DARPA-SN-26-27.pdf

Special Notice DARPA-SN-26-27 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) / Biological Technologies Office

(BTO) Working Groups Opportunity: Generative Optogenetics

1. INTRODUCTION

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Generative Optogenetics (GO) program is seeking facilitators to establish and manage working groups dedicated to each of the following topic areas: (1) Biosecurity, (2) Regulatory Policy, and (3) Commercialization. DARPA is seeking one facilitator for each working group, with the possibility for one facilitator to manage more than one working group (see section 2.8).

GO represents a groundbreaking advancement in bioengineering, with the potential to revolutionize fields such as defense, agriculture, biomanufacturing, and space exploration. For the technologies emerging from GO to have maximally beneficial impact, there must be clear pathways to commercialization, which necessitates both capital investments and clear regulatory policy. At the same time, the unprecedented capabilities of GO technologies necessitate thorough evaluation of misuse potential, complex regulatory questions, and the risks of adversarial capital.

To navigate these dynamics, DARPA plans to establish dedicated working groups that will inform responsible development, deployment, governance, and financing of technologies developed under the GO program.

The purpose of this announcement is to (1) draw the attention of the community to the GO working groups, (2) initiate dialogue and teaming that will lead to team-based abstract/proposal submissions to address the GO working group topics areas, (3) share the planned timetable for the submission of abstracts and government feedback concerning said abstracts, and (4) share the planned timetable for the submission of full proposals.

This special notice is released under the current DARPA BTO Office Wide Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), HR001126S0003, entitled “Biological Technologies,” which can be found at the URL below:

https://sam.gov/opp/8d403582edfd409795560247e8d229b7/view

Prior to any proposal submission through the BAA, interested parties must first submit an abstract and receive a notification to submit from DARPA. The requirements for the abstract and full proposal submission, evaluation, and award of any resulting contracts will ultimately be subject to the terms described in HR001126S0003 in combination with additional evaluation criteria described in this special notice (Section 3 below).

o Proposal Abstract Due Date: January 26, 2026 o Full Proposal Due Date: March 2, 2026

These submission dates will be a key factor for invitations to propose and for award funding decisions. Late abstract submissions will not be encouraged to submit proposals, and proposals received after the deadline will be considered non-compliant. (NOTE: The above listed deadlines differ from those listed in HR001126S0003) https://sam.gov/opp/8d403582edfd409795560247e8d229b7/view

2. TOPIC DESCRIPTION

DARPA is soliciting abstracts from entities to establish and manage specialized working groups focused on 1) Biosecurity, 2) Regulatory Policy, and 3) Commercialization. These working groups will play a critical role in addressing the security and regulatory challenges associated with GO technologies, while also developing effective strategies for market entry and sustainable growth.

Organizations selected to lead these working groups will be responsible for recruiting members, facilitating discussions, synthesizing outputs, and ensuring alignment with program objectives.

2.1 Program Overview – Generative Optogenetics:

The goal of the GO program is to establish a novel bioengineering platform where living cells are directly programmable via optical stimuli, enabling the on-demand writing of genetic information directly into a cell without any pre-existing template sequence. As described in the Program Solicitation for GO (DARPA-PS-26-10 on SAM.gov), the core technology is a molecular machine called a nucleic acid compiler (NAC) that responds to specific wavelengths of light by adding corresponding nucleotide bases to a growing nucleic acid sequence. If successful, this technology could unlock unprecedented capabilities in personalized improvements to warfighter health and performance, agriculture, biomanufacturing, and space exploration by providing open-ended programmability, single-cell spatio-temporal control, and eliminating the need for traditional chemical delivery of genetic information. Ultimately, GO’s ambitious goals aim to redefine how biological systems can be engineered by creating a molecular interface between information systems and biological systems that enables unprecedented control and adaptability in living cells.

Successful technologies emerging from the GO program may be highly disruptive to the field of biotechnology by making it easier to program cells with genetic instructions. As a result, the ability to engineer living cells will be significantly advanced, enabling new applications of synthetic biology.

However, there may be barriers and pitfalls to realizing the positive impact of such technology on a societal scale. Some barriers may include application of appropriate safeguards for the technology against irresponsible or malevolent use, overcoming regulatory issues, and capitalization of entities attempting to develop and market derivative/applied technologies.

Proposers intending to submit abstracts for working groups are strongly encouraged to review the GO Program Solicitation (DARPA-PS-26-10 on SAM.gov) and ensure their proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of program objectives and goals.

2.2 Objective of Working Groups

To aid DARPA and GO technical performers in addressing the barriers and potential pitfalls of GO technologies, the GO program plans to include three specialized working groups for 1) Biosecurity,

2) Regulatory Policy, and 3) Commercialization. Together, these working groups will aim to ensure responsible development, regulation, and commercialization of GO technologies while also anticipating the transformative potential of these technologies in end-use applications. Over the course of the GO program, these working groups will be afforded multiple opportunities to interact with the technical performers and collaborate with each other to meet their objectives.

2.3 Biosecurity Working Group (BSWG)

The primary objective of the BSWG is to analyze the risks related to the accidental or intentional misuse of genetically modified organisms developed on the GO program. Technologies developed under GO have the potential to significantly lower barriers for synthesizing nucleic acid sequences, https://sam.gov/opp/330a7d73f8e44c2ca588697555e48829/view which could inadvertently enable misuse by bad actors or bypass current nucleic acid screening frameworks. Risks include both deliberate misuse, such as the synthesis of threat agents, and unintended consequences, such as the production of harmful byproducts or the evolutionary adaptation of engineered systems to overcome containment measures. Given the rapid pace of biological innovation, proactive measures are critical to mitigate these risks. Thus, the BSWG will develop policy recommendations, biosecurity guidelines, and best practices to ensure the safety and security of the program’s outputs.

The BSWG, led by a contracted, nonpartisan third party, will conduct a thorough risk analysis informed by regular interactions with GO technical performers. The lead organization of the BSWG will be responsible for recruiting a team of experts in biosecurity, biodefense/biothreat, and biosafety to ensure a thorough evaluation of risks and the development of well-informed, robust policy recommendations. The primary focus will be on identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks related to misuse, accidental release, or malicious exploitation of biological research and technologies developed under GO, as well as to ensure the safety and security of the program’s activities and outputs. This risk analysis will address factors such as, but not limited to, dual-use research concerns, bioterrorism threats, biosafety, national security, and international relations and cultural differences in biotechnology acceptance.

The BSWG will research relevant biosecurity topics, monitor the potential threat landscape associated with GO technology, and engage subject matter experts throughout the GO program.

Informed by this research, the BSWG will conduct a series of tabletop exercises throughout the GO program to ascertain how possible applications of GO technology could aid national resilience and/or present new risks. The outcome of these exercises will provide another input for shaping policy and practice recommendations.

In addition to the activities described above, the BSWG will collaborate with GO’s two other working groups. Interactions with the Regulatory Policy Working Group (RPWG, section 2.4) will focus on areas where biosecurity policy overlaps with safety considerations central to regulatory frameworks within the purview of agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Similarly, as the BSWG itself considers regulatory policies like export controls, it will engage with the Independent Commercialization Consulting Group (ICCG, section 2.5) to gain an understanding of the impact to commercialization of GO technology if export control were to hinder access to foreign markets.

In considering its policy recommendations, the BSWG will need to synthesize these different sources of information to perform a cost-benefit analysis of different possible biosecurity policy measures.

The BSWG will evaluate the potential impacts of these measures, striving to balance the risks of overprotection—which could hinder the widespread adoption and benefits of GO technologies— against the risks of under-protection, which would enable misuse, misappropriation, or exploitation by adversarial actors, thereby threatening U.S. national security and interests. The BSWG will also undertake a preliminary assessment of cybersecurity risks associated with the development of devices incorporating GO technologies, including software and hardware. While device development for specific applied uses is outside the scope of GO objectives, forward-looking evaluation of security vulnerabilities should consider the potential array of downstream applications of this technology.

Ultimately, the BSWG will need to evaluate the outcomes of risk and cost-benefit analyses, wargaming, and engagement with other working groups to make recommendations on how to implement security measures that safeguard the responsible development and use of GO technology, while still affording access to the benefits of the technology. Findings from the BSWG will result in both policy recommendations (e.g. in the form of summary reports suitable for circulation with policy makers across government) and guidelines on biosecurity best practices. Importantly, the BSWG will not engage in any lobbying activities as part of its involvement with the GO program.

2.4 Regulatory Policy Working Group (RPWG)

The primary objective of RPWG is to identify regulatory concerns, develop forward-looking regulatory guidelines, and inform GO performers and future investors on how to navigate the regulatory pathways within the current biotechnology framework. Current domestic regulatory frameworks for biotechnology will impede transition of technologies emerging from GO largely because these frameworks have never been applied to open-ended reprogrammable cellular platforms that support massively decentralized manufacturing of biological molecules. In addition, international collaboration will be critical to harmonize standards and address cultural/jurisdictional differences in biotechnology acceptance. Ultimately, the RPWG will establish a basis for transparent public dialogue and sustained engagement that will be vital to address these concerns and cultivate trust in the transformative potential of GO-based systems.

The RPWG will be established by a contracted, nonpartisan third party and composed of individuals from relevant government agencies, academic institutions, and non-government legal settings to address regulatory challenges. The RPWG may include members with expertise in statutory responsibilities of relevant agencies (e.g., FDA, EPA, USDA), and stakeholders such as external experts, industry representatives, and academic professionals to ensure a comprehensive and diverse perspective. It will focus on identifying existing national and international laws, regulations, and standards governing the research, development, and deployment of GO technologies, while identifying gaps and proposing forward-looking policy solutions. To achieve these ends, the RPWG will research and identify policy topics that are relevant to GO technology use cases identified by technical performers, BSWG and ICCG members, and DARPA. Specifically, the RPWG will focus on highlighting domestic U.S. regulatory pathways within the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology Products (CRFB) that are appropriate for some use cases of GO technology and on gaps where extant pathways are insufficient or unclear in how they would regulate a GO-based system. From this analysis of the existing regulatory landscape, the RPWG will develop a set of clear policy recommendations both to communicate existing pathways that could regulate some GO-based products and to develop new regulatory pathways where needed.

Collaboration between the RPWG and the BSWG will ensure that regulatory policies align with biosecurity measures, such as export controls, and address dual-use concerns in the development and deployment of GO technologies. Additionally, the RPWG will work with the Independent Commercialization Consulting Group (ICCG) to identify regulatory barriers to market entry and provide information to performers on how to navigate these challenges, ensuring that GO technologies can transition effectively to commercial applications. RPWG’s work is expected to provide the regulatory community with actionable recommendations and knowledge products that facilitate adoption of clear pathways for technology transition. By developing these policy recommendations, the DARPA GO program aims to accelerate regulatory agencies’ evaluation and adoption of policies that mitigate risk and uncertainties associated with applying the regulatory process to innovative technology. To this end, the RPWG will create a set of summary reports suitable for circulation with policymakers across government and another set suitable for educating the commercial capital community to facilitate informed investment in companies that are applying GO technology. Importantly, the RPWG will not engage in lobbying activity as part of its involvement with the GO program.

2.5 Independent Commercialization Consulting Group (ICCG)

DARPA seeks to integrate commercialization activities for all GO performers throughout the program, and the ICCG will lead this effort by acting as a resource that aids performers in developing a commercialization strategy. Specifically, the ICCG will provide performers with the tools, training materials, and critical feedback necessary to develop compelling pitches that attract future investors.

The organization funded to lead the ICCG will establish the working group by recruiting a group of investment professionals, entrepreneurs, and industry consultants with relevant backgrounds and knowledge suitable for the technologies under development on GO. In forming the working group, the ICCG lead organization will also be responsible for vetting the working group members to ensure they are not backed by adversarial capital and that all conflicts of interest with GO performers can be avoided or appropriately managed. The ICCG working group will provide feedback on GO performer pitches, market opportunities, business models, and funding strategies.

GO performers will need commercialization support to help them identify a specific market and to protect successful DARPA investments from adversarial capital. The ICCG will provide guidance to performers on markets, business cases, and financial pathways required to support the commercial and industrial transition of technologies developed on the GO program. This support will include educational resources to develop pitch decks, IP strategies, and funding strategies that are necessary when communicating with investors. The ICCG will provide these resources via regular training and mentorship workshops throughout the program, aligned to major program-wide meetings and workshops (See Figure 1; months 5, 13, 19, 25, 31, & 37).

Notably, ICCG prime organization will coordinate a series of pitch events where GO performers brief DARPA and the ICCG on their notional business case supported by their technical approach on GO.

The ICCG working group members will provide feedback to GO performers on refinements to their strategy and pitch based on their expertise. The ICCG will structure the pitch events to enable performers to gain practice in front of the working group members, including many who are investors, and this series of pitch events will culminate in an Expo during the final program workshop. To encourage commercial transition of GO technologies, this Expo will serve as a capstone meant to connect program performers with a set of vetted investors beyond those on the working group.

The ICCG will work with both the BSWG and RPWG to identify policy topics relevant to commercial strategies that will require regulatory approval for market adoption. This information will be relayed to performers to help them make decisions about their commercialization strategies informed by the most feasible pathways to regulatory approval. Similarly, the ICCG will also educate the investment community on key milestones needed to bring this technology to market by providing a forum to communicate regulatory policy and biosecurity considerations emerging from the GO program.

2.6 Scope of Work:

All working groups will convene with their members in person, as needed (but no less than twice per year), including at all major program events such as program-wide meetings and kickoffs associated with the GO program (see section 2.7 for schedule). The working groups will be active participants in these program activities by interacting with GO performers and collaborating with the other working groups. While not all working group members are required to attend every DARPA event, there must be sufficient representation from the membership of each working group, not just the prime organizations, to ensure effective collaboration and engagement.

To support the development of a research community around GO technology, the program incorporates multiple DARPA-sponsored workshops that are open to relevant research communities beyond GO performers. All working groups will actively participate in these DARPA-sponsored workshops by contributing their expertise and perspectives in working group sessions. In advance of the workshops, GO working group prime organizations will coordinate with DARPA for event planning to structure sessions during these workshops that help the working groups achieve their specific goals. The working groups will determine how to best implement and facilitate these sessions. Options may include, but are not limited to hosting a panel session, presenting key findings from their work, organizing policy forums, interacting with working groups in specialized topic sessions, and/or sharing insightful viewpoints on relevant challenges and opportunities in their topic area.

The prime organizations contracted to lead the working groups will be responsible for identifying and recruiting qualified individuals to form well-rounded and effective working groups comprised of all necessary expertise. Once established, the prime organizations will continue to manage working group membership to ensure it aligns to the needs of the program performers technical approaches, developing commercialization strategies, and any policy issues that arise. The primes will act as the conduit for compensating all non-federal government working group members for their time and participation in the GO program. DARPA will make necessary arrangements with any US government employees who will participate as working group members.

As the primes establish their working groups, they will work to ensure that all members obtain a clear understanding of the project goals and timelines, implement a system for administrative functions, and put in place any necessary safeguards or agreements for the handling of program-specific information. Specifically, the primes will ensure all working group members sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) relevant to the GO program, and they will establish a process to identify and mitigate potential conflicts of interest among working group members and GO performers. The primes will be responsible for defining specific objectives, scheduling, formatting, and facilitating regular working group meetings to ensure productive discussions and progress towards their objectives, tracking progress against key deliverables, identifying and addressing roadblocks to program timelines, and providing regular updates to DARPA (e.g. in monthly status meetings). All working groups will be required to provide DARPA with the following deliverables:

o Regular quarterly progress reports o Monthly status updates o A documented set of best practices o Working Group Recruitment Plan, including advertisement strategy and methods for ranking/triage and selection of participants o Working Group Recruitment Results, including a summary of recruitment outcome, brief bios of top identified respondents, and rationale for end determination of individuals staffing the working group o Publicly releasable presentations for DARPA-hosted workshop on the GO program o Presentations for program-wide meetings, which are non-public events that include

DARPA, all technical performers, all three working groups, and government partners.

The BSWG and RPWG will complete a policy landscape analysis to identify current and potential policies relevant to the GO program, and they will include their analyses and recommendations in draft and final reports that will be delivered to DARPA. Furthermore, both of these working groups will seek to publish their recommendations in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminate in a similarly relevant outlet by the end of the GO program.

For the ICCG, expected deliverables to DARPA include template pitch decks and instructions for performer teams, slides for all training workshops, and a run of show for all events (e.g. training workshops, pitch events, and the final expo) at least one month prior to those events. While the ICCG has discretion over the training curriculum, it should be tailored to address the specific needs of GO performers. In addition to organizing trainings and pitch events, individual ICCG members will conduct 1:1 check-in meetings with key personnel from performer teams during the two months leading up to each Pitch Event and the Expo. The check-ins do not need to involve the entire performer team but should include the key personnel relevant to the commercialization strategy and pitch preparation. The check-ins will provide tailored feedback and guidance to refine performers' pitch decks and commercialization strategies, ensuring alignment with program goals and readiness for the events. For planning purposes, the ICCG can assume ~5 teams in Phase 2 of the program.

ICCG will be expected to provide a list of vetted investors, outside of the core ICCG, to be invited to the Expo event. Last, a final report summarizing the outcome of the Expo and feedback from investors, including challenges/blockers for commercialization that may reflect regulatory or other policy barriers, will be required for program completion.

At minimum, working groups should attend all events and provide all deliverables listed below.

Table 1 GO Working Group Deliverables.

Phase 1 (12 mo.)

Month Event Deliverables/Exit Criteria

1 Phase 1 Kickoff & Recruitment plan

All WGs: Attend Phase 1 Program Kickoff; provide introductory slides. Submit a Working Group (WG) Recruitment Plan that includes solicitation strategy, methods for evaluating and selecting members, proposed compensation plan for members, and processes to identify and mitigate potential conflicts of interest among working group members.

4 Initial Meeting with DARPA

All WGs: Established working group with all group members selected, vetted, and oriented to the program. Any required agreements, i.e. non-disclosure agreements (NDA), relevant to the GO program to safeguard sensitive information are established.

Draft of objectives, set of best practices, and a developed schedule of group meetings for the WG for Phase 1.

5 Workshop #1

At least 3 weeks (15 working days) prior to the workshop, WGs will submit needed slides, templates, and/or information documents to DISTAR and provide them to DARPA to enable the following:

RPWG/BSWG: Introduce the WG to Facilitate sessions aimed at engaging with the other WGs and program performers. The session should promote collaboration and help identify key challenge areas that require attention.

ICCG: Deliver introductory presentation to performers focused on topics relevant to commercialization strategy. Present information necessary for performers to start crafting a pitch deck and begin rudimentary market discovery activities. The ICCG will have at least one session of the workshop that is closed to attendees not affiliated with the GO Program.

9 Commercialization Training

ICCG: Organize and manage a commercialization training session with performers. Actively engage with performers to gather information on their technical progress, commercialization strategies, and potential market applications. Provide support and feedback to performers in preparation for initial Pitch Event in month 13.

No Event Associated with this Deliverable

RPWG/BSWG: Submit a refined plan for addressing policy topics and objectives to be covered in Phase 2, ensuring alignment with the program’s objectives and milestones. This plan should reflect subject matter relevant to the technical performers advancing to Phase 2 and incorporate insights gained during Phase 1.

The deliverable must include:

A comprehensive strategy for engaging with technical performers to identify policy needs and challenges specific to Phase 2.

A detailed data collection plan outlining methods to gather insights, analyze trends, and assess the impact of existing and emerging policies on the commercialization and security of GO technologies.

A framework for evaluating the implications of regulatory and biosecurity policies on the adoption and responsible use of GO technologies, with actionable recommendations tailored to Phase 2 objectives.

ICCG: Submit a plan for hosting pitch events and relevant performer material.

Phase 2 (30 mo.)

Month Event Deliverable/Exit Criteria

13 Phase 2 Kickoff and Pitch Event #1

RPWG/BSWG: Facilitate a session aimed at presenting finding and facilitate discussion with the other WGs and program performers. The session should focus on identifying policy framework challenges, assessing potential impacts, and gathering insights to inform the development of forward-looking regulatory and biosecurity policies.

BSWG: Organize and conduct initial tabletop exercise.

ICCG: Host a pitch event/workshops to provide performers with essential knowledge of commercialization strategies.

Facilitate sessions to help performers identify potential target markets, assess competitive landscapes, and develop strategies for engaging with investors or transition partners.

Provide templates and tools for creating effective pitch decks tailored to the GO program's objectives and commercialization goals.

19 Workshop #2

RPWG/BSWG: At least 3 weeks (15 working days) prior to the workshop, WGs will submit needed slides, templates, and/or information documents to DISTAR and provide them to DARPA to enable the following: Facilitate a session aimed at encouraging discussions with the other WGs, program performers, and broader scientific community.

ICCG: Attend the workshop and actively engage with performers to gather information on their technical progress, commercialization strategies, and potential market applications.

No Event Associated with this Deliverable

RPWG: Draft reports on identified regulatory issues.

BSWG: Draft report on security concerns.

25 Program Meeting and Pitch Event #2

RPWG/BSWG: Facilitate a session aimed at presenting finding and facilitate discussion with the other WGs and program performers. The session should focus on providing preliminary recommendations of forward-looking regulatory and biosecurity policies and collaborating with performers and other WGs to identify remaining gaps in policy development.

BSWG: Organize and conduct wargame.

ICCG: Host pitch event where performers present a business hypothesis for their NAC platform. ICCG will provide feedback to performers on their commercialization strategy and help refine their pitches and align them with market opportunities.

31 Workshop #3

At least 3 weeks (15 working days) prior to the workshop, WGs will submit needed slides, templates, and/or information documents to DISTAR and provide them to DARPA to enable the following:

RPWG/BSWG: Facilitate a session aimed at encouraging discussions with the other WGs, program performers, and broader scientific community.

ICCG: Attend the workshop and actively engage with performers to gather information on their technical progress, commercialization strategies, and potential market applications.

37 Program Meeting and Pitch Event #3

RPWG/BSWG: Facilitate a session aimed at encouraging discussion with the other WGs and program performers. The session should focus on identifying policy framework challenges, assessing potential impacts, and gathering insights to inform the development of forward-looking regulatory and biosecurity policies

BSWG: Organize and conduct final wargame.

ICCG: Host a pitch event where performer present refined pitch aimed at potential investors, commercialization partners, and regulatory stakeholders to support technology transition and adoption. ICCG members will provide final feedback on commercialization strategies and identify potential pathways for further development and investment.

No Event Associated with this Deliverable

RPWG/BSWG: Final Report on Policy Recommendations including policy implementation guides.

In accordance with the Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) guidance for GO, detailed NAC related information and integrated error mitigation process when demonstrated in vivo will be controlled at the CUI level. DARPA anticipates that GO will also produce unclassified, fundamental research which will be required to be reviewed and approved by DARPA prior to public release. It is anticipated that the ICCG, BSWG, and RPWG will attend meetings where CUI data is presented and discussed. Neither ICCG, BSWG, nor RPWG are required to have NIST 800-171 compliant systems as there is no expectation for them to store or process CUI, but all working group members will be required to complete CUI training and follow the DoDI 5200.48 (See Attachment F of the GO Program Solicitation DARPA-PS-26-10 on SAM.gov).

2.7 Anticipated Structure:

Figure 1. GO Program Plan for working groups.

41 Workshop #4 and Expo

At least 3 weeks (15 working days) prior to the workshop, WGs will submit needed slides, templates, and/or information documents to DISTAR and provide them to DARPA to enable the following:

RPWG/BSWG: Present finding a framework for regulatory and security policies.

ICCG: Host a pitch Expo for performer teams to engage with investors, commercialization partners, and regulatory stakeholders to support technology transition and adoption. Unlike previous Pitch Events, the Expo will include investors (vetted to exclude adversarial capital) beyond the ICCG members.

ICCG members will provide final feedback on commercialization strategies and identify potential pathways for further development and investment.

42 Final Report

RPWG/BSWG: A comprehensive evaluation of the risks, regulatory pathways, and commercialization strategies for GO technologies, ensuring alignment with biosecurity measures, regulatory compliance, and market readiness while safeguarding national security interests.

Publication of working group outcomes and recommendations in a peer-reviewed journal or dissemination in a similarly relevant outlet

ICCG: Summarization of the outcome of the Expo and feedback from investors, including challenges/blockers for commercialization that may reflect regulatory or other policy barriers.

The GO program is a 42-month long effort divided into a 12-month Phase 1 and a 30-month Phase 2 (Figure 1). Phase 1 will allow the working groups three months to establish their membership before each full working group will hold initial virtual meetings with DARPA and the performers (month 3). While it is not expected that working groups will be populated with all their members until month 3, key personnel from the prime organizations should plan to attend the program kickoff (in-person) and monthly status calls (virtual). For monthly status calls after month 3, the entire working group need not attend these meetings, but representatives from the prime organization must attend them. The initial pitch event (ICCG) and tabletop exercise (BSWG) will be conducted in association with the Phase 2 kickoff (month 12), and these will repeat roughly every year for the remainder of the program.

2.8 Technical Guidance for Abstracts & Proposals:

As described in the BTO Office-wide BAA (HR001126S0003), responses to this Special Notice must submit abstracts, and based on an evaluation of those abstracts, DARPA may invite respondents to submit a full proposal. While those invited proposals will align with the format provided in the BTO Office-Wide BAA, abstracts in response to this Special Notice are limited to 5 pages and should include the following sections:

o Executive Summary (1 pg) o Background and Expertise of the proposing organization and key personnel (1.5 pg) o Scope of work that aligns to the goals of working group within the structure of the GO program (2 pg) o Basis of estimate for costs by program phase (0.5 pg).

In addition to these sections, Appendix A provides a preparation checklist addressing solicitation requirements.

Abstracts submitted in response to this Special Notice MUST address only one of the three working groups — either the ICCG, BSWG, or RPWG. While abstracts and proposals must focus on only one working group, separate abstracts for multiple working group topics may be submitted by the same organization. Institutions submitting abstracts for multiple working groups must ensure each submission highlights a distinct team composition and expertise tailored to the specific topic area. No individual may be included as named technical personnel on more than one award resulting from these submissions. Individuals with organizational/managerial roles may be involved in more than one working group at lower LOEs.

Abstracts must specify the working group being addressed and justify the proposing team’s relevant background and expertise to manage that working group effectively. Abstracts and proposals responding to any of the working groups must demonstrate a clear understanding of the issues the working group will address on GO as well as the general subject matter pertinent to the working group’s topic area (i.e., commercialization, biosecurity, and regulatory policy; see sections 2.3-2.5 above). While abstracts are limited to respond to only one working group, they should demonstrate a clear understanding of all overlapping challenges and opportunities in the other topic areas to showcase the ability to collaborate effectively with other works.

Abstracts and proposals submitted for each of the working groups must include a description of their plans to vet working group members and avoid including individuals or investors representing adversarial capital into the program. Additionally, they should describe the proposed working group structure (i.e. ideal number of members, roles and responsibilities) and any decision points in the program where they may modify the makeup of their group as necessary to align with the support required as the GO program progresses.

Proposals must describe an approach to capture data related to their activities on the program that enables the prime organization to effectively manage working group activities, including identifying gaps in expertise on the working group, new policy or commercialization subjects to focus on, or new/different interactions with either performers or other working groups.

o Full proposals responding to either the BSWG or RPWG must include a data collection plan to gather insights, analyze trends, and assess the impact of existing and emerging policies related to their topic area. Based in part on the collected data, proposals should include a plan for how working groups will refine policy topics in Phase 1 (month 11) to reflect subject matter relevant to the technical performers continuing into Phase 2 and to ensure alignment with program objectives and milestones. To provide DARPA with up-to-date information about the direction working groups are moving based on the acquired data, proposals must include plans to incorporate this information into monthly/quarterly reports. Statements of Work (SOW) should be written to specify core policy topics that are unlikely to change as performers’ specific technical approaches are revised in Phase 1, and these topics should be described in broad enough terms to afford GO working groups with flexibility to specify and tailor the topics to be relevant to technical performers. Proposals should include appropriate deliverables throughout the program for submission of key manuscripts; however, proposals should include only a single deliverable for publishing a manuscript.

o Full proposals to manage the ICCG must include a data collection plan to track and assess the impact of their program and disseminate those results to DARPA in their monthly/quarterly reports. For the ICCG, these data should, at minimum, include assessments of barriers to commercialization that each of the performer teams will encounter (e.g., regulatory uncertainty/barriers, security constraints, significant liabilities, etc.). The data should also include quantified outputs from trainings and pitch events (e.g., surveys of participants in those events) to enable refinement of this support to technical performers as the program proceeds. Interactions with the other working groups may also be included as part of the data collection plan, but proposals should describe a notional scheme for how this interaction will proceed throughout the program to support data collection as opposed to merely casual interaction at program events.

Full proposals should include clear plans to meet all deliverables specified in Table 1 above. Again, these are the minimum set of deliverables for working groups on the GO program, and proposing organizations are encouraged to include additional deliverables or milestones that are not covered in this special notice. However, any additional deliverables or milestone must have clear and direct relevance to the goals of the GO program, and they must align to the topic area of the proposed working group (i.e., commercialization, regulatory policy, or biosecurity policy, respectively). A Statement of Work (SOW) template will be provided to help organize deliverables and tasks outlined in Table 3 and Section 1.3.7, which must be structured according to the program framework (Figure 1). Tasks should be clearly divided between Phase 1 and Phase 2, with separate listings for each phase, even if the title and description of the tasks are identical across phases (e.g., Project Management tasks). Proposals must specify milestones or deliverables that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's objectives, ensuring program alignment while allowing flexibility for adaptation.

Costs associated with proposals for either the BSWG or the RPWG must not exceed $1.25M for the 42-month period of performance of the GO program, and costs associated with proposals for the ICCG must not exceed $1.5M. Abstracts and proposals that exceed $1.25M (RPWG/BSWG) or $1.5M (ICCG) will not be considered for review. As stated in Section 2.6, DARPA will coordinate and arrange all meeting spaces for major program events (e.g., kickoff meetings, workshops, pitch events, program meetings, etc.). Therefore, proposals should not include event space in their proposed budgets. Abstracts should provide a notional plan/budget for compensating working group members, while full proposals should provide a detailed compensation plan for all working group members.

Note: Honorariums are not permissible as a method of compensation. All compensation-related costs must be explicitly incorporated into the basis of estimate. Full proposals must include detailed compensation plans that describe a payment structure and justification for members’ remuneration.

All program events and workshop are expected to be in-person, and proposals should include costs for relevant parties, including working group members, to attend these events under the assumption that half will be held in Arlington, VA and half will be held in the San Francisco Bay Area. Proposals should plan for virtual attendance at monthly status calls with DARPA. If US Government employees will participate as working group members, then DARPA will arrange participation by these individuals and Abstracts and Proposals should therefore exclude costs associated with travel or compensation of government employees. If it is uncertain whether government employees will participate as working group members, then proposals should assume that none of the working group members will be government employees, and they should plan costs accordingly.

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Abstracts and proposals will be evaluated using the following criteria listed in descending order of importance. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit; Proposer’s Capabilities or Related Experience;

Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission; and Cost and Schedule Realism. An abstract must be submitted and a notification to submit a proposal must be received, prior to any proposal submission. A proposal will not be reviewed if it is submitted without: 1) Submitting an abstract and 2) Receiving a notification to submit a proposal.

o Overall Scientific and Technical Merit: The proposed technical approach is innovative, feasible, achievable, and complete. The proposed technical team has the expertise to accomplish the proposed tasks. Task descriptions and associated technical elements provided are complete and in a logical sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined such that a final outcome that achieves the goal can be expected as a result of award. The proposal identifies major technical risks and planned mitigation efforts are clearly defined and feasible.

o Proposer’s Capabilities or Related Experience: The proposer's prior experience in similar efforts clearly demonstrates an ability to deliver products that meet the proposed technical performance within the proposed budget and schedule. The proposed team has the expertise to manage the cost and schedule. Similar efforts completed/ongoing by the proposer in this area are fully described including identification of other Government sponsors.

o Potential Contribution and Relevance to the DARPA Mission: The potential contributions of the proposed effort bolster the national security technology base and support DARPA’s mission to make pivotal early technology investments that create or prevent technological surprise.

o Cost Realism and Schedule: The proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach and accurately reflect the technical goals and objectives of the solicitation. The proposed costs are consistent with the proposer's Statement of Work and reflect a sufficient understanding of the costs and level of effort needed to successfully accomplish the proposed technical approach. The costs for the prime proposer and proposed sub-awardees are substantiated by the details provided in the proposal (e.g., the type and number of labor hours proposed per task, the types and quantities of materials, equipment and fabrication costs, travel and any other applicable costs and the basis for the estimates). It is expected that the effort will leverage all available relevant prior research in order to obtain the maximum benefit from the available funding. For efforts with a likelihood of commercial application, appropriate direct cost sharing may be a positive factor in the evaluation. DARPA recognizes that undue emphasis on cost may motivate proposers to offer low-risk ideas with minimum uncertainty and to staff the effort with junior personnel in order to be in a more competitive posture. DARPA discourages such cost strategies.

Unless otherwise specified in this announcement, for additional information on how DARPA reviews and evaluates proposals through the Scientific Review Process, please visit: Proposer Instructions:

General Terms and Conditions.

4. SUBMISSION INFORMATION

The Government is soliciting for the technical performers on the GO program separately via a Program Solicitation, Funding Opportunity Number – DARPA-PS-26-10. Proposals submitted in response to this special notice that aim to participate in technical development will be considered non-conforming and will not be reviewed. To avoid organizational conflicts of interest on the GO program, institutions that submit proposals to both the special notice for the working groups and the program solicitation (i.e., as a technical performer) must provide DARPA with a clear mitigation plan to implement appropriate firewalls between the technical performer team and the team providing program-level support via the working group. If DARPA were to make awards to an organization submitting separate proposals to act as both a technical performer and establish a working group, the same individual(s) cannot be included as named personnel on both awards.

This Special Notice allows multiple award instrument types to be awarded to include Procurement Contracts, Cooperative Agreements, and Other Transaction Agreements.

Some award instrument types have specific cost-sharing requirements. The following websites are incorporated by reference and contain additional information regarding overall proposer instructions, general terms and conditions, and each specific award instrument type.

This announcement requires the use of the accelerated award for selected full proposals.

Awards for such proposals would be made within 30 days of the selection notification.

Proposers must agree to prescribed stipulations as part of their full proposal submissions.

Please see Attachments H through L for details. Attachment G (and Attachment K or L if requesting an OT) must be included in the proposal submission to receive this type of award. Proposers should pursue this accelerated award option and must submit proposals through the Broad Agency Announcement Tool.

o Note: Costs associated with proposals for the BSWG and RPWG must not exceed $1.25M and costs for the ICCG must not exceed $1.5M, for the 42-month period of performance of the GO program. Abstracts and proposals exceeding these respective limits will not be considered during the review process.

https://www.darpa.mil/about/offices/contracts-management/proposer-general-terms https://www.darpa.mil/about/offices/contracts-management/proposer-general-terms

Proposers must review the following links prior to submitting an abstract or proposal:

Proposer Instructions: General Terms and Conditions:

https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/proposer-instructions Procurement Contracts:

https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/procurementcontracts Cooperative Agreements:

https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/grant-cooperativeagreements Other Transactions:

https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/other-transactionagreements

Proposal abstracts and full proposals that are not found to be applicable to DARPA-SN- 26-27 as defined above may be deemed non-conforming and removed from consideration.

All abstracts and proposals must provide sufficient information to assess the validity/feasibility of their claims as well as comply with the requirements outlined herein for submission formatting, content, and transmission to DARPA. Abstracts and full proposals that fail to do so may be deemed non-conforming and removed from consideration.

This announcement contains a required abstract phase. Proposers must submit an abstract in response to this solicitation to be invited to submit a proposal. Please note that the deadlines for GO working group abstract and proposal submissions are different from the general abstract and proposal deadlines that are listed in HR001126S0003. The abstract submission deadline for this special notice is January 26, 2026. If DARPA does not invite the proposer to submit a full proposal, DARPA will provide feedback to the proposer regarding the rationale for this decision. Proposers should note that an invitation to submit a full proposal is not a guarantee that a proposal based on the abstract will ultimately be selected for award negotiation. Regardless of instrument type desired, all abstracts must be submitted through the Broad Agency Announcement Tool (BAAT).