DARPA-PS-26-07_Pitch_Day_QA_v1.pdf

DARPA-PA-26-07 Page 1 of 7

DARPA-PA-26-07

Multi X Office (MXO) Pitch Day 2026

Questions and Answers (Q&A) Document Version 1

July 24, 2026

1. Administrative and Eligibility Questions

Eligibility Note: as stated in the solicitation, the intent and goals of MXO Pitch Day 2026 include an acquisition strategy to encourage 1) participation by non-traditional organizations and small businesses that have not previously received a DARPA-funded award as prime performers and 2) University teams whose Principal Investigators (PI) and Co-Principal Investigators (Co- PI) have not previously served as a PI or Co-PI under a DARPA-funded award.

Q1-1 Are Pitch Day and Spark Tank the same event or two separate events?

A1-1 They are separate events. MXO Pitch Day 2026 is occurring in conjunction with

MXO Spark Tank.

Q1-2 If the abstract is not invited, are we still eligible to attend the Pitch Day in person?

A1-2 No. Participation in Pitch Day is by invitation only. However, organizations who are not invited to Pitch Day may still register to attend Spark Tank.

Q1-3 If my Abstract is invited to Pitch Day, do I need to register for Spark Tank in order to participate in the Pitch Day Poster Showcase?

A1-3 Yes. In order to participate in Pitch Day on November 2 and the Poster Showcase on November 3, you must be a registered attendee to MXO Spark Tank. Abstracts invited to Pitch Day are required to register for Spark Tank in order to pitch.

Q1-4 I served as a PI for a university that was funded by a DARPA award. I now work for a non-traditional defense contractor who is interested in participating in Pitch Day. Is my organization eligible with me as the PI?

A1-4 Non-traditional defense contractors (i.e., non-traditional organizations and small businesses) that have not previously received a DARPA-funded award as prime performers are eligible regardless of the PI’s or Co-PI's prior work.

Q1-5 I served as a PI for University X on an effort that was funded by a DARPA award. I now work for University Y, who is interested in participating in Pitch Day. Is University Y eligible with me as the PI of the effort?

A1-5 No. A university is not eligible if its proposed PI or Co-PI previously served as a PI or Co-PI under a DARPA-funded award.

GomezBello, Nestor are Pitch Day invitees required to register for Spark Tank, regardless of the invitee attending spark tank or participating in the poster showcase?

If yes, they are required, then let's add a sentence similar to "Abstracts invited to Pitch Day are required to register for Spark Tank"

Thurn, Leina (contr-mxo) The sentence includes “In order to participate in Pitch Day… you must be a registered attendee to MXO Spark Tank.” Is that not enough, you think? I’ve added another sentence to the end to be super clear, just in case

DARPA-PA-26-07 Page 2 of 7

Q1-6 I served as a Co-PI for University X on an effort that was funded by a DARPA award. I now work for University Y, who is interested in participating in Pitch Day. Is University Y eligible with me as the PI of the effort?

A1-6 No. See A1-5.

Q1-7 One of our interested faculty members has received a subcontract for a DARPA ERIS Seedling grant, so he is the lead PI for the subcontract institution. Since our institution is not the prime contractor for that award, we think that our faculty member would qualify to apply for the MXO Pitch Day. Could you please verify whether or not a subcontract award would affect his eligibility?

A1-7 See A1-6.

Q1-8 Can a University proposal include co-PIs or senior/key personnel in addition to the named PI? If yes, may those personnel be from a different institution, given that subawards are not permitted?

A1-8 Subcontractors and consultants are not allowed. A proposing organization, identified by a unique CAGE code, must have only one Principal Investigator with a unique technical team.

Q1-9 Can multiple Universities (organization) team up to submit an abstract?

A1-9 See A1-8.

Q1-10 Would it be possible for a startup company to join as a co-PI?

A1-10 See A1-8.

Q1-11 May a faculty member from a university different from the proposing organization be identified as a co-investigator or technical co-lead under “Other Team Members (Not Subcontractors)”? If so, may any of that individual’s labor be included as a direct cost to the prime, or must the individual participate without compensation?

A1-11 See A1-8.

Q1-12 My organization is currently a subcontractor/subawardee performing under a DARPA program. Is my organization eligible to apply?

A1-12 Please see Eligibility in the Overview section on page 2 of the Pitch Day PA.

Q1-13 I was awarded a Young Faculty Award from DARPA in the past. Does that make me ineligible to apply as a PI for MXO Pitch Day 2026?

A1-13 Please see Eligibility in the Overview section on page 2 of the Pitch Day PA.

Q1-14 Does the eligibility restriction apply to non-technical DARPA awards?

Thurn, Leina (contr-mto) Added this to cover the language changes Nestor wanted to make to the PA. Is this sufficient and accurate? If not, either edit this or let us know if we need to issue a PA amendment instead. @GomezBello, Nestor @Shipman, Seidale (contr-mxo)

GomezBello, Nestor I do not see the connection with Q3.

Let's remove "see Q3" or point me to the connection.

Thurn, Leina (contr-mto) I added it to point to the restrictions on PIs, since the question is “am I eligible?” I think we need to somehow give an answer to that (so “no” or link to Q3) or rephrase the question so that it is not a yes/no question

Thurn, Leina (contr-mto) Rephrased to use language that was already being used elsewhere

GomezBello, Nestor excellent!

Thurn, Leina (contr-mto) Clarified, since technically a proposal is not required to have any additional team members aside from the PI. @GomezBello, Nestor What do you think?

GomezBello, Nestor the questions seems to be focused on "personnel from different institution" i.e. not officially part of the PI's organization.

let's leave the answer as it was

Thurn, Leina (contr-mto) Okay, restored

DARPA-PA-26-07 Page 3 of 7

A1-14 Please see Eligibility in the Overview section on page 2 of the Pitch Day PA.

Q1-15 Does the CAGE Code restriction apply to universities (which have a single CAGE code for the whole organization)? If so, this would restrict submissions to a maximum of three abstracts per university.

A1-15 Please see Section III.B (Abstract Submissions): Abstract Submission Limitations of the Pitch Day PA.

Q1-16 May a company submit three (3) proposals, one (1) proposal in each Thrust; or is a company limited to one (1) proposal total?

A1-16 See A1-15.

Q1-17 Is it still possible to submit as the prime (single awardee) and then we subcontract some work to the university team and list that in the budget as consulting partner?

A1-17 Subcontractors and consultants are not allowed.

Q1-18 Does the PA impose any limit on the number of senior/key personnel listed on an Abstract?

A1-18 The MXO Pitch Day PA does not impose any limits on the amount of senior/key personnel that an organization may propose for their team.

Q1-19 For university proposers, does DARPA impose any requirement on the proposed PI’s institutional appointment type or rank, beyond the stated restriction that the PI must not have previously served as PI under a DARPA-funded award? For example, is institutional PI eligibility sufficient?

A1-19 DARPA does not impose additional eligibility restrictions with regards to university proposers.

Q1-20 The PA states that each Abstract from the same organization must identify a different PI, technical team, and distinct technical approach. May an individual serve as non-PI senior/key personnel on more than one Abstract from the same organization, provided the PI and technical approach are different?

A1-20 No.

Q1-21 Are FFRDCs also discouraged from submitting innovative ideas to MXO Pitch Day?

A1-21 As stated in Section IV: Special Considerations of the Pitch Day PA, “Federally

Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC), University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), and Government Entities are not eligible to propose to this solicitation.”

DARPA-PA-26-07 Page 4 of 7

Q1-22 I would appreciate clarification regarding the submission process. For university proposers, should the PI submit the Abstract directly through the DARPA BAAT portal, or should the submission be made through the university's Office of Sponsored Programs/Research Administration?

A1-22 An Abstract must be submitted via an organization identified by a unique CAGE code via the DARPA Broad Agency Announcement Tool (BAAT). See Attachment B for guidance on using the BAAT.

Q1-23 The Overview states that Government funding “will only cover labor and materials, equipment, other direct costs, and reasonable profit,” and that “travel costs, publication costs, and subawards are not permitted.” Would independent consultants engaged directly by the prime under individual consulting agreements be permissible as labor or other direct costs, or would those arrangements be treated as prohibited subawards?

A1-23 Subcontractors and consultants are not allowed.

Q1-24 Participation is restricted to non-traditional defense contractors “that have not previously received a DARPA contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction award as a prime performer.” At what point is this condition assessed—abstract submission, Pitch Day invitation, proposal submission, or award? Specifically, would an organization that is eligible at abstract submission remain eligible if it receives an unrelated DARPA prime award before an award is made under DARPA-PA-26-07?

A1-24 The eligibility is assessed at the Abstract submission stage.

Q1-25 Section IV of the Program Announcement states that, for any proposal that includes fundamental research, proposers must submit the Common Form for Biographical Sketch and the Common Form for Current and Pending (Other) Support for all covered individuals. Are these forms required at the Abstract submission stage (due July 29, 2026), or only with the Pitch Day Presentation (PDP) package or prior to award negotiation?

A1-25 DARPA will request the Common Form for Biographical Sketch and the Common Form for Current and Pending (Other) Support along with the invitation for submitters to participate in Pitch Day, based on the evaluation of their Pitch Day abstract.

Q1-26 What does DARPA mean by a “high-level program schedule” in the Abstract Instructions? Could you please provide an example?

A1-26 The Pitch Day PA focuses on abstract submissions. Proposing organizations should provide a set of key milestones with anticipated due dates (e.g., Milestone 1 [Initial Concept Design Review] due at Month 1 after award) to meet their proposed project objectives.

DARPA-PA-26-07 Page 5 of 7

Q1-27 The abstract template indicates that the '2. Technical Approach' section should be 3 pages and '4. Budget and Schedule' section should be 0.5 page. The template does not say how many pages we need to write for '3. Technical Ability and Proposer Qualifications'. Does it mean that the section 4 has to be 1.5 pages? Or can we add any other section (such as Problem and summary) within the 5-page limit of the project narrative?

A1-27 Per the instructions in Attachment A, “Use of this template is mandatory for all abstract submissions to this solicitation.” Abstract submissions that deviate from the template may be found nonconforming.

Section 2 of Attachment A states, “No more than 3 pages are recommended. This is included in the page limit.” Section 4 of Attachment A states, “This may be presented as no more than half a page narrative or table and is included in the page limit.” The page limits presented for these individual sections are recommendations; however, note that the instructions state, “Abstracts must not exceed 5 pages. Anything over 5 pages will not be considered.”

Q1-28 The table in Attachment A lists “Fixed Amount Support” among the sections counting against the five-page limit, while the corresponding section in the template is titled “Estimated Budget and Schedule.” Please confirm that these refer to the same required section.

A1-28 Yes, “Fixed Amount Support” and “Estimated Budget and Schedule” refer to the same section.

Q1-29 Where can I find additional resources to help me prepare my abstract submission?

A1-29 The DARPAConnect team encourages Pitch Day proposers, especially those preparing their first effective abstract submission, to review the curriculum lessons provided below. These lessons offer targeted guidance, best practices, and helpful tips to support a strong and well-structured submission. If you have any questions about how to engage with DARPA, please contact the DARPAConnect team at darpaconnect@darpa.mil.

DARPA 101: Introduction to DARPA

The Heilmeier Catechism

Tips for DARPA Proposal Success

2. Technical Questions

Q2-1 Section I describes funding “scientific discovery solutions” intended to advance scientific understanding, generate new concepts or methods, and reduce technical uncertainty. Are purely theoretical or computational efforts within scope, provided they address one of the thrust areas, or is an experimental demonstration expected within the 12-month period of performance?

mailto:darpaconnect@darpa.mil https://usg02.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flearning.theari.us%2Fproducts%2Fdarpa-101-introduction-to-darpa&data=05%7C02%7Cleina.thurn.ctr%40darpa.mil%7Cbf013852bf9847595a8408dee285e612%7Cf84814b5f44e46909314553e36b5f585%7C0%7C0%7C639197261908663987%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=UWXJ7b%2Bn7htSgc212%2BYHMToifUhhpqjcfgChKCog9ak%3D&reserved=0 https://usg02.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flearning.theari.us%2Fproducts%2Fthe-heilmeier-catechism%23tab-product_tab_overview&data=05%7C02%7Cleina.thurn.ctr%40darpa.mil%7Cbf013852bf9847595a8408dee285e612%7Cf84814b5f44e46909314553e36b5f585%7C0%7C0%7C639197261908683414%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=cVQUirFCVOjhRFwVyZqTelBaxC%2Bo1XhMBw5rIBVVRWc%3D&reserved=0 https://usg02.safelinks.protection.office365.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flearning.theari.us%2Fproducts%2Ftips-for-darpa-proposal-success%23tab-product_tab_overview&data=05%7C02%7Cleina.thurn.ctr%40darpa.mil%7Cbf013852bf9847595a8408dee285e612%7Cf84814b5f44e46909314553e36b5f585%7C0%7C0%7C639197261908700451%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=F5lfrt6HnosiMLNAViF3cSCn%2B4vghYqWTR%2BZqqw1eF8%3D&reserved=0

DARPA-PA-26-07 Page 6 of 7

A2-1 Purely theoretical or computational efforts are within scope, provided they address one of the thrust areas and include independently verifiable metrics that are meaningful, impactful, and ambitious relative to the state of the art.

Q2-2 Thrust Area 1 includes acoustic devices among examples of non-electronic developments. Are hybrid concepts within scope in which a non-electronic information bus, such as an acoustic or phononic channel, drives or reads out electron- or spin-based states? Or is the intent that the full signal chain remain non-electronic?

A2-2 Hybrid concepts in which a non-electronic information bus drives or reads out electron or spin-based states are in scope, provided the abstract articulates how the performance is improved over a purely non-electronic signal chain.

Q2-3 The PA states that efforts including human or animal subjects research are out of scope.

Would an effort validated entirely through physical and materials characterization — using only non-living surrogates (synthetic particles, non-select-agent microbial surrogates handled at the bench, or chemical markers) and no human- or animal-derived samples — be considered within scope for either Thrust Area 1 or Thrust Area 3?

A2-3 Yes.

Q2-4 Does the use of standard laboratory microbial cultures (non-select-agent) purely as a physical test target, absent any human or animal subjects, trigger the out-of-scope determination?

A2-4 No, the use of standard laboratory microbial cultures purely as a physical test target without human or animal subjects would not trigger the out-of-scope determination.

Q2-5 For Thrust Area 1, is a device whose primary innovation is a non-electronic transduction mechanism (with a diagnostic application as the impact case) an appropriate fit?

A2-5 A device whose primary innovation is a non-electronic transduction mechanism would be in scope.

Q2-6 For Thrust Area 3, is a material whose primary innovation is a novel post-fabrication property (with a pathogen-inactivation application as the impact case) an appropriate fit?

A2-6 No. The examples provided in the Pitch Day PA, such as ad-hoc tunable electrical, magnetic, optical, and mechanical properties beyond the state of the art, are MXO’s interests with regards to Thrust Area 3; a pathogen-inactivation application is not of interest at this time.

Q2-7 I would like to inquire about Thrust 2: Tools and Processes for Indigenous Development.

Are space-domain topics generally considered relevant to this opportunity? Would technologies supporting Space Domain Awareness (SDA) or Space Situational

Shipman, Seidale (contr-mxo) @Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) @Chang, Tsu-Hsi "Phillip" (contr-mxo) Would either of you be able to help with an Answer to this Pitch Day question.

Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) I would suggest: “Purely theoretical or computational efforts are within scope, provided they address one of the thrust areas and include independently verifiable metrics that are meaningful, impactful, and ambitious relative to the state-of-the-art.”

Thurn, Leina (contr-mto) @Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) @Chang, Tsu-Hsi "Phillip" (contr-mxo) Can you please also answer this one?

Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) I suggest: “Hybrid concepts in which a non-electronic information bus drives or reads out electron or spin-based states are in scope, provided the abstract articulates how the performance is improved over a purely non-electronic signal chain.”

Shipman, Seidale (contr-mxo) @Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) @Chang, Tsu-Hsi "Phillip" (contr-mxo) would either of you be able to assist in a response for this Pitch Day Question?

Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) I recommend: “Yes.”

Shipman, Seidale (contr-mxo) @Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) @Chang, Tsu-Hsi "Phillip" (contr-mxo) Same here. Another HSR question

Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) I recommend: “No, the use of standard laboratory microbial cultures purely as a physical test target without human or animal subjects would not trigger the out-of-scope determination.”

Shipman, Seidale (contr-mxo) @Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) @Chang, Tsu-Hsi "Phillip" (contr-mxo) Would you be able to assist in these.

Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) I recommend:

Q47: “A device whose primary innovation is a non-electronic transduction mechanism would be in scope.”

Q48 I defer to Phillip

Thurn, Leina (contr-mxo) @Chang, Tsu-Hsi "Phillip" (contr-mxo) Any input?

Thurn, Leina (contr-mto) @Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) @Chang, Tsu-Hsi "Phillip" (contr-mxo) Please answer this one as well

Cheng, Dick (contr-mxo) Can you double check the question? He might be looking at 2025 solicitation (or Office wide?) where Thrust 2 was Indigenous Development. Pitch Day’s Thrust 2 is Foundations Beyond Components. If he’s got it right, then I recommend “Yes, as the Pitch Day solicitation states, space is a natural extreme environment of interest.”

DARPA-PA-26-07 Page 7 of 7

Awareness (SSA) in the cis-lunar regime be considered a good fit for this thrust or this opportunity in general?

A2-7 “Tools and Processes for Indigenous Development” is not a Thrust Area of the Pitch Day PA. If you are referring to “Thrust 2: Foundations Beyond Components,” then yes, as stated in the Pitch Day PA, space is a natural extreme environment of interest.

3. Contracting Questions

Q3-1 Will indirect costs be allowed? If so, any cap?

A3-1 The Pitch Day PA focuses on abstract submissions. Organizations who are invited to

Pitch Day will receive further instructions.

Q3-2 We noted that the maximum award size will be $500,000 total costs. Is the award able to support indirect costs/F&A or does the $500,000 only cover direct costs?

A3-2 See A3-1.

Q3-3 Could DARPA clarify whether limited external build services, material characterization, or mechanical testing performed by a commercial vendor may be included as other direct costs, provided the vendor is not proposed as a subawardee and does not perform a substantive research role?

A3-3 Please see Funding Scope in the Overview on page 2 of the Pitch Day PA.

Subcontractors and consultants are not allowed.

Q3-4 Could you please clarify whether an institution that has not yet entered its CMMC Level 1 self-assessment into SPRS is eligible to submit an abstract and, if invited, a full proposal? Our understanding is that a current SPRS entry would be required prior to receiving an award, but we would appreciate confirmation that it is not required for submission.

A3-4 To be eligible for award under this PA, the CAGE code associated with the proposal must have a valid, unexpired Final Level 1 CMMC status recorded in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).