before submission. If the proposal does not establish Phase I-equivalent merit and feasibility, the Phase II proposal will not be evaluated.

Keep three decisions separate

Ability to deliver is the team’s technical judgment. Entry-phase qualification depends on existing evidence and the solicitation rules. Business readiness depends on registration, employment, workshare, finances and required controls. The company can be technically capable while still needing to complete the latter two checks.

The BAA lists the factors in descending order of importance: technical soundness, merit and innovation; the qualifications of the PI, key personnel, supporting staff and consultants; and commercialization potential. Cost or budget data are also considered. The proposal must carry its own evidence; evaluators should not have to infer capability from reputation or public profiles.

Use the company’s strengths where they are supported

The strongest positioning is the combination of radar expertise and integrated product development. Support that with named responsibilities and past deliverables. Show that cost, packaging, software maintainability and manufacturing handoff are part of the delivery plan. State a technical novelty only when the team can substantiate it against relevant prior work. Avoid unsupported claims to be the first, best or lowest-cost solution.

Keep a claim and evidence register

For each material proposal claim, identify its supporting artifact, responsible person and proposal location. Separate measured results, simulations, projections and planned work. Capture consent to cite customer projects and prior-employer experience. A missing artifact should produce a narrower claim or an explicit research objective, rather than an unsupported assertion.

Resolve the few dependencies that could change the bid

Focus the pre-submission review on evidence qualification, rights to use existing work, committed personnel time, facility access, cost and eligibility. Teaming should fill a defined gap or improve transition access. Add an external participant only when the benefit is clear and the workshare, management overhead and IP terms remain acceptable.

Use independent review before certification

Have a technically qualified reviewer challenge the scientific case and the distinction between achieved and proposed results. Have a separate reviewer check compliance, costs, rights, representations and all seven DSIP volumes. Close material findings before the corporate official certifies. A review that only improves prose will miss the most consequential risks.

Registrations and portal access

Verify the exact legal bidding entity, active SAM registration, UEI and CAGE, SBA Company Registry control ID and registration proof, and individual Login.gov and DSIP access. Appoint a DSIP Firm Admin and complete firm-level forms. A UEI alone is not active SAM registration. SAM says activation can take up to ten business days, and the BAA warns that SBA identity verification cannot be expedited. Start immediately if any part is incomplete.

HigherGov name searches returned no Grinalds contractor profile or prime-award match. That does not establish SAM status or the absence of subcontracts. Resolve entity identity with the company’s actual legal name and UEI.

Small-business and personnel requirements

Confirm SBIR ownership and control, affiliate treatment, the 500-employee limit, applicable performance benchmarks, and US research locations. The BAA also restricts majority ownership by multiple venture-capital, hedge-fund or private-equity entities unless a component provides otherwise. Small headcount alone does not establish eligibility.

The PI’s primary employment must be with the small business at award and throughout performance: more than half of a 40-hour work week, with no simultaneous full-time employment elsewhere absent an approved deviation. Identify the actual proposed PI and document the arrangement. The rule concerns primary employment; it does not by itself prescribe the PI’s hours on this one project. Resolve university or other employer permissions where they apply.

Prime workshare and teaming terms

Grinalds must perform at least two-thirds of Phase I research and analytical work, or at least one-half for Phase II. The calculation uses direct and indirect costs and is derived from the DSIP cost volume. This component accepts no deviation. Employee, consultant and subcontractor status must be reflected consistently. A university subcontract remains subject to these SBIR rules; it does not convert this topic into STTR.

Before naming a partner, agree on its scope, deliverables, named personnel, committed effort, rates, work location, access, background IP, new IP, data rights, publication and conflicts. Protect the company’s ability to perform its share of the research. Avoid exclusive teaming commitments that provide no defined benefit.

Controlled information and export restrictions

The topic projects CMMC Level 2 Self. Phase I is expected at Unclassified//CUI, and classified proposals are not accepted. Identify the systems and people handling controlled unclassified information, the applicable controls, current gaps, responsible official, cost and assessment or affirmation requirements. SPRS provides the assessment and affirmation workflows. Include relevant subcontractor flow-downs.

The September 2 BAA amendment states that the planned CMMC Phase II implementation rollout was suspended while self-assessment and safeguarding obligations remain. That rollout phase is distinct from SBIR Phase II. Confirm award-specific clauses and timing with the contracting authority. Do not assume a third-party assessment is mandatory for this topic, and do not attest to controls that are not implemented.

The topic carries an ITAR/EAR restriction notice. Disclose proposed foreign-national participation, country of origin, visa or work-permit type and assigned tasks as instructed. Obtain qualified review of technology classification, access and any needed authorizations. If a Phase II contract requires classified work, the component requires the applicable facility and personnel clearances.

Rights, conflicts and financial administration

Review customer, employment and university agreements before using prior work. Prepare the required technical-data and software-rights assertions and proposal markings. Disclose applicable current or recent government advisory-support conflicts and mitigation. Keep proprietary and classified information out of the potentially public cover-sheet abstract. Disclose foreign affiliations and similar current or pending support accurately.

Prepare project timekeeping, job-cost accounting, purchasing, subcontract records, rate support and invoicing. Cost-reimbursement work requires an adequate accounting system. Confirm the contract type and payment terms during negotiation rather than treating the ceiling as immediately available cash. Ohio APEX can help review the registration and administrative package.

At an assumed fully burdened labor cost of $125 to $175 per hour, the $200,000 prime labor allocation buys about 1,143 to 1,600 hours, or 0.55 to 0.77 of a 2,080-hour year. It must cover all prime participants in this example. Replace these assumptions with actual wage rates, fringe, overhead, G&A, and available hours.

A simplified research-cost ratio of $200,000 / ($200,000 + $55,000) is 78.4%. This illustrates room above two-thirds; it is not the official DSIP workshare calculation. Classification of every cost and indirect allocation must be checked in DSIP. The $9,363 is unallocated planning headroom, not a contingency line to insert into the proposal.

Approve exposure before the writing effort expands

A planning allowance of 120 to 200 proposal hours at $125 to $175 per hour implies $15,000 to $35,000 of internal opportunity cost. A focused technical and registration review should precede that commitment. Proposal expense is at risk and should not be assumed reimbursable as a direct project charge.

The illustrative $290,000 cost base averages about $24,200 per month. Three months of level spending is roughly $72,500, before uneven equipment purchases or unrelated company obligations. Model the actual award and invoice terms; this is a liquidity stress test, not a government payment forecast.

TABA may add up to $6,500 for Phase I or $50,000 for Phase II when properly requested. It is for eligible assistance, not extra core R&D or proposal reimbursement; no profit/fee or G&A may be applied to it.

Replace the example with the team’s basis of estimate

Build the real estimate from named labor categories and hours, actual indirect-rate treatment, quoted outside work, equipment or test access, materials, travel and fee. Separate existing assets from new purchases. Check that the technical plan, commitments and cost form describe the same work. A confident technical team still needs a funded allocation of time and resources.

For DP2, develop the 24-month estimate from the required prototype and demonstration scope rather than multiplying the Phase I example. Model spending, invoices and supplier terms by month. TABA is optional and requires a justified request using the prescribed form; it does not increase the core R&D ceiling or fund proposal preparation.

Use the local ecosystem selectively

Matrix Research in Beavercreek and GIRD Systems in Cincinnati are relevant Ohio leads from the award research. Their participation in this competition and willingness to team are unknown. With the core expert team already identified, approach an additional organization only for a clear resource, delivery, validation or transition need. Address competing-bid conflicts before exchanging proprietary material.

If Grinalds elects to pursue a subcontract, offer a specific electronics, embedded, packaging or manufacturing deliverable with a schedule and estimate. The prime needs a defined contribution that fits its technical plan and permitted workshare. This is a commercial option, not evidence that the existing team lacks capability.

The selected award figures are cumulative obligations in HigherGov, not available funding for this competition. The search is not a census, and an award does not prove technical success or transferable IP. The exact-topic award search returned no record; it does not establish that no award will be made or that a particular firm will bid.

The following is a suggested Phase I page budget, not a separate government requirement. Follow the Appendix A order in the component instructions. Keep all technical-volume content, including references and graphics, within the 20-page limit. The Direct to Phase II route has its own mandatory 5-page feasibility and 15-page proposal split.

Use US Letter pages, at least 10-point type, one-inch margins including the header, consecutive page numbers, and the company name, topic number, and DSIP proposal number in each header. Upload a single unlocked, unencrypted PDF and verify its page count after upload.

If leadership selects Direct to Phase II

Use the separate component structure: no more than five pages proving Phase I-equivalent feasibility and fifteen pages for the Phase II proposal. The commercialization strategy is limited to two pages within those fifteen. Reserve space for relevant work, personnel, facilities, consultants, the work plan, and the path to transition. The five-page feasibility case is an eligibility and evaluation threshold, not an executive summary.

All seven volumes

The Company Commercialization Report is required even when the firm has no prior Phase II awards. Complete the applicable no-prior-awards workflow. The foreign-affiliations disclosure must be completed in Volume 7 as a webform; a PDF in Supporting Documents does not satisfy it.

After upload, check the actual PDF, page count and all DSIP validations. The authorized corporate official must certify and submit. In Progress and Ready to Certify are not submitted states. Preserve the confirmation, proposal ID, timestamp and final files. Updating the company commercialization report can reopen submitted proposals in open solicitations, requiring recertification.

Support letters and the data management plan are encouraged where applicable. Use the permitted supporting-document volume for its intended purpose. Additional technical narrative in a separate appendix will not be evaluated. Do not move overflow from the 20-page technical volume into another volume to evade the limit.

All dates are 2026 and all times Eastern. Role assignments below are recommendations for leadership to confirm.

Decisions that can change the pursuit

Reassess the route if DP2 evidence does not qualify, necessary rights cannot be secured, the selected prime structure cannot meet workshare, registration timing prevents submission, or the cost model does not support the proposed work. These are bid-structure and execution decisions. They should be made early enough to preserve a credible Phase I or subcontract option.

Owner assignments

The owner approves the route, pursuit spending and cash exposure. The PI owns technical scope and evidence. A product-engineering lead coordinates delivery responsibilities. Finance owns the basis of estimate and workshare. The Firm Admin manages DSIP access and uploads. The corporate official certifies. One person may hold multiple roles, but the combined workload must be planned.

Use the permitted channels

The prerelease period has ended. Use DSIP for technical questions by October 7 at noon and follow the BAA’s communication restrictions. Do not seek private technical interpretation or evaluation feedback from a topic point of contact. Send administrative eligibility and instruction questions to the component program mailbox. A support-letter request must not become an attempt to obtain restricted topic guidance.

Administrative mailbox: osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.communities-of-interest@mail.mil
DSIP technical support: DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com
The first is for program administration; the second is for portal problems. Neither substitutes for the topic’s technical Q&A process.

Questions worth resolving

For program administration: Which feasibility-funding restriction controls the conflicting DP2 passages? What documentation is needed if a proposed PI employment change would take effect at award? When must this award’s projected CMMC status and affirmations be in place? Ask only what remains unclear after reading the current instructions; do not assume a favorable answer.

For technical Q&A: have the radar lead review the pending October 2 questions first, then ask only about an unresolved requirement that changes bid scope or feasibility. The earlier answers already address representative platforms, Phase I laboratory evidence, X-band scope, and baseline GNSS. Avoid repeating those questions.

Build a customer and transition map

Identify a prospective operational user, the organization that would integrate the result, a technical evaluation stakeholder and a potential funding owner. For each, record the relevant need, the evidence it would require, a plausible next evaluation, and who controls the next investment decision. Do not infer sponsorship from a shared research area or a past award.

The component encourages support from DEVCOM C5ISR Center, PAE Maneuver Ground, PAE Maneuver Air, CPE Autonomy, NRL and AFRL. The government’s stated Phase II transition expectation spans at least two Services. Select relevant stakeholders for the proposed use case and follow the communication restrictions during the open period.

The topic identifies possible commercial applications in airspace monitoring, counter-UAS surveillance of critical infrastructure and settings where additional active emissions are undesirable. Those are opportunity hypotheses. Validate buyer needs, applicable regulation, integration costs and competing products before claiming a commercial market. Develop a bottom-up account and revenue model.

Phase III uses non-SBIR/STTR funding. Describe the first product or service, the customer’s adoption route, additional capital needed, manufacturing and support responsibilities, and the company’s position on licensing or direct delivery. A successful Phase I or Phase II does not guarantee a production order or the funds to commercialize.

Practical Ohio assistance

Ohio APEX offers no-cost government-contracting assistance. The state directory lists Cincinnati procurement specialist Danielle Petermann at petermann@ohio.edu, 740-566-0619. Ask for registration, bid-compliance and cost-volume review. Ohio CyberSECURE advertises free cybersecurity assistance; confirm current availability and eligibility. These are support resources, not assumed members of the technical team.

The BAA and component PDF were downloaded again on October 3, 2026 and matched the prior source copies. The live DSIP record was revisited for status and Q&A. The original discovery link was the BWCO opportunity summary; official sources take precedence where summaries differ.

The briefing supplied for this revision states that expert personnel have been identified and are confident in delivery. That is accepted company context. The report does not infer signed availability commitments, completed feasibility, registrations, licenses, or cybersecurity status from it. The financial example and capture recommendations are analytical planning aids.

Selected HigherGov detail records

Direct award links: Matrix Research FA865015C1873; GIRD HQ086025CE001; STR FA865017C1051; OneRadio FA864924P1061.

Topic funding availability, award count, actual bidders, production demand and a probability of winning remain unestablished. Administrative interpretation should come from the program office or contracting authority. No external outreach, teaming agreement or government submission is established by this report.