DARPA-PS-26-115_MXO_Office-Wide_QA_v2_09.23.2026.pdf

DARPA-PS-26-115: Multi X Office (MXO) Office-wide Innovative Solutions Opening

Question and Answer (Q&A)

Version 02

Amended as of September 23, 2026

Q1. How do I gauge MXO’s interest in my idea prior to submitting an abstract?

A1. Potential proposers are encouraged to visit our website at https://www.darpa.mil/about/offices/mxo, where you can find our Program Managers (PMs) and their current Ideas Under Incubation. Potential proposers may reach out to PMs directly from their profiles to gauge their interest in a particular groundbreaking concept or discovery solution prior to submitting. Proposers are advised that MXO PMs are not permitted to help with the crafting of ideas or abstracts; further, MXO PMs will not direct proposers to submit an abstract.

Q2. Would a startup-led team with a National Laboratory collaborator (subrecepient) be considered an appropriate team structure under this solicitation?

A2. FFRDCs, UARCs, and Government Entities, to include National Laboratories, are permitted to participate, but proposers are cautioned to review section 3.1 of the solicitation for specific eligibility and proposal requirements associated with these entities.

Q3. Are there any general expectations regarding technology maturity or preferred Technical Readiness Level (TRL) range for concepts submitted through this Innovative Solutions Opening?

A3. Under this solicitation MXO seeks to develop high-risk, high-reward technologies and proposed research should investigate innovative approaches that enable revolutionary advances in science, components, or systems. This should be interpreted to align with

TRL 2–5.

Q4. For efforts involving National Laboratory participation, are there any considerations or best practices regarding scope allocation, funding structure, or collaboration arrangements that proposers should be aware of during the abstract stage?

A4. At the abstract stage, the Capabilities/Management Plan section of the abstract is where proposers must articulate the full details of their intended team structure, to include any participation by FFRDCs, UARCs, or Government Entities.

Q5. Would the following types of collaboration with National Laboratories be permissible, provided the National Laboratory does not receive DARPA funding: building upon National Laboratory technology, utilizing National Laboratory IP through a licensing https://www.darpa.mil/about/offices/mxo agreement, or conducting technical interactions or validation through a non-DARPA-funded mechanism (e.g., CRADA, Work-for-Others, or user facility access)?

A5. Those types of collaboration may be permissible. Proposers are cautioned to review section 3.1 of the solicitation for specific eligibility and proposal requirements associated with these entities.

Q6. May a foreign-based early-stage startup company or individual proposer submit an abstract directly under this opportunity?

A6. While non-U.S. sources may participate under this solicitation, proposers are cautioned to review section 3.1 of the solicitation for the specific screening measures to which non-U.S. individuals will be subject.

Q7. Are any U.S. partners, registrations, representations, or foreign-national documents required at the abstract stage?

A7. Attachment B Abstract Instructions and Template is the only submission document required at the abstract stage.

Q8. If an abstract is selected for an oral proposal presentation or technical discussion, could that presentation be conducted remotely from Japan? And if remote participation is permissible, would a secure video meeting supported by written presentation materials and real-time captions be acceptable?

A8. Proposal submission instructions, including any requirements for an oral proposal presentation (when applicable), such as in-person vs. virtual participation, will be provided as part of the proposal invitation.

Q9. Could you please clarify whether the MXO Office-wide Innovative Solutions Opening permits submission of a revised abstract addressing feedback, or whether a concept is no longer eligible for consideration under the current solicitation if it has already been submitted?

A9. While there is no limit to the number of abstracts a proposer may submit under the solicitation, proposers are cautioned that, as stated in section 1.3 of the solicitation, numerous submissions of identical or nearly identical submissions may be deemed non-conforming and rejected without further review.

Q10. Can an innovative concept be submitted under the Office-wide Innovative Solutions Opening when it is not addressed by an existing MXO program?

A10. Yes, as long as it addresses one of the Thrust Areas described in the PS.

Q11. Will a review of a proposal submitted months ahead of the due date receive an earlier review, or will the review and selection process not begin until after the due date?

A11. Abstracts and proposals will be accepted on a rolling basis up to their respective due dates that are noted in the PS. Evaluations are anticipated to be conducted on a rolling basis as conforming submissions are received.

Q12. What are the CAGE Code requirements for abstract submissions?

A12. There is a field on the Attachment B Abstracts Instructions and Template Cover Sheet for proposers to enter their CAGE Code. If a proposer has not yet obtained a CAGE Code at the time of abstract submission, the proposer should use that field to identify the date the proposer had initiated the CAGE Code request and the anticipated date by which the CAGE Code will be obtained.

Q13. May the abstract identify a planned contract research performer that is not yet under agreement, or must the complete experimental team be committed at submission?

A13. The performing team does not need to be finalized at the abstract stage. Teaming arrangements may be altered between abstract and proposal submissions.

Q14. Could you please clarify whether multiple submissions are allowed from the same entity in response to this open call solicitation, as long as they align with the PM areas of interest?

A14. Multiple submissions from the same entity addressing different areas of interest or Thrust Areas are permitted. However, as stated in section 1.3 of the PS, “Submissions that are deemed technically identical, or nearly identical, to previous submissions may be deemed non-conforming and rejected without further review.”