DARPA proposal guidance

Reviewed 2026-10-01. DARPA funds high-risk research with national-security value, including basic and applied research. Do not exclude fundamental work simply because it is basic science: the BAA guidance explicitly covers both. The solicitation's technical scope and award instrument decide fit.

Find and identify the opportunity

Start from DARPA research opportunities and the official SAM.gov record. Retrieve the solicitation, amendments, attachments, Q&A and any proposer-day material. Record identifier, revision, status, submission stages, deadline/time zone, authorized contact, eligibility, award instrument, and submission channel. A program webpage or RFI is not an open solicitation; a special notice requesting information is not an award offer.

The technical offices include BTO, DSO, IPTO, MXO, STO and TTO. In May 2026, I2O became Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) and MTO became Multi X Office (MXO). Older active records may retain earlier labels. Follow the opportunity identifier and current amendments rather than rejecting them by name.

Program-specific BAAs define objectives; office-wide opportunities can solicit ideas outside named programs. Some current opportunities use an Innovative Solutions Opening or another mechanism, so do not force every application into an old BAA template.

Establish fit before building the proposal

Use the Heilmeier Catechism to organize the investigator's reasoning. In your own words, answer:

1. What concrete result is sought?
2. What is the present baseline and limiting barrier?
3. What new idea makes progress plausible?
4. Who needs the result and what would it enable?
5. What are the main uncertainties and risks?
6. What resources and cost are needed?
7. What schedule is realistic?
8. What interim and final evidence will establish success?

Set demanding, justified metrics. Neither a 10x improvement nor a 50% failure probability is a universal DARPA eligibility rule. Distinguish goals from preliminary measurements; give baselines, test conditions and evaluation methods.

Program-manager discussion and proposer days can clarify fit when the solicitation allows them. They are not universal mandatory prerequisites. Observe the designated Q&A/contact channel and deadlines; do not contact evaluators outside that process. Draft outreach for the user when asked, but do not send it without authorization.

Map the required volumes

Use the actual attachment templates and volume/page limits. The following is an outline to adapt, not a claim that every DARPA proposal has 20-40 pages or three phases.

If phases are prescribed, show technical entry/exit criteria and avoid assuming later options are guaranteed. If a government test team will evaluate outcomes, budget and schedule the interfaces, test articles, documentation, and data handoffs. Do not claim a transition commitment without evidence from the proposed partner.

Budget and award instrument

DARPA can use procurement contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and other transactions. Select the allowed instrument and follow its cost, eligibility, certification, data-rights and reporting provisions. Do not assume university status guarantees a grant or that an other transaction automatically removes all conditions.

For each cost: connect the item to work, state quantity/rate/effort, identify the source of the estimate, and reconcile totals across volumes. Separate fee/profit where permitted; do not add it to assistance awards by analogy to contracts. Use authorized institutional rates and properly obtained subcontract/subaward estimates. Cost realism is not simply choosing the lowest request.

For SBIR/STTR, use the current topic and program instructions for small-business eligibility, principal investigator employment, phase budgets, duration, and available submission rounds. No historical Phase I/II amounts in this skill establish a current cap. Young Faculty Award eligibility, award amounts and Director's Fellowship options are solicitation-specific; a Director's Fellowship is not a generic independent call.

Review and submission

Copy evaluation factors and their order/weight from the solicitation. Technical merit, mission relevance and cost realism commonly matter, but there is no agency-wide five-factor equal-weight rubric. Separate evaluation factors from selection/portfolio considerations and availability of funds.

Use the exact submission portal or other channel authorized in the solicitation. SAM.gov hosts notices; its listing alone does not mean uploading a proposal there is the required route. Check registrations, institutional authority, file type/size, volume separation, markings, signatures and deadline time zone. Public browsing does not verify authenticated upload, receipt or acceptance. No submission API contract is provided here.

Keep proprietary data and any controlled information in the authorized handling path. For unclassified academic work, verify publication, intellectual-property and data rights against the actual instrument and terms with the institution. Never place restricted proposal content into an external image or language-model service merely because a diagram would help.

Final scientific checks

• The proposed advance is distinguished from existing results and competitors.
• Every quantitative metric has a baseline, measurement method and success criterion.
• A technically unsuccessful result still has a defined interpretation or fallback.
• Tasks, milestones, costs and team roles agree across volumes.
• Transition claims identify evidence, assumptions, and work remaining after the award.
• Reporting frequency, reviews and deliverables follow the solicitation/award rather than invented universal monthly or quarterly requirements.
• The institution has approved the assembled package and an authorized person confirms successful receipt; a draft or upload alone is not submission.