DON26BZ03-NV056 TITLE: Optimizing Satellite Imagery across Commercial Vendors
OUSW (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Quantum and Battlefield Information Dominance (Q-BID)
COMPONENT TECHNOLOGY PRIORITY AREA(S): Integrated Network Systems-of-Systems;Space Technology
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: Develop a software application that uses a hub and spoke-style negotiating service for commercial satellite data providers (i.e., Imagery Synthetic Aperture Radar/ and Research and Development (SAR/RD)), utilizing their native Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) to forecast collection opportunities while optimizing resolution, speed of collection, and cost across multiple providers.
DESCRIPTION: Satellite imagery provides a critical foundation for maritime domain awareness (MDA), allowing the Navy to monitor vast ocean expanses, track vessel movements, and detect unusual activities while also supporting intelligence gathering by providing visual confirmation of suspected activities, revealing adversary capabilities and intentions, and informing strategic decision-making. The Navy primarily relies on its own dedicated reconnaissance assets and a limited number of Government contractors to receive imagery from satellites, which limits the speed of imagery reception and imposes reliance issues on accurate resources. A solution to the limiting factors would be to expand resources to multiple commercial satellite vendors, thus diversifying the sources of information and reducing reliance on single points of failure. The Navy seeks resilience in contested environments where access to a single vendor might be disrupted by weather or other conditions by development of an advanced hub and spoke-style scheduling optimization capability that will forecast opportunities and provide optimizing resolution, speed of collection, and costs across multiple commercial satellite providers. No known commercial capability can meet this need.
The solution application tool must provide a way to combine the following parameters.
1. It must achieve seamless multi-vendor integration that can be used for accessing a single, unified system and dynamically adapt to weather conditions by integrating real-time weather data and predictive models directly into the scheduling process.
2. It must also provide a prioritization capability for time-critical requirements such as tracking a high-value target or responding to a developing crisis.
3. It will optimize cost-efficiency for the scheduling process by selecting the most cost-effective vendor for a given task.
4. It will minimize redundant collections.
5. It will leverage opportunities for data sharing and collaboration among the commercial satellites.
6. It will enhance data fusion and analysis by combining imagery from different sources.
7. It must ensure data security and integrity by incorporating security measures.
The solution will be tested and must meet the following parameters:
1. System Functionality and Performance: includes integration testing, automated tasking and re-tasking, scalability and load testing, and user interface and functionality.
2. Imagery Quality and Usability: includes image resolution and clarity, cloud cover and obstruction analysis, and data fusion and processing.
3. Operational Effectiveness: includes simulated scenarios, field demonstrations, and user feedback/evaluation.
4. Security and Interoperability: includes security testing and interoperability testing.
5. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: includes cost modeling and analysis.
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 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 NAVSEA 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: Develop a concept for a software hub and spoke-style scheduling optimization capability that feasibly meets the requirements in the Description. Demonstrate feasibility through modeling and analysis. The Phase I Option, if exercised, will include the initial design specifications and capabilities to build a prototype solution in Phase II.
PHASE II: Develop a prototype software hub and spoke-style scheduling optimization capability. Demonstrate that the prototype meets the parameters in the Description. Support testing of the prototype at a facility provided by the Government to determine it meets the required performance goals as stated in the Description. Deliver the prototype to the Navy.
It is probable that the work under this effort will be classified under Phase II (see the Description for details).
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Support the Navy in transitioning the technology to Navy use. Assist in testing the capability in the Government test facilities to ensure that the system meets the demanding requirements of the Maritime Targeting Cell-Afloat/Expeditionary (MTC-A/X) program and provides for future development and deployment decisions, ultimately contributing to a more effective and responsive imagery acquisition capability.
Outside of the military, this technology has the potential to revolutionize various sectors, such as law enforcement, marine wildlife protection, climate change research, vessel collision avoidance, supply chain management, coordination of rescue/relief efforts, and meteorology. The system could be deployed across multiple domains, improving safety, efficiency, and environmental protection in diverse environments.
REFERENCES:
KEYWORDS: Commercial satellite imagery; hub and spoke-style scheduling; speed of imagery reception; multi-vendor integration; single points of failure; data sharing and collaboration
| 7/8/26 | Q. | A prior Q&A response for this topic indicated the Government is open to a Direct to Phase II approach "if the solicitation allows it." Topic NV056 is published in the FY26 Release 3 BAA under the Phase I instructions and does not carry the "DIRECT TO PHASE II" designation used elsewhere in this solicitation. Please confirm: (1) Will only Phase I proposals be accepted against topic NV056, or will a Direct to Phase II submission (i.e., a DoN Phase I Feasibility Proposal) be accepted and evaluated? (2) If a Direct to Phase II submission is permitted, please identify the applicable instructions, Volume 2 template, page limits, and Base/Option cost and period-of-performance limits that govern it. (3) If only Phase I proposals will be accepted, can offerors with substantial pre-existing, privately funded technology maturity reflect that maturity in |
| A. | Only Phase I proposals will be accepted for NV056 if the topic is published under Phase I instructions and does not carry the “Direct to Phase II” designation. | |
| 7/1/26 | Q. | 1. The Description requires dynamically adapting to weather by integrating real-time weather data and predictive models into scheduling. Should the concept include cross-modality adaptation, for example re-routing a collection from an electro-optical vendor to a SAR vendor when cloud cover is forecast, or does the Government view weather adaptation primarily as re-timing collections within a single modality?
2. For Phase I modeling of the enterprise queue of competing imagery requirements, will the Government provide representative workload characteristics, mission priority schemas, or relevant CONOPS documentation, or should offerors construct notional scenarios? |
| A. | 1. Yes, the concept should include cross-modality adaptation. The government is interested in a solution that can intelligently re-route a collection request from a weather-affected sensor (like EO) to an all-weather sensor (like SAR or RF) to ensure mission success.
2. Offerors should construct notional scenario for their proposed solutions. |
|
| 6/24/26 | Q. | 1. Is the main interest for retrieving data past or future planned collections, or for sensor tasking?
2. Should government repositories of commercial satellite imagery such as GEGD and/or iSPY be included in the proposed system? 3. Should space-based government assets be included in addition to the commercial assets? 4. Should the proposed system have access to AIS data? Is there a government provider for AIS data? 5. Are there requirements for certain imagery levels/metadata? For example, an application may need raw level 1B imagery which contains ephemeris and attitude metadata. 6. Is there a need to connect to APIs that offer options for “opportunistic” collects, if available? For example, wait for nadir views of ROIs instead of collecting less ideal imagery at lower grazing angles. |
| A. | 1. The main interest is in future planned collections and sensor tasking, but access to past data is also valuable for analysis and training.
2. Including GEGD/iSPY is encouraged if it enhances capability and interoperability. 3. The primary focus is commercial assets, but integration with government assets is a plus if feasible. 4. Access to AIS data is desirable. 5. Yes, there may be requirements for certain imagery levels (e.g., Level 1 B with ephemeris/attitude metadata). 6. Yes, connecting to APIs that offer opportunistic collects is desirable. |
|
| 6/23/26 | Q. | 1. Given that work may become classified, will integration with commercial vendor APIs and cloud environments in Phase II need to occur within an accredited environment (e.g., IL5/IL6, a specific ATO boundary)? Are there target hosting environments or cybersecurity/RMF requirements the architecture should assume?
2. How many Phase I awards does the Government anticipate making under this topic, and is a single Phase II award expected, or could multiple performers carry into Phase II? 3.The Phase III reference cites the Maritime Targeting Cell-Afloat/Expeditionary (MTC-A/X) program as the transition target. Is there an identified transition sponsor, program office, or funding line for MTC-A/X, and is engagement with that office expected during Phase I or Phase II? 4. For the cost-optimization requirement, does the Government have access to commercial vendor pricing models or rate structures it can share, or should offerors build the cost model from publicly available or notional pricing? Should the optimization account for existing enterprise/bulk purchasing agreements the Government may already hold? 5. How many Phase I awards does the Government anticipate making under this topic, and is there a single Phase II award expected, or could multiple performers carry into Phase II? |
| A. | 1. If work becomes classified in Phase II, integration with commercial vendor APIs and cloud environments must occur within an accredited environment. Assume DoD-accredited cloud (e.g. AWS GovCloud IL5/6, Azure Government Secret) or Navy on-premises classified enclaves.
2. The Navy typically makes multiple Phase I awards per topic (often 2-4), but usually only one Phase II award is made per topic. 3. MTC-A/X is the program office and transition sponsor. The program office will work closely with the SBIR office to ensure appropriate transition. 4. The Government may not be able to share actual vendor pricing due to contractual or proprietary restrictions. Use publicly available or notional pricing in your cost models. 5. See above. |
|
| 6/23/26 | Q. | 1. The objective lists commercial providers as "Imagery Synthetic Aperture Radar / and Research and Development (SAR/RD)." Could the Government clarify what categories of providers are in scope , optical/EO, SAR, RF, hyperspectral , and whether "RD" refers to a specific class of provider or contract vehicle? Are there named or preferred commercial vendors the system is expected to integrate first?
2. The Description states the system must use providers' "native APIs." For Phase II integration, will the Government or NAVSEA facilitate access, accounts, or data-purchase agreements with the commercial vendors, or is the performer expected to establish and fund those commercial relationships independently? 3. Is an existing Government tasking or imagery-management environment (e.g., GEGD, G-EGD, the NRO/NGA commercial tasking enterprise, or any MTC-A/X interface) that this hub-and-spoke capability must interoperate with or feed into, and are interface specifications available at the appropriate classification level? 4. The objective emphasizes "forecasting collection opportunities." Should the system perform its own orbital propagation and access prediction from ephemeris/TLEs, or is it expected to consume each vendor's published feasibility/tasking-window APIs? Will the Government provide any reference orbital or weather data sources to standardize against? 5. For the data fusion and "minimize redundant collections" requirements, is the expectation that the system orchestrates tasking only (a scheduling/negotiation layer), or that it also ingests, fuses, and processes the delivered imagery products? How far into exploitation does the Phase II scope extend? |
| A. | 1. In scope: SAR, EO, RF, and potentially hyperspectral. RD is Research & Development. There are no named or preferred commercial vendors.
2. The performer is generally expected to establish and fund commercial relationships and API access. 3. Interoperability with environments like GEGD, G-EGD, NRO/NGA, or MTC-A/X is desirable. Interface specs may be available at the appropriate classification level after award. 4. The system should be able to perform its own orbital propagation and access prediction from TLEs/ephemeris, but should also consume vendor-published feasibility/tasking-window APIs. 5. The expectation is that the system will both orchestrate tasking and ingest, fuse, and process delivered imagery. Phase II scope extends into exploitation and data fusion. |
|
| 6/23/26 | Q. | 1. Phase II may become classified and requires a secret-level facility clearance (FCL) and cleared personnel. At time of Phase II award, must the awardee already hold an active FCL, or will NAVSEA/DCSA sponsor an awardee to obtain one during Phase II? What is the expected timeline for classified work to begin, and can early Phase II tasks proceed unclassified while clearances are processed?
2. For the Phase I feasibility demonstration, is modeling and simulation alone sufficient, or does the Government expect analysis grounded in real archival commercial SAR imagery, processing of actual multi-band data, or any hardware breadboarding? What level of fidelity distinguishes a strong Phase I result? 3. The Description notes that area-coverage improvement is not expressible as a single number and that performance specifications will be provided during Phase I. Against what baseline single-band (X-band) reference system should the modeling compare, and will the Government define threshold and objective values for key metrics (swath width, revisit/temporal coverage, detection probability versus range, target position error) at kickoff, or should offerors propose them? 4. Because open-ocean tracking implies temporal revisit and latency, should Phase I modeling address revisit rate, tasking cadence, and data latency, or is Phase I limited to instantaneous area coverage and detection feasibility, with tracking and timeliness deferred to Phase II? 5. How many Phase I awards does the Government anticipate making under this topic, and is there a single Phase II award expected, or could multiple performers carry into Phase II? |
| A. | 1. At the time of Phase II award, you do not need to already hold an active FCL, but you must be eligible to obtain one. NAVSEA/DCSA can sponsor you post-award. Classified work typically begins after FCL is granted.
2. Modeling and simulation alone is sufficient for Phase I, but using real archival commercial SAR or multi-band data strengthens your proposal. No hardware breadboarding is expected in Phase I. 3. Use a notional or typical single-band (X-band) commercial SAR system as your reference for baseline. The government will provide threshold/objective values during phase I, but you may propose initial values based on open literature or commercial specs. 4. Phase I modeling should address revisit rate, tasking cadence, and data latency if possible. Do not limit instantaneous coverage unless otherwise instructed. 5. The Navy typically makes multiple Phase I awards per topic (often 2-4), but usually only one Phase II award is made per topic. |
|
| 6/23/26 | Q. | 1. Phase II calls for delivering a "prototype dual-band SAR" to the Navy, while Phase III references integrating commercial SAR data through the Commercial Space Program Office. Should offerors interpret the Phase II prototype as (a) flight/payload hardware to be built and delivered, or (b) a ground-based tasking, processing, and multi-band data-fusion system operating on existing on-orbit commercial assets? Is the offeror expected to own or operate any space-based sensors, or is an architecture built on third-party commercial SAR acceptable?
2. Given the emphasis on leveraging existing X-band systems and commercial space technology, will the Government accept solutions that task and fuse data from third-party commercial SAR constellations (e.g., Capella, ICEYE, Umbra), and are there preferred, pre-approved, or excluded providers? Will any Government-furnished SAR data, areas of interest, or on-orbit access be available in Phase I or Phase II? 3. The objective and keywords reference both multi-band SAR and "emitting tracking methods." Is the intended scope strictly multi-band within SAR (X + S/C), or does it include fusing SAR with non-SAR sources such as AIS, RF/ELINT emitter geolocation, or EO for target discovery and track maintenance? Are non-SAR sources in or out of scope for the Phase I modeling? 4. The topic states performance specifications will be provided during Phase I. Beyond those specs, will the Government provide reference operating scenarios, representative target/clutter sets, sea-state conditions, or priority operating areas for the Phase I modeling, or should offerors rely on their own synthetic data and ocean/clutter models? If scenarios are provided, at what point in Phase I? |
| A. | 1. Phase II prototype is expected to be a ground-based tasking, processing, and data-fusion system operating on existing commercial assets, not flight/payload hardware.
2. Solutions that task and fuse data from third-party commercial SAR constellations are acceptable. No pre-approved/excluded providers are specified, but U.S. or allied providers are preferred. Government-furnished data may be available in Phase II; assume you must source your own data in Phase I. 3. Primary scope is multi-band SAR, but fusing with non-SAR sources is often encouraged for track maintenance. Non-SAR sources are in scope for Phase I modeling if they enhance tracking and detection. 4. The Government will provide performance specs and may provide scenarios/target sets during Phase I. Until provided, use your own synthetic data and models. |
|
| 6/23/26 | Q. | If we are electronically handling and storing classified data in a Phase II / D2P2, when will we be expected to be in compliance with the NIST SP 800-53 controls? We can submit a Security Transition Plan to begin that transition from 800-171 to 800-53 after award. |
| A. | You must follow NIST SP 800-53 controls as soon as you begin handling classified information. | |
| 6/23/26 | Q. | For the statement: “The selected contractor must be able to acquire and maintain a secret level facility and Personnel Security Clearances” - if we do not have this now, but wish to apply to the D2P2, is this still possible if our company can present an execution plan or formal arrangement to utilize an established third-party cleared facility, provided the facility clears DCSA sponsorship post-award? What if facility or personnel clearances takes over 6 months to clear? |
| A. | You may apply for D2P2 without an FCL if you have a plan to use a third-party cleared facility, subject to DCSA approval. If the clearance takes more than 6 months, unclassified work may proceed, but classified work cannot begin until clearances are in place. | |
| 6/23/26 | Q. | If pursuing a D2P2 but still in progress on the DCAA compliance requirement, is there a grace period to complete those or it needs to be completed prior to applying? |
| A. | A DCAA audit will need to be completed prior to contract award for a Cost Plus Fixed Fee type award. If the government pursues this type of award, the award will be held until the audit is complete. | |
| 6/23/26 | Q. | We have CMMC L2 self-assessment completed - will this topic at any point require the C3PAO certification for Phase II / D2P2? And if C3PAO is required, what is the timeline and will there be a grace period to achieve? |
| A. | Yes, right now all of our advertised topics have a projected CMMC level of L2 Self, and this is what will be required at time of award for Phase I and Direct to Phase II awards. As indicated in the DON instruction for this solicitation, proposing SBCs should anticipate that a Projected CMMC Level for Phase II award may be higher than the Projected CMMC Level advertised in the Phase I topic. | |
| 6/23/26 | Q. | 1. Does the Navy have a predefined or prioritized list of commercial satellite vendors that the system must integrate with first, or is the contractor expected to independently identify providers and establish API access agreements during Phase I?
2. To ensure the Phase II prototype is built on the correct foundation for transition, are there specific architectural frameworks, data standards, or Navy network protocols required to ensure seamless interoperability with the MTC-A/X program? |
| A. | 1. There are no predefined or prioritized lists.
2. Follow DoD/Navy data standards and network protocols. |
|
| 6/8/26 | Q. | Are you open to consider a faster development option by a Direct-to-Phase II approach using existing commercial software with integration to multiple satellite providers? |
| A. | The government is open to "direct to Phase II" if the solicitation allows it and you can convincingly demonstrate that your solution meets all Phase I feasibility requirements and is ready for Phase II prototyping and integration. | |
| 6/5/26 | Q. | What Phase I artifacts would provide the greatest confidence for a Phase II transition: an interactive demonstrator, quantified performance analysis, API/interface specifications, or a detailed prototype architecture? |
| A. | The most confidence for Phase II transition will come from a combination of the following artifacts:
-Quantified Performance Analysis: Demonstrates that your concept can meet the optimization goals through modeling and simulation. This is critical for feasibility. -API/Interface Specifications: Shows you understand how to integrate with commercial providers and can support multi-vendor interoperability. -Detailed Prototype Architecture: Provides a roadmap for how the system will be built, scaled, and integrated in Phase II. -Interactive Demonstrator: While not strictly required, an interactive demonstrator (even with simulated data) can be very persuasive, showing practical workflow and user interface concepts. |
|
| 6/5/26 | Q. | Would the Government prefer offerors to leverage existing mature software components and demonstrate how they can be composed into the requested capability, rather than proposing a greenfield development effort? |
| A. | Yes, the Government generally prefers leveraging existing mature software components, especially if they reduce development risk and timeline, demonstrate proven reliability and scalability and/or can be composed to meet the specific requirements (multi-vendor, hub-and-spoke, optimization, etc.) | |
| 6/5/26 | Q. | Does the Government expect the capability to optimize individual collection requests, broader geographic search areas, or an enterprise queue of competing imagery requirements? |
| A. | The Government expects the capability to handle all three, but the emphasis is on enterprise queue of competing imagery requirements, individual collection requests, and broader geographic search areas. | |
| 6/5/26 | Q. | How does the Government expect offerors to balance resolution, collection latency, delivery latency, cost, weather risk, and mission priority, and are any of those factors expected to carry greater weight? |
| A. | The Government expects offerors to:
-Implement a multi-factor optimization approach that dynamically balances all these parameters. -Mission priority is likely to carry the greatest weight, especially for time-critical or high-value targets. -Weather risk is also emphasized, as the system must adapt to real-time weather conditions. -Resolution, collection latency, delivery latency, and cost are all important, but their relative weight may depend on the operational scenario. |
|
| 6/4/26 | Q. | For DON26BZ03-NV056, the objective references use of commercial satellite data providers' native APIs to forecast collection opportunities and optimize resolution, speed of collection, and cost across multiple providers. For Phase I feasibility demonstration, would the Government consider it responsive to use representative commercial imagery provider API schemas, simulated vendor endpoints, and notional collection-opportunity data to demonstrate the hub-and-spoke scheduling optimization concept, provided the Phase I design identifies the pathway for integration with actual provider APIs during Phase II? |
| A. | Yes, it would be considered responsive and appropriate to use representative commercial imagery provider API schemas, simulated vendor endpoints, and notional collection-opportunity data for the Phase I feasibility demonstration-provided that your Phase I design clearly identifies and documents the pathway for integration with actual provider APIs in Phase II. The Phase I objective is to develop a concept and demonstrate feasibility through modeling and analysis, not to deliver a fully integrated operational prototype. The government expects that initial demonstrations may use simulated or notional data and interfaces, especially when access to real vendor APIs may be restricted or cost-prohibitive at this stage. The topic description specifically calls for a "concept" and "feasibility...through modeling and analysis" in Phase I, with the prototype and real-world integration deferred to Phase II. |
** TOPIC NOTICE ** |
The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the Navy Topics in the DoW FY-26 Release 3 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 3 SBIR Topics pre-release on June 3, 2026 which opens to receive proposals on June 24, 2026, and closes July 22, 2026 (12:00pm ET). Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (June 3, through June 23, 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 June 24, 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 July 8, 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.
|