DARPA-PS-26-138.pdf

Program Solicitation Information Processing Techniques Office

Intrinsic Market Resilience (IMR)

DARPA-PS-26-138

September 25, 2026

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Overview Information 3

2. Program Solicitation Authority 4

2.1 OT for Prototype Agreements 4

2.1.1 OT for Prototype Agreement Conditions 4

3. Program Description 5

3.1 Program Goal 5

3.2 Program Background 5

3.3 Program Introduction 7

3.4 Program Structure 9

3.4.1 Program Metrics 13

3.4.2 Program Schedule, Meetings, and Milestones 13

3.5 Anticipated Deliverables 14

3.5.1 TA1 Deliverables 14

3.5.2 TA2 Deliverables 15

3.5.3 TA3 Deliverables 15

3.6 Intellectual Property and Data Rights 16

4. Acquisition Strategy 18

4.1 Eligibility 18

4.2 Abstracts 18

4.3 Proposals 18

4.4 Informed Budget 19

5. Security 19

5.1 Security Eligibility Criteria 19

5.2 Classified Submissions 19

5.3 CUI Submissions 19

5.4 Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification 20

5.4.1 Required CMMC Level 20

5.4.2 Eligibility for Award 20

5.4.3 Subcontractor Flow-Down 21

5.5 DARPA Fundamental Research Risk-Based Security (FRRBS) Review 22

5.5.1 DARPA FRRBS Required Documents 22

6. Abstract Guidelines 22

6.1 Abstract Submission Requirements 22

6.2 Abstract Content and Formatting Requirements 23

6.3 Abstract Basis of Evaluation 23

6.4 Abstract Feedback 23

6.5 Multiple Abstract Submissions 24

7. Proposals 24

7.1 Proposal Submission Requirements 24

7.2 Proposal Content and Formatting Requirements 25

8. Proposal Process and Basis of Evaluation 25

8.1 Proposal Process of Evaluation 25

8.2 Proposal Basis of Evaluation 25

9. Award Guidelines 26

10. Award Administration Information 26

11. Definitions 27

1. OVERVIEW INFORMATION

• Federal Agency Name: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO)

• Funding Opportunity Number: DARPA-PS-26-138

• Funding Opportunity Title: Intrinsic Market Resilience (IMR)

• Announcement Type: Initial Announcement

• Due Dates: All Times are Eastern Time Zone (ET) o Program Solicitation Posting Date: September 25, 2026 o Proposers Day: October 1, 2026 o Abstract Due: October 22, 2026 by 2:00 PM o Question Submittal Close: November 20, 2026 by 5:00 PM o Proposal Due: December 7, 2026 by 2:00 PM

• Classified Due Dates:

o Classified Addendum Discussion (TA3): October 1, 2026 o Late Classified Addendum Request Due (TA3): October 5, 2026 by 5:00 PM o Classified Addendum Release: October 7, 2026 by 5:00 PM o Notice of Classified Abstract Intent Due (TA3): October 9, 2026 by 5:00 PM o Subcontractor/Alternate Location DD-254 Due (TA3): October 15, 2026 by 5:00

PM

o SCIF Joint Use Request Due (TA3): October 15, 2026 by 5:00 PM o Notice of Classified Proposal Intent Due (TA3): November 13th, 2026 by 5:00

PM

• Anticipated Individual Awards: Multiple individual awards are anticipated; additional information can be found in Section 4.5 Informed Budget.

• Types of Instruments that may be Awarded: Other Transaction (OT) for Prototype

Agreement (10 U.S.C. § 4022)

• Resource Sharing Requirements: In accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 4022, resource sharing may be required for OT for Prototype Agreements

• NAICS Code: 541715

• Questions and Answers (Q&As): All UNCLASSIFIED administrative, technical, and award questions should be emailed to the Agency Point of Contact (POC) stated below.

All questions must be written in English and must include the name of a designated point of contact. Q&A documents will be published on the IMR program page at:

https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/instrinic-market-resilience-imr

• Agency POC: The Solicitation Coordinator may be reached at: IMR@darpa.mil

DARPA/ IPTO ATTN: DARPA-PS-26-138

675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114

• Attachments:

o IMR Abstract Template o IMR Abstract Summary Slide Template o IMR Controlled Unclassified Information Guide (CUIG) https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/instrinic-market-resilience-imr

2. PROGRAM SOLICITATION AUTHORITY

This Program Solicitation (PS) may result in the award of multiple OT for Prototype Agreements.

2.1 OT FOR PROTOTYPE AGREEMENTS

Under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 4022, the Government reserves the right to award one or more OT for Prototype Agreements or to make no award. Prototype projects may include, but are not limited to:

• a proof of concept, model, or process, including a business process;

• reverse engineering to address obsolescence;

• a pilot or novel application of commercial technologies for defense purposes;

• agile development activity;

• the creation, design, development or demonstration of operational utility; or

• any combination of the above.

Furthermore, a follow-on production contract or transaction may be awarded pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 4022 without the use of competitive procedures. The OT for Prototype Agreement will not require resource sharing unless the proposer is a traditional defense contractor who is not working with a non-traditional defense contractor participating in the project to a significant extent.

In all cases, the Government Agreements Officer (AO) shall have sole discretion to negotiate all agreement terms and conditions with selected proposers.

2.1.1 OT for Prototype Agreement Conditions

According to 10 U.S.C. § 4022 an OT for Prototype agreement may only be awarded when one of the following conditions is met:

(A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.

(B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors or nonprofit research institution.

(C) At least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government.

(D) The senior procurement executive for the agency determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify the use of a transaction that provides for innovative business arrangements or structures that would not be feasible or appropriate under a contract or would provide an opportunity to expand the defense supply base in a manner that would not be practical or feasible under a contract.

If the proposer requests award of an OT as a nontraditional defense contractor, as defined below in Section 10 (Definitions), as a nonprofit research institution, or as a small business, as defined under Section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 632), information must be included in the price proposal to support the claim. Additionally, if the proposer requests award of an OT agreement without the required one-third cost share, information must be included in the price proposal supporting their assertion that there is at least one nontraditional defense contractor, nonprofit research institution, or small business participating to a significant extent in the proposed prototype project or that all significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses, nonprofit research institutions, or nontraditional defense contractors.

Proposers must provide in their price proposal an explanation of why the proposer believes the nontraditional defense contractor is participating to a significant extent.

Nonprofit research institutions, which include nonprofit universities, are not required to provide one-third cost share to be awarded an OT for Prototype agreement under 10 U.S.C. § 4022.

3. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

DARPA is soliciting innovative proposals across three distinct Technical Areas (TAs):

Technical Area 1 (TA1) - Modeling and Analysis: Focuses on modeling markets and analyzing their resilience.

Technical Area 2 (TA2) - Resiliency and Repair: Focuses on refining market conjectures and recommending repairs to mitigate identified weaknesses.

Technical Area 3 (TA3) – Evaluation: Focuses on Test and Evaluation (T&E). TA1 and TA2 performers focus on building, analyzing, and repairing market models, and the TA3 performer develops and executes an objective framework to evaluate those outcomes.

Proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science or systems and that are incorporated into prototype tools. Specifically excluded is research that primarily results in evolutionary improvements to the existing state of practice.

3.1 PROGRAM GOAL

The IMR program will aim to develop repair methods to protect economic sectors containing modern markets against devastating attacks that exploit public interfaces. Modern markets digitally enable buyers and sellers to interact and to make deals. The program will create a prototype capability for modeling, analyzing, and repairing markets.

3.2 PROGRAM BACKGROUND

The evolution of markets from physical, open-outcry trading floors and distributed person-to-person transactions to today's interconnected, electronic venues has brought speed, transparency, efficiency - and new attack surfaces. Modern markets hosted on digital platforms introduce new kinds of systemic risks from interactions of their many components. Modern market public interfaces (e.g., order books, order submission protocols, and resource scheduling portals) can be manipulated in ways unanticipated by market designers.

Modern markets manage many kinds of assets, such as energy production, equities, bonds, power distribution, cloud computing resources, rare earth metals, transportation, and other resources.

The diversity and complexity of these markets reflect ongoing innovation in electronic trading that allows market participants to achieve objectives related to price, speed, market impact, and risk management. Legal protections deter profit-seeking manipulation through a system of legal consequences, but that system does not necessarily protect against adversaries aiming to disrupt the market itself.

The IMR program seeks to protect financial and non-financial markets in which participants interact through public interfaces and can use them in a way that dramatically harms the sector in which the market operates. For example, in 2000/2001 California’s newly deregulated energy market was plunged into crisis, marked by soaring wholesale electricity prices and widespread blackouts. Market traders exploited public interfaces to engineer shortages. Their many techniques included creating phantom congestion on power lines and exporting “excess” power out of state and to be sold back at a higher price. The economic impact was estimated at $40-45 billion and compelled the federal government to invoke the Defense Production Act to ensure natural gas supply to military facilities, highlighting how manipulation of market mechanisms has serious implications for both civilian life and military readiness.

The 2010 flash crash of the United States (U.S.) equity markets involved the use by an individual with standard market access who exploited weaknesses in the design of sell order transactions to repeatedly issue and cancel orders, helping precipitate a dramatic market decline. The actions cost the individual nothing because the sell orders were specifically designed not to be executed by leveraging a quirk in the design of the market. The flood of spurious sell orders was halted when the attacker took the opportunity to profit from sudden temporary price decreases. The market specifics exploited in 2010 are no longer available, but similar market design flaws could cause tremendous disruption.

Modern markets have weaknesses in their design. When rigorous engineering approaches are used to reason about market designs to show regulatory adherence, mathematical analysis has identified design errors. Proprietary use of this analysis approach has identified many design errors. The IMR program aims to develop repair methods to protect economic sectors containing modern markets against devastating attacks that exploit market public interfaces.

The IMR program’s focus on public interfaces differentiates it from cyber resilience programs.

The development of computer cyber-attacks to create unplanned, non-public interfaces into modern markets is not within scope for the IMR program.

Equity markets are one type of market. Each of the approximately 75 regulated private and public U.S. equity market venues offer uniquely designed trading rules. Complicated and ever-evolving order types add to this complexity, as do "best price" regulations that require asynchronous inter-market coordination. Standards exist to coordinate prices across venues, but each venue implements these standards independently to support its own unique market design.

United States and European regulations ban many kinds of unfair market strategies and require transparency to protect market participants, and market venues have met these regulatory requirements by publishing paper-based design documentation written by market experts. For example, private equity market venues ("dark pools") in the U.S. submit Form ATS-N (alternative trading systems NMS) that details a venue's order processing rules. However, paper-based documentation does not evolve alongside changes to market designs, is impractical to analyze automatically, and leads to ambiguous and exploitable market designs. Although some market design problems are identified and fixed to comply with regulations that protect individual market participants from inequitable treatment, these processes do not protect the operation of overall markets and the complex systems of which they are a part.

3.3 PROGRAM INTRODUCTION

Programmatic and Technical Approach: The IMR technical approach is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Relationship of Technical Challenges

The IMR program seeks to develop repair methods to protect essential economic sectors against devastating attacks that exploit the public interfaces of modern markets. Current legal and regulatory protections focus on deterring profit-seeking manipulation and ensuring compliance, but they do not sufficiently protect markets from adversaries aiming simply to cause disruption.

The IMR program addresses this gap by developing a prototype set of tools to automatically model market designs, identify hidden weaknesses, and recommend and test repairs that make economic sectors containing markets more resilient to attack. IMR aims to combine automation with rigorous modeling and analysis to identify and suggest remediations for market weaknesses.

The program will develop formal notations to precisely describe how markets operate and coordinate and will create machine-analyzable models from informal descriptions such as regulatory filings and technical specifications. Against these models, IMR will formulate and assess conjectures that provide resilience to the systems in which the markets operate. IMR market models describe the operation of the markets only and do not include elements in the wider system in which the market resides. The program will develop novel methods of representing markets to support validation against actual markets and analysis of conjectures.

Performers will obtain knowledge about real markets, either by incorporating appropriate staff on their teams or by coordinating with market venue provers directly or through available documentation. The program will aggregate all developed models and validate the operation as a prototype system to repair and protect essential economic sectors against devastating attacks that exploit the public interfaces of modern markets.

What specifically is contained in a market model is market type specific. For example, the model of an equity market venue will include aspects of the market needed to support reasoning about resilience, such as the order processing logic and timing of market order processing, the communication and coordination between venues, and the venue’s public interfaces. Models will not include elements of the wider complex system beyond the operation of the market itself, such as the behavior and tendencies of market participants. The model of a power generation and distribution market will include some different elements to support reasoning about it. For example, to model electrical power distribution markets, physical location of power to be sold will need to be incorporated into the market model. In contrast, physical location is irrelevant for a model of a bond market since transactions do not involve physical transport.

It is an IMR tenet that conjectures about market models can be formulated to capture properties useful for resilience of the complex system in which the market operates. This approach addresses the fundamental challenge of complex system analysis: dealing with the combinational nature of complex system behavior. A model of an electrical power trading market will only describe a market venue’s operation, and a conjecture about the market model is useful to establish resilience of the larger system.

An example potentially useful conjecture to show the resilience of the wider complex system of electrical power generation and distribution might formalize that a transmission line cannot be reserved through the market that is inconsistent with actual power sales to consumers. The conjecture is proved or disproved about the market, but useful in the wider system in which the market operates. Another potentially useful conjecture about the resilience of the complex system of equity trading might be that equity market participants must risk money to influence a particular equity’s price. Again, the conjecture is about the market, but useful in the wider system in which the market operates.

By automatically evaluating these conjectures, the program will be able to prove that a market design provides resilience in specific ways or, when a conjecture is not provable, generate a counterexample that illustrates a specific weakness. These counterexamples will then be used to improve the conjecture, improve the market model, or suggest a repair to improve the actual market. This approach will provide a capability to protect U.S. markets against adversaries who wish to cause chaos, ensuring the stability of both civilian and military critical resources that rely on modern markets.

Descriptions of the operation of markets and expected properties are today largely documented in informal text documents or in market design and implementation artifacts, and therefore not suitable for analysis of resilience properties. The use of large language models (LLMs) or other automation to create formal models and conjectures is a crucial aspect of the IMR program.

An IMR model is about a market. An IMR conjecture about a model formalizes a way to increase resilience of a larger system. Counterexamples of a (disproved) conjecture suggest possible market repairs.

3.4 PROGRAM STRUCTURE

Technical Area 1 (TA1), Modeling and Analysis: Focuses on modeling markets and analyzing their resilience. This work has two, and has three technical challenges:

1. Model Market

Goal: Build models that represent a kind of modern market accurately, completely, and reproducibly.

Technical Challenge: Capture the operation of markets, translate informal, natural-language rules or other market design or implementation artifacts into formal models, and model the interactions between different market venues or other transaction processors. A performer will focus on a kind of market within the taxonomy of all possible markets and will identify a specific market to model and analyze in their proposal. Proposers are encouraged to propose modeling and analysis of a specific market whose proper functioning is vital to a U.S.

economic sector, and for which documentation or other artifacts support modeling in a way that can be validated.

Related Metric: Number of validated market models. IMR will count the number of models created in the program that have been validated by the TA3 performer, who will define specifically the “validation” for the type of market the TA1 performer is targeting. The goal of validation is to provide confidence that the models accurately represent real markets and the process will involve testing that shows that the model is consistent with example transactions, either constructed or based on existing market data, and a qualitative assessment about the usefulness and completeness of the model.

2. Formulate Resilience Conjecture

Goal: Develop mathematical statements that define how to avoid specific types of market weaknesses.

Technical Challenge: Translate intuitive goals like "economic sector stability" into testable mathematical statements, defining what market properties lead to improved resilience in the system in which the market operates. Historic attempts to abuse a market for profit that would have been foiled if a conjecture would have been provable about that market are expected to be a source of inspiration for many conjectures.

Related Metric: Number of validated conjectures. The program will count the number of conjectures created in the program that have been validated by the TA3 performer. The goal of validation is to provide confidence that the conjectures represent properties likely to improve resilience of the complex system in which the market operates. Evidence that a conjecture meets this standard includes that its proof guarantees that a class of resilience problems in the larger system is avoided.

3. Assess Conjectures on Model

Goal: Produce actionable results from conjecture analysis.

Technical Challenge: Developing tools that can handle many possible states in a real market model (the "state space explosion") and creating usable interfaces for analysis tools.

Related Metric: The program will track the percentage of the validated conjectures that lead to actionable results. The goal is for most conjectures of interest to be analyzed automatically, and in particular, that the underlying reasoning approach does not become unresponsive when faced with realistically-sized, realistically-detailed conjectures and models.

TA1 proposals will be unclassified and may contain Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in accordance with the enclosed Controlled Unclassified Information Guide (CUIG). TA1 proposals containing classified information will not be accepted.

Technical Area 2 (TA2), Resiliency and Repair: Focuses on refining market conjectures and recommending market repairs. This work has two components:

4. Refine Conjecture

Goal: Improve initial resilience conjectures formulated to increase precision and usefulness.

Technical Challenge: Refine conjectures with tools that can automatically and intelligently focus conjectures on the most interesting behaviors. It is critical to ensure that the refinement process proposes appropriate modifications and does not get stuck in unproductive cycles that lead to updated market models that are no longer representative of a real market.

The recommended market repairs resulting from a conjecture analysis must do no harm, meaning that any resulting proposed repair must not introduce new problems or disrupt the market's normal function.

Related Metric: Percent of repaired markets validated to function after repair. The program will track how often market models that have been repaired continue to work as expected.

Illustrating with an extreme case, a proposed repair stemming from a conjecture analysis that eliminates transaction processing altogether might effectively overcome a resilience weakness but would not be a satisfactory market improvement. Proposed repairs that would inappropriately interfere with market operation (typically in more subtle ways than eliminating transaction processing altogether) will negatively impact this metric.

5. Recommend Repairs

Goal: Once a weakness is identified in a market, recommend a repair that is comprehensive and addresses the root cause of an identified weakness.

Technical Challenge: Achieving comprehensiveness in finding all behaviors that contradict the desired resilience. This requires creative problem-solving to automatically generate a concrete, practical, and effective market repair based on a specific counterexample.

Furthermore, a holistic impact analysis is crucial to ensure that recommended repairs would not negatively impact overall market operation or inadvertently create new, unforeseen weaknesses.

Related Metric: Percent of weaknesses detected. The TA3 performer will seed weaknesses inspired by conjectures into models to assess analysis comprehensiveness.

NOTE: TA2 proposals and combined TA1 and TA2 proposals will be unclassified and may contain CUI information in accordance with the enclosed CUIG. TA2 proposals and combined TA1 and TA2 proposals containing classified information will not be accepted.

Technical Area 3 (TA3), Test and Evaluation: Creates a framework to objectively measure how well that work was done. This work has two main technical challenges:

1. Validation Standards: One challenge is the creation and application of clear and objective standards. This involves defining what constitutes a valid market model, a conjecture that has a positive effect on the system in which the market operates, and an effective repair. These standards will support the consistent measurement of artifacts developed in the other technical areas.

2. Attack Repair Completeness: A second challenge is to develop a method for thoroughly testing the system's ability to find and repair weaknesses, by seeding weaknesses in a market model for purposes of evaluation. By deliberately inserting known flaws into market models, the performer will test whether IMR tools successfully detect and repair them, measuring the completeness of the repair process.

These activities will require the TA3 performer to work closely with TA1 and TA2 performers, including receiving a copy of their models and prototype tools so as to rerun analyses.

The objective of TA3 is to produce practical, usable standards and measurement tools that a transition partner could use. The aim is to create theoretical models and to establish a concrete methodology that can be used to evaluate market resilience and ensure that the program's outputs are effective and reliable.

DARPA expects that TA3 proposals will be classified at the TOP SECRET collateral level to protect sensitive information pertaining to critical U.S. infrastructure. TA3 proposals classified at a level lower than TOP SECRET will not be reviewed.

Proposers to TA3 must request the classified addendum to this Program Solicitation. Instructions for requesting the classified addendum for TA3 were published in DARPA-SN-26-116.

Responses to TA3 from proposers that did not request the classified addendum or who do not meet security eligibility criteria for receiving the addendum will not be considered.

Strong Proposals

A strong proposal evaluated most favorably against the criteria in Section 8.2 will include the specific elements below.

A strong TA1 proposal will:

• Propose a specific market for Phase 1 of the program, the expected sources of design data about the selected market, and anticipated market aspects to be modeled.

• Identify characteristics of markets to which the technology developed in Phase 1 applies.

• Describe a modeling and analysis technical approach, including automation to create the model.

• Estimate the complexity (in terms of size or other concrete measures) of the market model to be created in Phase 1.

• Identify some anticipated resilience conjectures and explain why they would be valuable for protecting the system in which the market operates.

• Describe an analysis approach for conjectures.

• Explain how the technical approach plausibly achieves program metrics 1, 2, and 3.

• Demonstrate that the prime and any subcontractors have an execution plan that is realistic and will be executed by staff with appropriate experience/background.

• Summarize anticipated interactions with TA2 and TA3, including what program artifacts they expect to share with and receive from TA2 and TA3 teams.

A strong TA2 proposal will:

• Describe an intended technical approach that uses automation to improve conjectures.

• Describe an intended technical approach for recommending market repairs.

• Identify potential methods to vet proposed repairs to ensure that they do not interfere with nominal market operation.

• Explain how program metrics 4 and 5 are plausibly achievable with the technical approach.

• Demonstrate that the prime and any subcontractors have an execution plan that is realistic and will be executed by staff with appropriate experience/background.

• Summarize anticipated interactions with TA1 and TA3, including what program artifacts they expect to share with and receive from TA1 and TA3 teams.

A strong combined TA1 and TA2 proposal will:

• Include the elements listed for strong TA1 and strong TA2 proposals.

• Organize the technical and financial aspects of the proposal to clearly identify what planned work and what budget is required to meet TA1 objectives, and what planned work and what budget is required to meet TA2 objectives.

A strong TA3 proposal will:

• Outline an approach for defining validation for IMR models, conjectures, and repairs.

• Describe a process for developing or procuring test data for use in model validation.

• Present a taxonomy of types of markets indicating a broad understanding of modern markets.

• Demonstrate that the prime and any subcontractors have an execution plan that is realistic and will be executed by staff with appropriate experience/background.

• Demonstrate that the prime and any subcontractors have a security plan that is realistic and specific to the proposed solution.

• Summarize anticipated interactions with TA1 and TA2.

3.4.1 Program Metrics

Figure 2. Program Metrics

3.4.2 Program Schedule, Meetings, and Milestones

IMR is a three-phase, 32-month program spanning Fiscal Years 2027 through 2029.

Phase 1 (Base): The 12-month Phase 1 focuses on "Exemplars" using proposer-selected markets. During this initial technical phase, efforts center on modeling these selected markets to formulate, assess, and refine resiliency conjectures and create initial repairs to address identified market vulnerabilities. TA1 performers in their proposal will identify the specific market or market venue that they will address in Phase 1.

Phase 2 (Option): As the program matures into an 8-month Phase 2, the focus transitions to "Generalization" using DARPA-selected markets. The primary objective during this period is to extend the analytical infrastructure developed in the previous phase and apply these methodologies to novel markets. This ensures that the generated resiliency conjectures and corresponding repairs are not overly tailored to the initial exemplars, but can be successfully generalized and adapted to broader, unforeseen market structures.

Phase 3 (Option): The final 12-month Phase 3 is the "Application" phase, which concentrates on partner-informed markets. During this period, the program aims to model new markets specifically aligned with transition partners' needs, re-targeting and refining conjectures for highly specific, real-world applications. This ensures the resulting market repairs are actionable and directly relevant to ultimate end-users.

Combined Kickoff Meeting: A combined Kickoff Meeting will take place in Month 1.

Quarterly Meetings: The TA3 performer will lead quarterly integration meetings with all other IMR performers starting with Month 6.

Principal Investigator (PI) Meetings: In-person PI meetings will be held approximately every six months.

End of Phase Demonstrations: Each phase will include an End of Phase Demonstration.

There will be six in-person meetings as shown in Figure 3. A Kickoff meeting in month 1, PI meetings in months 5 and 24, and combined PI/Phase demonstration meetings in months 11, 18, and 31. For budgeting purposes proposers should assume that the kickoff meeting will be in

Washington, D.C., and that subsequent meetings could alternate between San Diego, California and Washington, D.C.

Figure 3. Program Schedule

3.5 ANTICIPATED DELIVERABLES

Technical papers or presentations intended for public release shall be submitted in accordance with DARPA’s public release guidelines published at https://www.darpa.mil/news/public-affairs/public-release.

3.5.1 TA1 Deliverables

At minimum, the Government anticipates receiving the following deliverables throughout the program:

Technical Papers and Presentations: All technical papers and presentations covering work funded by IMR, including at least one presentation during each phase suitable for a conference or workshop that describes the developed technology.

All Program Artifacts, including:

• Validated Market Models: Formal, machine-analyzable models translated from natural-language rules that accurately represent modern markets.

• Resilience Conjectures: Testable mathematical statements that define how to avoid specific types of market weaknesses.

• Conjecture Assessments: Automated analysis and actionable results (or counterexamples) proving market resilience or illustrating weaknesses.

The resulting prototype and working example(s) will include delivery of software and user instructions required to replay the analysis.

Monthly Reports: Monthly reports should detail the technical and programmatic accomplishments for the previous month, as well as the plans for the next 60 days. The reports should also include major risks, planned activities, trip summaries, changes to key personnel, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the Government Team.

Additionally, the monthly report should provide financial status of the program to include current month’s financials, program to date financials, and planned financials for the remainder of the program. These reports must be provided within 15 calendar days after the end of each month.

Final Phase Reports: A final report should be submitted which summarizes the effort conducted and provides lessons learned during each IMR program phase.

3.5.2 TA2 Deliverables

The Government anticipates receiving the following deliverables from TA2 performers throughout the program:

Technical Papers and Presentations: All technical papers and presentations covering work funded by IMR, including at least one presentation from each phase suitable for a conference or workshop that describes the developed technology.

All Program Artifacts, including

• Refined Conjectures: Automated and intelligent improvements to TA1's initial conjectures to make them more precise.

• Market Repair Recommendations: Concrete, practical fixes that address the root cause of identified weaknesses without disrupting normal market functions.

The resulting prototype and working example(s) will include delivery of software and user instructions required to replay the analysis.

Monthly Reports: Monthly reports should detail the technical and programmatic accomplishments for the previous month, as well as the plans for the next 60 days. The reports should also include major risks, planned activities, trip summaries, changes to key personnel, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the Government Team.

Additionally, the monthly report should provide financial status of the program to include current month’s financials, program to date financials, and planned financials for the remainder of the program. These reports must be provided within 15 calendar days after the end of each month.

Final Phase Reports: A final report should be submitted which summarizes the effort conducted and provides lessons learned during each IMR program phase.

3.5.3 TA3 Deliverables

The Government anticipates receiving the following deliverables from TA3 performers throughout the program:

Validation: In coordination with transition partners, TA3 performers will develop methodologies and metrics by which to measure tools developed by the TA1 and TA2 performers.

Artifact Validation: In coordination with transition partners, TA3 performers will develop methodologies and metrics by which to measure the artifacts developed by the TA1 and TA2 performers. TA3 will also apply these methodologies and metrics. Specifically, TA3 must deliver:

• Validation Standards: Clear, objective definitions and standards for what constitutes a valid model, a resilience conjecture, and an effective repair.

• Testing & Evaluation Framework: A methodology for seeding known flaws into models to thoroughly test TA1 and TA2 tools.

• Measurement Tools: Practical, usable standards and evaluation tools designed for transition partners.

The TA3 team will monitor development progress of TA1 and TA2 and provide status to the Government.

Presentations and Technical Papers: Final presentations shall be submitted within one month after each review, and draft presentations shall be submitted one week prior to the review.

Monthly Reports: Monthly reports should detail the technical and programmatic accomplishments for the previous month, as well as the plans for the next 60 days. The reports should also include major risks, planned activities, trip summaries, changes to key personnel, and any potential issues or problem areas that require the attention of the Government Team.

Additionally, the monthly report should provide financial status of the program to include current month’s financials, program to date financials, and planned financials for the remainder of the program. These reports must be provided within 15 days after the end of each month.

Final Phase Reports: A final report should be submitted which summarizes the effort conducted and provides lessons learned during each IMR program phase.

Science & Technology Protection Implementation Plan (S&T PPIP): An S&T Protection Implementation Plan (S&T PIP) will be submitted for DARPA approval no later than 60 days after contract award. The plan will describe the processes and procedures used to protect critical program information and other sensitive information along with countermeasures or mitigation strategies.

3.6 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DATA RIGHTS

DARPA anticipates Unlimited Rights on all deliverables developed with DARPA or mixed funding. Government Purpose Rights or Limited Rights should only be asserted by proposers for deliverables developed exclusively at private expense. Proposers must articulate their IP Assertions in their proposal submission.

The IMR program intends to transition beyond R&D into meaningful Government utilization and operational application. As such, the Government seeks to ensure the continued availability of capabilities and technical data developed under this program and so requires IP rights sufficient to operate, maintain, modify, reproduce, compete, manufacture, and transition prototypes and associated deliverables, as applicable. Accordingly, IP license rights and transition planning are material requirements of this solicitation.

The Government’s objectives are to:

• Articulate the Government’s baseline licensing requirements to ensure successful technology transition, which include the ability to use, integrate, modify, sustain, transition, and further develop program results

• Understand proposer’s IP concerns through the proposal process, and negotiate mutually beneficial solutions

Baseline licensing requirements. The following table describes the Government’s minimum licensing requirements for acceptance of proposed technology solutions:

IP Category Definition Baseline Requirement

Foreground IP (FIP) First conceived, created, developed, or reduced to practice under this effort.

Unlimited Rights to items developed, generated, or delivered under the agreement

Background IP (BIP)

Pre-existing privately funded IP, including pre-existing software, technical data, designs, tools, interfaces, documentation, or know-how that is incorporated into, required to operate or maintain, or otherwise necessary to manufacture, reproduce, modify, or transition a prototype.

Unlimited Rights where available or a special negotiated license enabling the Government to transition the technology.

No Blocking Rights

The Government will not accept restrictions associated with Background IP, proprietary limitations, or other IP interests in a manner that unreasonably prevents, delays, or materially impairs the Government’s ability to:

• Utilize program results generated, developed, or delivered under this program for integration into third party technologies developed by multiple performers.

• Transition capabilities to operational users and maintain/sustain resulting capabilities without significant additional licensing costs.

A performer shall not incorporate Background IP into a deliverable in a manner that prevents achievement of program objectives unless specifically identified and accepted by the Government prior to award.

If the proposer asserts IP restrictions tied to any aspect of their deliverables that could potentially impede transition as described, proposers must explain how they will ensure third party testing.

4. ACQUISITION STRATEGY

4.1 ELIGIBILITY

DARPA encourages technical solutions from all responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government’s needs, including large and small businesses, nontraditional defense contractors as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 3014, and research institutions as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 632.

Due to their specialized roles and longstanding regulatory relationships with the Government, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), and Government Entities to include National Laboratories present potential conflicts and advantages that would compromise fair and open competition. These entities typically may only receive funding through existing awards they hold with their sponsoring agencies. If these entities are proposed as subcontractors, their costs must be clearly segregable in cost proposals. If scientifically merited, DARPA may fund work proposed by these entities with the following caveats:

• FFRDCs: (1) FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector. (2) FFRDCs must provide a letter, on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization that, (a) cites the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and (b) certifies the FFRDC’s compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. DARPA, under this solicitation, will not award separate contracts to FFRDCs as prime or subcontractors but will instead leverage their existing sponsors' agreements.

• UARCs: While UARCs typically have statutory authority to compete with industry, internal DARPA policy views them as trusted advisors who are only eligible to act as performers in fields where they do not serve in an advisory role. Even in those situations, DARPA still considers UARCs as having organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) when applying for a performer role. Proposals with UARCs as prime or subcontractors must include an OCI mitigation plan.

4.2 ABSTRACTS

This solicitation contains an abstract phase. Proposers are required to submit an abstract in advance of a full proposal submission to minimize effort and reduce the potential expense of preparing full proposals. Abstracts are due as stated in Section 1 (Overview Information).

Additional information including submission requirements, formatting, content, evaluation, and abstract feedback can be found in Section 6 (Abstract Guidelines).

4.3 PROPOSALS

Proposal submissions for this solicitation are due as stated in Section 1 (Overview Information).

Additional information including submission requirements, formatting requirements, and content requirements can be found in Section 7 (Proposal Guidelines). Only those invited to propose can submit a proposal. Proposal evaluation criteria can be found in Section 8 (Proposal Process and Basis of Evaluation). If selected for negotiations, and subject to the availability of funds, selected proposer(s) may receive an award.

4.4 INFORMED BUDGET

DARPA anticipates multiple awards addressing TA1 and/or TA2, and a single award in TA3.

Total Anticipated Funding Available for Award:

• The anticipated award amount for each TA1 performer will range between $4.5M-$5.0M.

• The anticipated award amount for each TA2 performer will range between $2.5M-$3.0M.

• The anticipated award amount for the TA3 performer will range between $5M-$6.5M.

Proposers are strongly encouraged to propose a price that is commensurate with the scale and complexity of the proposed approach. Proposals that simply propose a budget targeting the aforementioned values without evidence linking the technical level of effort to the proposed budget are strongly discouraged and will be reflected in the evaluation results of the scientific review process.

DARPA intends to award multiple awards under this solicitation to pursue various innovative approaches to the program goals.

5. SECURITY

The IMR program anticipates work on TA1 and TA2 will be performed at the UNCLASSIFIED and CUI levels. TA3 work is anticipated to be performed at levels that include TOP

SECRET//SCI//SAR.

Prime proposers for TA3 must be a U.S. organization able to receive, process, and store classified information at the TOP SECRET//SCI//SAR level. Proposers responding to TA3 must request the classified addendum per the instructions published in DARPA-SN-26-116. Requests for the classified addendum that do not contain the required information, or where requestors do not meet the security eligibility requirements, will not be fulfilled by DARPA. Requests for the classified addendum were due on September 1, 2026. Late requests will be considered by DARPA, although this does not guarantee receipt of the classified addendum.

5.1 SECURITY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Proposers to TA3 should consult the security eligibility criteria specific to TA3 in the classified addendum.

Proposers to TA1 and TA2 must review the attached CUIG, and if proposing a CUI solution, must demonstrate in their response the ability to process and safeguard CUI per the requirements in 2 CFR Part 2002, DoDI 5200.48, and 32 CFR Part 170, to include any plans for how any fundamental research tasks will be segregated from CUI information.

5.2 CLASSIFIED SUBMISSIONS

Classified responses related to TA1 and TA2 will not be accepted. See the classified addendum for TA3 handling instructions.

5.3 CUI SUBMISSIONS

For unclassified submissions containing CUI, applicants will ensure that all security requirements for personnel and information systems processing comply with CUI safeguarding requirements. If an unclassified submission contains CUI or the suspicion of such, as defined by

Executive Order 13556 and 32 CFR Part 2002, the information must be appropriately and conspicuously marked CUI. Solicitations containing CUI information must be safeguarded in accordance with DoDI 5200.48, 32 CFR Part 2002 and 32 CFR Part 170.

Identification of what IMR information is categorized as CUI is detailed in the attached CUIG.

Further information on CUI identification, marking, protecting and control, to include processing on Non-DoW Information Systems can be found at https://www.darpa.mil/about/offices/contracts-management/proposer-general-terms

5.4 CYBERSECURITY MATURITY MODEL CERTIFICATION

As codified in 32 CFR Part 170, the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program is designed to ensure Department of War (DoW) performers are properly safeguarding Federal Contract Information (FCI) and CUI that is processed, stored, or transmitted on performer information systems. FCI and CUI must be protected to meet evolving threats and safeguard nonpublic, unclassified information. The CMMC Program provides a consistent methodology to assess a defense contractor's implementation of required cybersecurity requirements. Proposers are encouraged to visit the DoW Chief Information Officer CMMC Resources & Documentation site for more information on CMMC: https://dodcio.defense.gov/cmmc/Resources-Documentation/.

This provision outlines the CMMC requirements pertaining to this solicitation, to include the required CMMC level and the corresponding proposal requirements. All DARPA efforts, including those involving Fundamental Research, at a minimum require prime performers and subcontractors to demonstrate compliance with CMMC Level 1, which focuses on the protection of FCI and consists of the security requirements that correspond to the 15 basic safeguarding requirements specified in 48 CFR 52.204-21.

5.4.1 Required CMMC Level

The required CMMC level for this solicitation is Level 1 if handling FCI only and Level 2 if handing CUI:

• CMMC Level 2 (Self-Assessment). Level 2 focuses on the protection of CUI and incorporates the 110 security requirements specified in NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2.

• CMMC Level 1 (Self-Assessment). Level 1 focuses on the protection of FCI and incorporates the 15 security requirements specified in 32 CFR part 170.

5.4.2 Eligibility for Award

Proposers have two potential pathways to demonstrate compliance with the CMMC level required for this solicitation:

Compliance at Proposal Submission

To be eligible for award under this solicitation, the CMMC Unique Identifier (UID) associated with the prime proposer must reflect a current CMMC status (representing either Final or Conditional status) posted in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) indicating compliance at the required level above. Additionally, the proposer must have a current annual CMMC affirmation, submitted by an authorized Affirming Official, posted in SPRS. Further, as https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fdodcio.defense.gov%2Fcmmc%2FResources-Documentation%2F some entities may have multiple business segments, multiple CAGE codes, etc., DARPA must reasonably be able to relate the CMMC UID in SPRS to the proposing entity.

(Note: SPRS is housed within the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment https://piee.eb.mil; an additional resource on SPRS is located here:

https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0…