Solicitation 6.0

Context

Conventional water‑based radiological decontamination methods often result in significant volumes of contaminated runoff requiring collection and disposal. To enhance operational efficiency and sustainability, there is a need for water‑free approaches that minimize secondary waste while maintaining effective decontamination performance.

What We Are Looking For

Technologies that can remove and contain radiological contaminants using non-contact and water-free approaches in a man-portable form factor, reducing secondary waste in both indoor & outdoor environments.

Key Metrics

• Precision (i.e. focus for pin point targeting).
• Decontamination efficiency.
• Preparation time & operator safety measures.
• Processing/cleaning speed (e.g. in area and/or covered per unit time).
• Total cost of ownership.
• Effectiveness in containment of hazard.
• Non-destructive.

Your Technology Solution Should Demonstrate

• A means to decontaminate a range of complex and flat surface types.
• Methods that must not make contact with the hazard, and be water-free.
• If method generates off-gas and/or vapour, it must effectively capture these run-off to reduce hazard to the operator.
• Reduction in waste volume by >80% compared to water based methods.
• Effectiveness against radiological contaminants. Desirable to be effective against chemical and biological contaminants.
• A man-portable design that can be adapted for field deployment in terms of environmental ruggedization.

What a Trial Looks Like

• Phase 1: Field trial on representative surfaces/infrastructure using simulants to determine system operation characteristics, environmental ruggedisation, and key performance measures (e.g. decontamination efficacy, waste characterization).
• Phase 2 (Upon successful completion of Phase 1): Field deployment with ops user evaluation under simulated hazardous scenarios.

What We Are Not Looking For

• Academic papers and concepts.
• Water-based methods (e.g., ultra-high-pressure washing) or isotope chelating agents for use in aqueous medium or vacuum systems.
• Solutions requiring extensive infrastructure or large power sources that are unavailable in field conditions.

Follow-on Implementation Cost

All necessary costs to facilitate deployment.

Context

Accurate and resilient Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) are foundational for navigation, logistics, and synchronization across critical systems. With the increasing sophistication of threats to Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals, there is a need to strengthen continuity and resilience through advanced technologies and architectures.

What We Are Looking For

• Receiver or signal based protection that secure continuity under jamming or spoofing conditions.
• Detection and mitigation of GNSS disturbances using Radio Frequency sensing, AI inference, or sensor fusion.
• Firmware/Software updates to existing PNT-resilient architectures or,
• Precise inertial navigation solutions, e.g., quantum-based.

Key Metrics

• Threat detection performance (e.g spoofing/jamming detection rate, false positive/negative rate).
• Mitigation effectiveness (e.g Time to mitigate or recover, continuity of service, i.e percentage of mission time the system is usable).
• Resilience metrics (e.g maximum tolerated jamming level, recovery under manual reset, i.e time taken to auto-recover when threat ends).
• Inertial navigation performance (e.g. angular / position drift rate/ holdover drift rate).
• All-weather suitability.

Your Technology Solution Should Demonstrate

• Low Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) and low cost.
• Ease of integration (demonstrate how your solution is designed to integrate to a commercial robotics platform e.g drones, Unmanned Ground Vehicles ,etc).
• TRL > 7.
• Demonstrate resilient navigation (i.e., system could continue operating when Global Positioning System (GPS) is unreliable).

What We Are Not Looking For

• Research papers.
• Solutions that had not been field tested or deployed.

What a Trial Looks Like

• Trial period of 3-6 months with Hardware/Software integrated with a robotics platform provided by your company or integrated with our platform in Singapore.

Option Cost

• Tiered pricing for bulk purchases.
• Manpower rate for engineering and technical support.

Context

Courses of Action (COA) are complete plans for deploying available assets against a threat. Each COA must stay within an approved concept of operations (CONOPS) and tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) that define what is permitted. 

Drone attacks in modern conflicts come in successive waves, with each wave revealing new tactics while asset availability and performance shift dynamically. A COA that was effective in one wave may require rapid adaptation to evolving conditions, and planners must proactively optimise assets across priorities, coverage and risk.

We seek a solution that rapidly generates and stress-tests explainable alternative Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System (C-UAS) COAs.

What We Are Looking For

• Software that ingests updated threat, asset-status and resource data into one planning picture.
• Automatic generation of several feasible COAs with trade-offs between each made explicit.
• Optimisation of available sensors, effectors and consumables across protected assets, sectors and risks.
• Plain-language reasoning for every recommendation, so planners can check, challenge or override it.

Key Metrics

• Recommend three complete, comparable COAs ready for human review in under 10 minutes.
• No violations of encoded operating rules or stated asset and resource constraints.
• Every recommendation traceable to scenario data, assumptions and optimisation objectives.
• Plan quality and robustness assessed against a manually built baseline for coverage, resource use and risk.

Your Technology Solution Should Demonstrate

• Ingestion and fusion of threat updates, sensor and effector status, consumable levels and protection priorities.
• Rules encoding to account for pre-approved CONOPS, TTPs, safety limits and capability constraints.
• Optimisation of asset allocation to balance coverage, resource consumption and operational risk.
• Explainable side-by-side COA comparison and rapid replanning when threat or resource inputs change.

What We Are Not Looking For

• CUAS hardware, sensors, effectors or jamming equipment.
• Real-time engagement, fire-control or weapon-control systems.
• Dashboards or visualisation layers that display data but do not recommend a plan.
• Solutions with autonomous execution without human approval.
• Solutions needing months of bespoke data engineering before first useful output.
• Consultancy-led approaches that substitute analyst effort for automation.

What a Trial Looks Like

• Phase 1: Approximately one-week, free proof of concept using a synthetic multi-wave drone scenario with changing threat, asset and resource inputs.
• Phase 2: Funded pilot with users, scored on speed, feasibility, plan quality, explainability and robustness.
• We will provide scenario data, available capabilities, operating rules and structured user feedback during each phase.

Follow-on Implementation Cost

• Indicative licensing model (per seat, per site or enterprise) for a three-year deployment.
• One-off integration and data-onboarding cost to connect our existing systems.
• Annual support, operating-rule updates and system maintenance costs.

What We Are Looking For

Effective on-site or on-demand solutions for the disruption and interception of unauthorised UUVs.

Key Metrics

• Effectiveness against broad range of UUVs, including coverage area and depth.
• Size, weight and power and endurance.
• Resources and time required to deploy solution.
• Scalability, including operationalization costs and delivery time.

Your Technology Solution Should Demonstrate

Ability to counter broad range of UUVs, from low-cost to military grade, at scale.

What We Are Not Looking For

• Low technology readiness level solutions focusing on algorithm development or operating only in controlled environments.
• Solutions requiring extensive infrastructure support or manpower effort for deployment.

What a Trial Looks Like

• Shortlisted providers may be provided with representative operational environments and resources to demonstrate their solution.

Follow-on Implementation Cost

• Applicable costs across hardware, manpower, maintenance and storage to enable (i) capability-as-a-service subscription, or (ii) on-site deployment.