UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
Centre for Defence Enterprise
'Generation-After-Next' CBR Hazard
Mitigation Systems
Call release: 24 July 2012
Call closes: 6 September 2012 at 17:00
Crown Copyright (c) 2012 Ministry of Defence. Nothing herein shall be relied upon
as constituting a contract, agreement or representation that any contract shall be
offered in accordance herewith. MOD reserves the right, subject to the appropriate
procurement regulations, to change without notice the basis of, or the procedures
for, or to terminate the process at any time. Under no circumstances shall MOD
incur any liability in respect thereof.
The Centre for Defence Enterprise (CDE) proves the value of novel, high-risk, highpotential-benefit research sourced from the broadest possible range of science
and technology providers, including academia and small companies, to enable
development of cost-effective capability advantage for UK Armed Forces and
national security.
Proposals for funding should be submitted by 17:00 on Thursday 6 September 2012
using the Centre for Defence Enterprise Portal (www.science.mod.uk/enterprise).
Please mark all proposals with “CBR Hazard Mitigation” as a prefix in the title.
•
•
Technical queries should be sent to [email protected]. Please see guidance
on using this facility under the ‘CDE Proposal Submission Process’ section.
General queries (including how to use the Portal) should be sent directly to
CDE at [email protected] or by phone on 01235 438445.
CDE: www.science.mod.uk/enterprise
Dstl: www.dstl.gov.uk
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
Generation-after-next CBR hazard mitigation systems
Introduction
The use of chemical, biological and radiological (CBR) materials in an attack forces the deployment of
individual protective equipment (IPE) ie suits, boots, gloves, respirators. This could possibly be for prolonged
periods and limits access to critical areas known as “choke points”. Effective Hazard Mitigation (HM) systems
are therefore required to prevent loss of life and to enable forces to continue to operate in contaminated
environments without loss of operational tempo. Such systems deal with the consequences of the release of
contamination by locating, monitoring, containing, removing, neutralizing and verifying the absence of residual
hazards. These activities could be conducted on personnel, small items of equipment (some of which may be
fragile), vehicles (land, sea and air) and buildings and infrastructure.
Any waste, including resultant by-products, will require treatment, storage or disposal, without any resulting
contamination spread or additional environmental damage. Safe disposal may be considered for items where
the cost of decontamination outweighs the cost of replacement, or if residual contamination cannot be
reduced to a level sufficient to allow for its recovery to the UK.
Forward-looking capability planners in defence no longer consider HM as a measure of last-resort, but as a
critical component of CBR defence. Challenges posed by adaptable and ingenious opponents require such
systems to be able to counter a wider range of threats in an increased range of operational scenarios. This
changing view of HM has heightened expectations on what future systems need to achieve.
Generation-after-next systems would be expected to move further towards “do nothing” HM systems (eg selfdecontaminating/indicating surfaces).
This CDE call seeks innovative approaches to reduce the level of materials and manpower required to deploy
HM systems.
NB: For the purpose of this call it is assumed that the detection of an event and donning of protective
equipment will have occurred prior to investigation of HM measures.
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 2 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
The nature of the threat
It is believed that in the future, highly agile and technically competent adversaries could present UK forces
with hybrid threats, deploying CBR weapons (possibly in combinations of two or more) alongside conventional
weapons. In particular, non-state actors may pose as great a threat as states themselves, and will operate
globally, potentially targeting the UK base.
Demonstrable Force Protection, including CBR protection, will be vital in maintaining legitimacy and public
support for operations. Managing the hazard caused by CBR agents or toxic industrial material will therefore
require highly trained personnel, working in an agile organisation.
Technical content
CBR contamination presents a range of hazards dependent on the type of agent, the scale of contamination
and the environment in which the incident occurs, thus requiring tailored decontamination solutions and
methodologies.
Chemical agents will generally be disseminated as liquid drops that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
can evaporate (inhalation hazard) or be absorbed by skin (contact hazard)
may evaporate slowly ( persistent hazards)
can be enhanced by addition of polymers to increase viscosity (thickening)
can readily penetrate permeable materials (rubber, paint and textiles)
exhibit low surface tension
become entrained in capillary traps (screw threads, cracks and crevices)
may cause death or incapacitation within a few minutes in the case of nerve agents.
Radioactive material will generally be disseminated in the form of particulates:
•
•
•
•
that may be soluble or insoluble in water (possibly with added surfactant)
that cannot be neutralised, cause harm by penetrating radiation effects
that are aggravated by deposition on the skin, ingestion, entry through cuts and grazes, absorption
through the skin, inhalation
where inhalation can be exacerbated by re-aerosolisation of particles from surfaces.
Biological agents will also generally be disseminated as particulates:
•
•
•
exhibiting an inhalation or ingestion hazard, exacerbated by re-aerosolisation
exhibiting a short life in air, or a sustained hazard (eg anthrax)
that can be neutralised (chemical, environmental (eg ultraviolet from sunlight)).
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 3 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
Current research
Current research aims to identify and accelerate the development of HM technologies, materials and methods
that would support:
•
•
more rapid relaxation of protective posture and recovery of operational tempo
a wider range of operational scenarios, with minimal logistics burden, against a wider range of threats.
The research effort focuses on three technology thrust areas which have been selected to deliver most benefit
across most scenarios:
•
•
•
reactive decontaminants
tuneable devices
coatings.
The following discussion briefly describes how this strategy has evolved in response to technical challenges
identified in previous research, and gives examples of how successful approaches have been taken forward.
The aim is not to direct responses to the call for proposals, but to stimulate innovative thinking.
Reactive decontaminants
Reactive decontaminants employ substances that react with and neutralise chemical agents, or kill biological
organisms. They must be effective against chemical and biological agents with widely varying properties, on a
range of surface types, in a range of different environments.
Aqueous decontaminants offer advantages:
•
•
•
Water is cheap, and available in bulk (often the only such solvent).
Many of the most effective reactive components are much more soluble in water than in organic solvents:
o Oxidative (electrophilic) chemistry is best towards blister agents (eg sulfur mustard)
o Hydrolytic (nucleophilic) approaches are better towards nerve agents.
Other formulation components can be supplied and transported in a concentrated form resulting in a
reduced logistic burden.
However, aqueous systems tend to exhibit high surface energy which:
•
•
•
severely limits their ability to wet surfaces and to penetrate capillary traps
necessitates scrubbing to ensure intimate contact of reactive components and CW agents, thus imposing a
heavy physiological burden on the user
has been demonstrated by Dstl for Commercial-of-the-Shelf (COTS) decontaminants:
o when delivered using a man-portable device, these systems require vigorous scrubbing.
o even to accomplish operational decontamination (ie to remove gross contamination from
equipment, and minimise hazard transfer).
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 4 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
Further, when delivered according to manufacturer’s instructions using their associated dispensing equipment,
COTS systems could not accomplish thorough decontamination of chemical agents (defined as reducing
contamination sufficiently to allow removal of IPE). It was concluded that:
•
•
No single chemical approach performed well towards all classes of chemical agent. A “one-pot”
formulation or “universal decontaminant” is not the most efficient route to the required efficacy.
Liquid agent entrained in capillary traps presents a significant technical challenge.
The most persistent chemical agents are only sparingly soluble in water, a problem further exacerbated by
thickening. Extensive basic and applied research (petrochemicals, agriculture, pharmaceuticals and household
and industrial detergents) has addressed similar solvency problems by exploiting the properties of surfactant
aggregates (micelles, vesicles, emulsions and microemulsions). Applications for such research include enzyme
catalysis, membrane transport and drug delivery, enhanced oil recovery, emulsion polymerisation and
remediation of contaminated land.
Dstl have collaborated with industrial specialists in surfactant approaches to develop a readily deployable
concentrate (F54), which forms a microemulsion on dilution with four parts water. Appropriate reactive
components (one for mustard and biological agents, one for nerve agents) are added at point-of-use. This
“dial-a-decon” approach has since become a cornerstone of partner nations’ decontamination policy, such as
the US Decontamination Family of Systems (DFoS) programme, and is an area where further innovative
research could be fruitful.
Recent Dstl research has focused on incorporation of alternative reactive components into F54, including
bespoke peroxide catalysts, chlorine dioxide, and enzymes. Of these, enzymatic approaches are attractive
because:
• only small amounts of enzyme are required for turnover catalysis
• their environmental impact may be low enough to allow use on terrain
• they may be mild enough for use on airframes.
Disadvantages of enzymatic systems include:
• High reactions rates may be limited to a narrow enzyme-specific pH window.
o some enzyme-CW agent reactions produce acid
o necessitating large quantities of buffer
o negates the benefit of high turnover numbers.
• Even supported enzymes still require an aqueous environment to function
o limits utility in the decontamination of electric and electronic circuitry.
Despite these challenges, significant research effort has been deployed on enzyme studies. Early systems could
only catalyse the destruction of nerve agents, and reactivity towards VX was too slow to be of practical use.
Recently, new enzymes have been developed (mostly in collaboration with industrial enzyme suppliers):
•
•
•
with improved reactivity towards VX
which (it is claimed) can detoxify mustard (dehalogenases)
which react with their substrates to produce oxidative species.
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 5 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
Proposals that exploit advances in biotechnology therefore offer considerable potential for use in nextgeneration formulations provided that:
• it can be shown that they exhibit the predicted activity
• they can maintain that activity in systems with the required solvency.
Ionic liquids (ILs) are purely ionic systems that are liquid at room temperature because they consist of bulky
organic cations whose charge is countered by relatively small anions. They continue to be reported as versatile
solvents for a range of applications, including provision of a stabilising medium for enzyme reactions. Recently,
reports have appeared of IL-in-oil microemulsions. Decontamination-specific studies have synthesised ILs with
a range of reactive anions (peracids, persulfate, oximate, hypohalite). One particular peracid IL reacts with
nerve agent simulant to produce a marked change from vivid yellow to colourless.
Formulations developed for chemical agent decontamination are routinely tested for biocidal efficacy.
However, these assessments would benefit from continuing method development. The residual bio-hazard can
be underestimated, because of the presence of “viable but non-culturable” organisms. Methods to
discriminate between live and dead organisms, independent of growth on culture media, would do much to
mitigate this problem.
Reactive gases and vapours have been successfully deployed in the civil domain to decontaminate building
interiors and contaminated items placed in enclosed spaces. The approach is attractive due to the ability of the
gas to permeate areas which are difficult to reach. However, to be effective the technologies identified to date
require long treatment times and careful control of humidity and temperature which may not be possible in a
military context. The gases and vapours deployed are also highly toxic in their own right and can be damaging
to materials and the environment.
Terrain decontamination requires formulations that place more emphasis on environmental considerations,
and more versatile approaches to dispensing. Simple scaling from decontamination of vehicles to
decontamination of large areas of terrain (eg air bases) indicates a possibly prohibitive logistic requirement
(“truck loads” of decontaminant). Strategies to reduce the logistic penalty, as well as to reduce the time
required, are urgently needed.
Dstl has recently initiated a programme of work with its US counterparts that brings together leading
capabilities in CBR HM, spore germination, crop protection and spray application systems to address the
challenges of conducting of wide-area decontamination of B. anthracis spores in the open environment. This
requires a more efficient “total delivery” package which tunes the physicochemical properties of the
decontaminant to the delivery system. The research seeks to achieve this by:
•
•
accelerating the development of practical decontaminants incorporating spore germinants
harnessing recent advances in high-throughput, low-volume agrochemical spraying.
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 6 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
Tuneable devices
Dial-a-decon requires the availability of equipment that can mix and dispense decontaminant formulations at
point-of-use. COTS systems with this capability tend to be tailored to specific decontaminants. The ability to
mix and dispense any (current and future) formulation - tuneable mixing - would impart a degree of futureproofing. A prototype system incorporating a programmable logic controller was developed by Dstl to
demonstrate the feasibility of this approach.
Decontamination processes must balance requirements of efficacy, limited time, physical burden (scrubbing),
and logistics. The best compromise between these parameters will be scenario dependent. A mathematical
model has been developed (to be validated by experiment and modified iteratively) that describes the
relationships between logistic requirement and process parameters (flow rate, nozzle aperture, etc.) as a
function of decontaminant solvency and reactivity. The aim is to demonstrate the feasibility of predicting
behaviour in real situations from data determined at the laboratory scale. It is envisaged that model will be
used to develop scenario-specific operating procedures (tuneable dispensing) and should become a valuable
“reach-back” source for operational commanders.
The current model only addresses liquid challenges. Similar approaches for particulate contamination have not
yet been explored. Such studies should consider:
•
•
•
•
•
particle size, strength of adherence to surfaces, whether or not they are soluble
neutralisation (chemical), lethality (biological), removal and containment (radiological)
fate of contaminants in effluent (eg neutralisation retarded by dilution effects)
decontamination of liquid agents in capillary traps and porous/absorbent material
improved understanding of how decontaminants displace (or react with) liquid contamination in pores.
Sonically activated flows are used routinely by industry for cleaning silicon wafers, but the range of the effect
is typically only a few cm. Dstl have sponsored a study to extend the range of the effect, and to allow
decontamination of liquid and particulate contamination. Enhanced cleaning of capillaries was demonstrated,
with indications of a reduction in the volumes of decontaminant needed. Experimental data, combined with
fluid dynamic simulations, informed the design and construction of a breadboard prototype. Further
development and scale up of this device has been taken forward in the supplier base.
Combined with improved decontaminants, tuneable mixing and dispensing will facilitate the achievement of
thorough decontamination with minimal time, volume of consumables and physical burden. Thus, any impact
on Defence Lines of Development (DLODs, eg training, equipment, and logistics) will be beneficial.
This area would benefit from improved methods of incorporating powders into flowing liquids, without the
need for transitional mixing vessels. Moreover, improved methods to remove peelable coatings (see below)
are also of considerable interest. For example, a previous Dstl study evaluated laser ablation for coatings
removal.
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 7 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
Coatings and absorbents
The development of temporary peelable coatings (TPCs) is viewed as the most significant advancement in HM
technology over the last decade. These coatings can absorb >95 % of the liquid challenge in less than an hour
(minutes for un-thickened agent), reducing the contact hazard sufficiently to remove the need for operational
decontamination of coated surfaces. This factor has been demonstrated to dramatically reduce casualties and
prevent ingress of liquid agent to capillary traps.
TPCs are applied as paint (brush, roller or spray) and have the required resilience and durability, colour and
electro-magnetic (EM) signature properties. This is dual-use technology, embracing both camouflage and HM
needs. However, the reduction in contact hazard is attained at the expense of a more prolonged off-gassing
hazard (albeit at rates much lower than those from free surface liquid), rendering subsequent removal of the
coating to achieve thorough decontamination. TPCs can be easily removed from most surfaces by manual
peeling. More aggressive removal methods (eg high pressure water) are required for about 5 % of TPC applied
to geometrically complex surfaces.
Dstl studies have also shown that particulate contamination (biological or radiological) can be sandwiched
between the TPC and a second “tie-down” coating. The tie-down application and subsequent sandwich
removal is accomplished with minimal particulate re-aerosolisation. Currently, the best identified tie-down
coating is the TPC itself. Stakeholders have expressed interest in further developing the approach for
managing the hazard to critical infrastructure, such as dockside cranes or forklifts.
At the current state of the art, some “wet” decontamination is still required on uncoated areas of the
platform. This “binary decontamination” approach, combining the use of reactive formulations and TPCs, can
accomplish unprecedented levels of decontamination of geometrically complex surfaces and remains the
cornerstone of platforms decontamination.
To fully realise the benefits of the approach there is a need for:
•
•
more automated methods for coatings removal and safe waste management
more sophisticated coatings, incorporated self-decontaminating/self-disclosing properties to eliminate the
need to remove the coating.
A recent Dstl-sponsored workshop invited representatives from the coatings industry and academia to
consider a range of relevant issues, including the rate of penetration of liquids into coatings. Identified
mechanisms include: penetration of pores, polymer swelling (rates, as well as equilibrium), combinations of
both (poroelasticity, for example), or pore narrowing/closing due to swelling). There is also a need to better
understand how quickly contamination partitions from the coating into a contacting material (glove, CBRN
suit, unprotected skin). Further, there is as yet limited understanding regarding how coating properties affect
the evaporation of absorbed liquid.
There is a need to better understand a wide range of mass transfer phenomena relating to coatings.
Immediate decontamination (ID) seeks to save lives and minimize contamination transfer by removing or
neutralising contamination from skin, the CBRN protective ensemble, and personal equipment. The current inservice ID system utilises an absorbent powder (fuller’s earth (FE)), which is only effective towards liquid
chemical agents. Research on absorbent wipes looks to evaluate the utility of modern absorbent textile
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 8 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
technology as an alternative FE. There is growing interest in extending this approach to the thorough
decontamination of personnel and personal effects, with a view to supporting re-use of contaminated small
items where replacement is not feasible.
Patent review shows that a wide range of industrially viable, high-tech, low-cost systems exist. Our studies
have demonstrated that several commercial wipes can outperform FE and have potential towards particulate
(radiological, biological, and chemical) threats.
Decontamination systems to be used on skin or in wounds are subject to regulatory controls. “Quick wins”
result from the use of products that have already been licensed, or from new systems that use components
that already satisfy regulatory constraints. Technically, reactive decontaminants for skin require the same
reactivity and solvency properties as those for other applications.
Understanding the penetration of liquid into skin is therefore of considerable interest. In common with the
penetration of drugs (eg from transdermal patches), liquid contamination experiments often use variants of
the Franz skin diffusion cell, in which a layer of skin (or a surrogate material) is maintained in contact with a
liquid reservoir held at body temperature, and penetration dynamics monitored by sampling the reservoir. As
currently used, this approach does not adequately address the effect of ID protocols (eg blotting, rubbing); the
action of reactive formulations; or partition of agent out of the skin by an absorbent material.
There is a need to develop and validate high throughput test methods to inform evidence-based procurement
decisions. These test methods should enable:
•
•
evaluation of a range of products including, but not limited to, absorbent powders, wipes or reactive liquid
formulations
performance evaluation on a range of relevant materials (including hard surfaces, sorbent materials and
skin).
Other emerging technologies and novel approaches
Stakeholders are increasingly reluctant to accept decontamination processes based on current chemical agent
monitors alone. To address this issue, Dstl have conducted a high-risk, high-impact study to render surface
chemical agent contamination visible (disclosure). Prototype disclosure sprays and coatings have been
developed for nerve agents. The identified technologies have served to identify technical challenges for future
work, and provide a benchmark for future disclosure systems that can:
•
•
•
localise the hazard, enabling more focussed decontamination
localise residual contamination post-decontamination, so that complete re-processing of the whole
platform is not required
enable more rapid verification that decontamination has been successfully conducted to the required
level.
Previous work on chemical agent disclosure sprays showed that many of the chemistries evaluated suffered
from interference from relatively common liquids and vapours, including (in some cases) decontaminants
themselves. Conceptually, the solution to this problem derives from development of species which interact
with the hazard in a highly specific manner (targeting), subsequently inducing an easily detectable (preferably
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 9 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
visual) transduction event (triggering). This is the approach most likely to deliver generation-after-next
disclosure systems, and to allow effective incorporation of disclosure elements in coatings.
However, the targeting and triggering approach has much wider potential application. For example, agentspecific binding could be used to trigger a decontamination event. While a range of catalysts have been
evaluated for incorporation into coatings, generally the only practical source of “fuel” is atmospheric oxygen,
whose supply to catalyst sites will be limited by mass transport effects. An alternative is to build a supply of
decontaminant (or disclosing agent) into the coating, as the “core” of a microcapsule protected within an
inorganic or polymeric “shell”. Dstl have successfully demonstrated the synthesis of core-shell materials
containing components typical of aqueous decontaminants. The surfaces of these particles could be
functionalised with target species whose interaction with agent would disrupt the shell, releasing the core
contents where they are needed.
The targeting and triggering concept is now seeing use in domestic laundry products, where targeting of a
range of common stains triggers cleaning chemical reactions, but only in the vicinity of the stain. It is claimed
that the resulting reduction in the quantities of cleaning material required can be substantial. The ultimate aim
would be to simultaneously trigger both disclosure and decontamination events, in such a manner that when
decontamination is complete, the absence of a target “switches off” the disclosure signal. Technology watch
has revealed a number of potential approaches to the accomplishment of this goal.
This high-risk concept, if successfully demonstrated, would have exceptionally high impact across all three
activity areas where research is required. Indeed, it might be argued that the targeting element of this concept
– specific binding of agents – is the key (or more strongly, a prerequisite) to anything other than relatively
small incremental technology gains.
Supramolecular design principles allow for the iterative design, testing and evaluation of new targeting
compounds. This design-led approach remains valid, but can be time consuming and result in ‘false leads’.
Dynamic combinatorial chemistry (DCC) presents an alternative approach in which, following an initial design
phase, a one-pot mix of (reversible) covalent species allows self-assembly of a range of species (a dynamic
combinatorial library (DCL)). Addition of the target molecule drives the system of chemical equilibria to
maximise the assembly of effective targeting species (amplification) in a single iteration. Dstl studies seek to
exploit DCL “chemical evolution” to develop targeting elements for chemical agents.
Summary
We have described a number of examples from Dstl’s research where we have harnessed innovative
approaches to address identified HM problems. Priority will be given to proposals which display high levels of
innovation, as opposed to an incremental continuation of the approaches described. Proposals which seek to
develop a deeper understanding (mathematical or theoretical) of the underlying technical phenomena or
reliable (preferably high-throughput) and relevant experimental techniques will be assessed on an equal
footing with those proposing novel technical solutions to the identified problems.
Exploitation of successful CDE research proposals will aim to demonstrate a proof of concept and thus will be
highly innovative and potentially high-risk/high-reward in nature. As a consequence, some projects will not
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 10 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
have a positive outcome. This is entirely acceptable. Where a CDE project has the potential to be developed
into future capability it will be exploited in the R&D programme delivered by Dstl, through a direct contract.
Research proposals for this CDE themed call will also be assessed by representatives from Dstl’s collaborators
in US Government, the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the Army Research Office (ARO) unless
agreed otherwise (see section below). As a consequence the US may wish to jointly or unilaterally fund a
follow-on project if the proof-of-concept work is deemed a success.
Invitation for CDE Proposals
Further information, including presentations from the launch event, is available on the call webpage.
As well as subject matter experts from MOD and Dstl, research proposals for this CDE themed call will also be
assessed by representatives from Dstl’s collaborators in US Government, the Defence Threat Reduction Agency
(DTRA) and the Army Research Office (ARO). This is to address any areas of overlap with US research
programmes. The US will not be funding any of the proposals resulting from this CDE call – funding will only be
from Dstl. However the US may wish to jointly fund a follow-on project if the proof-of-concept work is deemed
a success and worth bringing into the core research programme. If you do not want the US collaborators to
have sight of and assess your proposal please indicate so by including ‘No US Sight’ in your proposal title and
in the first sentence of your proposal.
Proposals are invited from industry and academia for research that can demonstrate a proof-of-concept to
meet one or more of the challenges for “Generation-after-next Hazard Mitigation Systems”.
There is no cap on the value of proposals but it is more likely that at this stage a larger number of lower-value
proposals (eg £30k—£50k) will be funded than a small number of higher-value proposals.
No funding is offered as part of this call for activity beyond the proof-of-concept stage. Promising concepts
may be taken forward but Dstl does not commit to fund any follow-on work as a result of any contract placed
via CDE.
Proposals should focus on a short, sharp, proof-of-concept phase – typically, but not exclusively, 3-9 months in
duration. Proposals may scope a longer programme, but these will not be funded as part of an initial contract.
The proposals in response to this call should be primarily concerned with this call and have a clear, distinct and
costed proof-of-concept stage that addresses the focus of this call. Further development will only be
considered after the successful end of the proof-of-concept phase.
Proposals must include:
•
•
•
•
a clear description of what is novel in the solution
a clear statement of the programme of work that would be carried out and the outputs (deliverable)
from the work
a clear statement of the expected outcome(s) and how this will be proven or demonstrated.
a clear description of the value of the solution to operational capability including the likely saving to
through life costs
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 11 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
•
a clear statement of what type of platform the solution is aimed towards.
Proposals that do not include the required information are unlikely to be successful.
Proposals will be assessed by subject matter experts from MOD, Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
Army Research Office (ARO) and Dstl using the MOD Performance Assessment Framework (PAF) (available
from the CDE website). Deliverables from contracts will be made available to technical advisors and subject to
review by UK MOD.
Dstl will be available to provide advice and/or guidance throughout the project and provide the interface with
the MOD and wider government stakeholder community.
Dstl does not commit to fund any follow on work as a result of any contracts placed via this CDE call.
CDE Proposal Submission Process
Key dates
• 24 July 2012
• 6 September 2012
• 30 October 2012
Call launch event
Call closes at 17:00
Feedback provided, contract placement initiated.
Proposals must be submitted by 17:00 on Thursday 6 September 2012, via the Centre for Defence Enterprise
Portal www.science.mod.uk/engagement/the_portal.aspx . The Portal runs using an account system; if you
do not yet have an account please ensure that open one as soon as practical.
All proposals must be clearly marked “CBR Hazard Mitigation” as a prefix in the title.
Please plan the timeline for submitting your proposal carefully. If you have not used the CDE Portal before you
will need to become familiar with the guidance, including how to open an account starting with the Quick Start
Guide.
Other information and guides are available on the CDE website:
• General CDE Advice: www.science.mod.uk/engagement/cde/working_with_cde.aspx.
• Contract & IPR Guidance: www.science.mod.uk/engagement/cde/funding_contracts.aspx.
• On using the Portal: www.science.mod.uk/engagement/the_portal.aspx. The Portal is optimised for
proposals based on physical sciences and engineering and we are aware that proposers sometimes
struggle to adapt to using it with social science based proposals. The key points (rather than the
detailed questions) that are sought under the main headings still apply and further advice can be
obtained from CDE.
Common errors in preparing and submitting a proposal include:
• Character limit – there is a limit of 1000 characters in each individual descriptive paragraph within the
proposal; when completed they must be added to the document; additional paragraphs can be added
if 1000 characters is insufficient.
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 12 of 13
UNCLASSIFIED / For Public Release
•
•
•
It is a web-based tool – please save your work regularly to avoid ‘time-outs’ that lose work.
Attachments fail – they must be Word 97-2003 format, portrait format, should have generous margins
with no material overhanging the margin and a max size of 1 MB. Please note that attachments should
only be used for supplementary information, the main points of your proposal should be written into
the online form. Care should also be taken to make sure that attachments are placed in the relevant
section (eg technical information should not be attached to the commercial section).
Failing to properly submit. You have not completed the submission process if your proposal is at the
FINAL / PUBLISHED stage (in the status and published status columns respectively); CDE have no sight
of the proposal at this stage. To complete submission you need to press ‘submit’ under the 'Tasks'
column. This changes the status of your proposal to 'SUBMITTED'; it will then change (normally after a
few days, often sooner) to 'RECEIVED' indicating that the proposal has been accepted by CDE for
assessment.
For a proposal to be accepted for assessment:
• The standard terms and conditions of the CDE must be unequivocally accepted.
• There must be at least one deliverable against which payment can be made.
• The commercial section of the proposal must be completed.
Please do not leave submission of your proposal until just before the deadline. Past experience has shown that
the Portal becomes heavily loaded near the call close resulting in slow operation (up to one hour to publish
rather than a few minutes) and that with the pressure of the deadline, mistakes are made that mean proposals
are not submitted or accepted.
Queries and Help
As part of the proposal preparation process, queries and clarifications are welcomed.
•
Technical queries should be sent to [email protected].
Capacity to answer these queries is limited in terms of volume and scope. Queries should be limited to
a few simple questions or if provided with a short (few paragraphs) description of your proposal, the
technical team will provide, without commitment or prejudice, broad yes/no answers. This query
facility is not to be used for extensive technical discussions, detailed review of proposals or supporting
the iterative development of ideas. Whilst all reasonable efforts will be made to answer queries, CDE
and Dstl reserve the right to impose management controls when higher than average volumes of
queries or resource demands restrict fair access to all potential proposal submitters.
•
General queries (including how to use the Portal) should be sent directly to the CDE at
[email protected] or by phone on 01235 438445.
© Crown copyright 2012.
Published with the permission of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory on behalf of the Controller
of HMSO.
Centre for Defence Enterprise
CBR Hazard Mitigation
Issue 1, 26 July 2012
UNCLASSIFIED /
For Public Release
Page 13 of 13