1. Introduction

This Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) competition is seeking proposals that can address challenges within the field of Microbial Forensics. Microbial Forensics aims to determine whether an incident involving a biological hazard is natural or nefarious in origin, providing more information than the identification of a biological organism (e.g. provenance of the material).

As part of the 2023 UK Biological Security Strategy, the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) is leading the creation of the United Kingdom Microbial Forensics Consortium (UKMFC), a One Health^{[footnote 1]} initiative comprising frontline biosurveillance laboratories which will strengthen the UK’s Microbial Forensic capabilities. This competition seeks novel technology options or technical approaches that can directly support this initiative.

As well as addressing a diverse set of technical requirements, one of the goals of the competition is to engage with a non-traditional supplier base as well as traditional suppliers (i.e. suppliers who have not worked in Defence and Security before as well as those who have), in order to yield innovative solutions.

Up to £1 million (excluding VAT) is available in order to move a range of technology options from low to medium Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). This competition is being funded by the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD).

The following research areas are of particular interest for this competition:

1. Computational tools that improve the opportunity to detect anomalies in genome sequencing data, including evidence of biological engineering.

2. Technologies that allow the identification and / or computational analysis of other omic signatures for novel Microbial Forensic capabilities.

Please read the competition document in full for all details of the competition scope and challenge areas.

2. Competition key information

2.1 Submission deadline

12:00 midday on 18 February 2025 (GMT)

2.2 Where do I submit my proposal?

Via the DASA Online Submission Service for which you will require an account. Only proposals submitted through the DASA Online Submission Service will be accepted.

Please note that this competition has an additional question on top of those listed on Submit a proposal. This question asks you to confirm that no UKMFC Advisory Board member has been involved in the discussion about or drafting of your proposal, which is part of this competition’s pre-sift criteria.

2.3 Total funding available

The total possible funding available for this competition is £1 million (excluding VAT).
We are looking to fund a minimum of 4 and up to 10 projects, each up to a maximum value of £250,000.

3. Supporting events

Dial-in session

9 January 2025 – A dial-in session providing further detail on the problem space and a chance to ask questions in an open forum. If you would like to participate, please register on the Eventbrite page.

Supplier one-to-one sessions

15 & 21 January 2025 – A series of 15 minute one-to-one teleconference sessions, giving you the opportunity to ask specific technical questions to the competition team in a closed forum. Registration details for these sessions will be published the day after the dial-in session, i.e. on 10 January 2025. Booking will be on a first come first served basis; please use the links below to register:

Wednesday 15 January 2025

Tuesday 21 January 2025

Please attend the dial-in session on 9 January 2025 or reach out to your local Innovation Partner if you have more general questions about DASA or the application process.

Industry collaboration survey during proposal preparation

We encourage collaboration between organisations for this competition. If you are interested in collaborating with another organisation, please complete the supplier collaboration survey by 4 February 2025. Your details (including your business email address) will be circulated among other potential suppliers who have completed the survey and are interested in collaborating. The sharing of details will only be done after an initial screening process has taken place, we reserve the right to not share all details.

If you choose to complete the supplier collaboration survey, please be aware all the information you submit in the survey may be provided to other suppliers who also complete the survey. All industry collaboration for proposal submissions is on an industry-industry basis. Inclusion or absence of any individual supplier organisation will not affect assessment, which will be solely on technical evidence in the proposal.

4. Competition Scope

4.1 Background – Strategic Context for the UK

The 2023 UK Biological Security Strategy aims to implement a UK-wide approach to biosecurity which strengthens deterrence and resilience, projects global leadership, and exploits opportunities for UK prosperity and S&T advantage. The UK envisions that by 2030 it will be more resilient to a spectrum of biological threats and a world-leader in responsible innovation, making a positive impact on global security, economic and health outcomes.

In support of these overarching aims, as part of the Detect Pillar of the Biological Security Strategy, the United Kingdom Microbial Forensics Consortium (UKMFC) is being developed. The UKMFC is One Health^{[footnote 1]} in doctrine and, when fully operational, will comprise a network of biosurveillance laboratories from all four nations of the UK with additional support from other institutes, academia, and industry.

The UKMFC, which was initiated in July 2023 and is being led by Dstl, is underpinned by extensive cross-sector cooperation and delivery. Overall, the three main strategic goals of the UKMFC are:

• creation of the UKMFC laboratory network as a world leading One Health^{[footnote 1]} approach to investigating outbreaks, improved UK preparedness in this area is seen as a benchmark
• development of an agreed set of cross-sector working practises enabling the development of a cadre of suitably qualified and experienced personnel in microbial forensics
• early detection and attribution by the UKMFC will serve as a deterrent to the misuse of biological materials

This competition represents an opportunity for the wider research base (academia / small-medium enterprises / industry) to contribute to the aims and objectives of the UKMFC.

Microbial Forensics, an emerging area of biology

Microbial Forensics aims to determine whether an outbreak has occurred through a natural event or as a consequence of the misuse of a biological material (e.g. nefarious activity). The approach therefore requires more than the identification of an organism. A robust microbial forensic capability could, for example, yield evidence of deliberate biological engineering or prior laboratory growth, presence of anti-microbial resistance, source attribution (e.g. provenance), enhanced pathogenicity, or any other information that may be useful in the response to an incident.

In the context of this competition the term, ‘microbe’ includes any biological agent (e.g. bacteria, virus, fungi, insect pest, toxin or others) which if misused has the potential to be detrimental to the UK.

The production, stockpiling or use of hazardous biological materials for nefarious purposes is prohibited under the international Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the UK Biological Weapons Act (1974). A detailed analysis of a biological material would therefore inform wider investigations into an incident and help bring the perpetrators of such a crime to justice.

This “Detect to attribute” concept requires a robust capability to be in place to trace the source of the biological material. The creation of the United Kingdom Microbial Forensics Consortium (UKMFC) laboratory network represents a step towards addressing this need. It comprises critical frontline biosurveillance laboratories from the clinical, veterinary, plant, food and aquaculture sectors across all four nations of the UK. Each laboratory is well-resourced, has a strong technological infrastructure, and is staffed by subject matter experts with international research reputations in biosurveillance.

Genomics and Bioinformatics - the generation of genetic information from samples and the use of computational tools to interpret this information - is a core strength for the UK and each UKMFC laboratory has existing expertise in this area. To leverage this a UKMFC Bioinformatics Working Group (BWG) has been formed. This group, comprising leading bioinformaticians from across the UK, is developing new pathogen-agnostic tools and workflows that will be used, in parallel with business as usual (BAU) genomic workflows, in order to provide a seamless new alert system for the UK.

Examples of previous investigations which have involved the use of Microbial Forensics analytical procedures are:

2001 Amerithrax Incident

2008 US Ricin incident

Concept-of-Operations for the UKMFC laboratory network

The Concept-of-Operations is that an alert (identifying a potential biological anomaly) will be generated by a sector-specific UKMFC laboratory. This may be after an initial laboratory identification of a pathogen (following a specific presentation / observation of host symptoms) or as part of other biosurveillance activities. Expert oversight and interpretation of results will be required to confirm the presence of the identified anomalies (e.g. evidence of genetic engineering). Using an agreed set of shared working practises, initial tools developed by the UKMFC will focus on genomic data and run in parallel with BAU workflows to enable rapid assessments to be made. Future tools and methods looking at other data sources (e.g. proteomics) will open up new areas of Microbial Forensic analysis.

A diversity of samples types (e.g. clinical, veterinary, plant, food and aquaculture) are being processed and analysed by UKMFC laboratories and therefore new approaches that aid the development of further standardised working practises will be required. It is also important to recognise that the biological materials being analysed by the UKMFC laboratory network could potentially have passaged through another organism (e.g. infected host, vector) and therefore we are especially interested in identification of robust biological signatures that are retained post-infection. 

It is envisaged that the UKMFC alert system may trigger and / or support existing investigations (e.g. Public Health, and / or Criminal investigations.

Overall, new innovative analysis techniques that are either supportive or augment existing capabilities (e.g. genomics) or those that could open up new areas for Microbial Forensic analysis (e.g. looking at non-genomic omic data) are being sought as part of this competition.

4.2 Scope: We want new technology options to enhance the Microbial Forensic capability

Where will new technology options be used?

The aim of the competition is to strengthen the UK capability in the field of Microbial Forensics. Novel technology options are required to function within the context of the UKMFC laboratory network; an appropriately resourced, high technological infrastructure, staffed by subject matter experts in biosurveillance. Innovations that either augment current approaches (e.g. increasing the speed and / or opportunity for anomaly detection through genomics) or that provide completely new avenues for a Microbial Forensic investigation are of interest.  

Any new capability should not increase the risks encountered in the day-to-day activities of a laboratory, or significantly increase the financial burden encountered by a laboratory (above normal investment patterns). There is no interest in technology development that would provide a solely mobile Microbial Forensic capability or enhance a laboratory’s ability to simply identify a pathogen.

What are the technology challenges we would like addressed?

There is particular interest in funding new research in the following areas:

1. Computational tools that improve the opportunity to detect anomalies in genome sequencing data, including evidence of biological engineering.

2. Technologies that allow the identification and / or computational analysis of other omic signatures for novel Microbial Forensic capabilities.

Ideally, any new capability would be agnostic of the sector, sample type, and class or type of biological agent being analysed. However, technical approaches that are specific to certain types or classes of biological agent may be considered. We are also interested in proposals that develop or repurpose existing technologies used in other scientific disciplines.

We are looking for innovations that will form the basis of the next generation of Microbial Forensic capability, potentially enhancing our ability to use any branch of science under the omics banner in a Microbial Forensic investigation, and fundamentally improve our understanding of an encountered pathogen.

Proposals must address at least one of the challenges and move technologies through Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs). Innovations must start at a minimum of TRL 2 and progress up to a minimum of TRL 4 and a maximum of TRL 6. The project duration can be up to 18 months and the project must end by 31 December 2026. The contract value must be up to a maximum of £250,000.

4.3 Expressions of interest

If you are uncertain of the relevance of your innovation you are strongly recommended to contact your DASA Innovation Partner to discuss sending a one-page expression of interest. Your expression of interest should be no more than 500 words and include:

• what your idea is

• which challenge you are interested in

• what problem it solves for Defence and Security and what makes it innovative

Please send one idea per expression of interest.

Expressions of Interest must be submitted to your DASA Innovation Partner; you should receive a response within two weeks, confirming whether or not your idea is in scope. The competition closes on 18 February 2025, so DASA cannot guarantee a response to an expression of interest received after 4 February 2025.

5. Competition Challenges

This competition has two challenge areas which are detailed below. Suppliers may address one or both of these challenges. We would also welcome joint bids from two or more suppliers that could provide an enhanced response to one or both of these challenges. 

5.1 Challenge 1: Novel computational analysis tools for genomic data

In this challenge we are looking for additional computational tools, potentially exploiting artificial intelligence and / or machine learning. These could enhance the opportunity to detect anomalies in genome sequencing data (e.g. evidence of biological engineering, presence of anti-microbial resistance (AMR) markers, information regarding source etc.), and augment the existing UK strength in genomics and the activities of the UKMFC Bioinformatics Working Group. The tools could be applied to genomes of isolated pathogens and / or complex metagenomics backgrounds. The expectation is that any computational tools will be easily integrated into analysis pipelines running on Linux-based operating systems, be command-line executed, and written in a widely used programming language such as Python or C. 

Ideas that could help solve this challenge area include (but would not be limited to):

• approaches that highlight evidence of genetic engineering / manipulation, noting there are numerous described methods by which the genome of a biological agent may be altered

• the generation / curation / improvement of additional databases that provide further understanding of microbiological or synthetic biology backgrounds aiding anomaly detection

• computational procedures that enable expedient analysis of large / complex data sets; for example, traditional or machine learning approaches to interrogate microbial sequencing data, environmental metagenomics data and / or downstream processed outputs

• additional ways of working that enable the identification and / or characterisation of “unknowns” (e.g. organisms that do not map to an established reference database) within genome sequencing data

5.2 Challenge 2: Approaches for the identification and / or computational analysis of other omic signatures

In this challenge we are looking for technologies that could either generate and / or provide computational tools to analyse omic signatures other than genomics (e.g. proteomic, transcriptomic, epigenomic, metabolomics, other). Ideally, these markers are required to be robust enough such that they remain present even following passage through a host.  

Ideas that could help solve this challenge area include but would not be limited to:

• approaches that generate omic data providing new opportunities for microbial forensics investigations (e.g. epigenetics)

• technology platforms that provide new ways of identifying novel biological materials and complement existing analytical procedures (e.g. protein sequencing)

• computational tools to identify synthetically designed biological signatures (e.g. novel proteins) including within complex samples or matrices

• development of novel microbial forensic approaches that provide an indication of the provenance (e.g. source attribution) of an outbreak at any phenotypical or omic level

• the development of technologies that offer the potential for identification of the means of production and / or signatures of laboratory manipulation; including irrespective of whether the biological material collected has been passaged through another organism (e.g. infected host)

• any other approach (including data science) that enables the differentiation between a natural outbreak and nefarious release of a biological material

5.3 We are interested in…

We are looking for ideas that would benefit end-users working in UK biosurveillance laboratories undertaking Microbial Forensic analyses. We are interested in proposals that:

• offer innovation or novel approaches to existing methods that would represent a step change in Microbial Forensics capability

• clearly demonstrate how the proposed work can function in the context of One Health^{[footnote 1]} and Microbial Forensics

• provide evidence that your innovation has the potential of being translated into a practical demonstration in the future, whether it be method / technical advancement or proof of concept research

• propose to utilise innovations from a different industry / discipline that might address this problem (i.e. application of existing techniques in the context of a Microbial Forensic investigation)

• address at least one of the specified challenges (proposals do not need to address both challenges)

• include evidence of a robust supply chain for all of the key elements of the proposal to ensure there is an enduring availability

• include evidence of the approach being robust enough that the developed technology can feasibly be transferred to a network of analytical laboratories.

• have the potential to be fully validated and accredited to an appropriate quality standard (i.e. ISO/IEC IS017025:2017)

5.4 We are not interested in…

We are not interested in proposals that:

• offer technologies that only develop new ways of sequencing nucleic acids

• offer technologies that only derive information that would facilitate the identification of a pathogen

• offer technologies that could only offer a mobile Microbial Forensic capability

• require the completion and attainment of ethical favourable opinion from the Ministry of Defence Research Ethics Committee (MODREC)

• are consultancy, paper-based studies or literature reviews which just summarise the existing literature without any view of future innovation

• are unsolicited resubmissions of a previous DASA bid

• offer demonstrations of off-the-shelf products requiring no experimental development (unless applied in a novel way to the challenge)

• offer no real long-term prospect of integration into UK biosurveillance laboratories undertaking a Microbial Forensics analysis

• offer no real prospect of out-competing existing technological solutions

6. Accelerating and exploiting your innovation

It is important that over the lifetime of DASA competitions, ideas are matured and accelerated towards appropriate end-users to enhance capability. How long this takes will depend on the nature and starting point of the innovation.

6.1 A clear route for exploitation

For DASA to consider routes for exploitation, ensure your deliverables are designed with the aim of making it as easy as possible for collaborators / stakeholders to identify the innovative elements of your proposal.

Whilst DASA recognises that early identification and engagement with potential end users during the competition and subsequent development work are essential to implementing an exploitation plan, during the competition phase all correspondence must be via the DASA Help Centre (accelerator@dstl.gov.uk), or your local Innovation Partner.

All proposals to DASA should articulate the expected development in technology maturity of the potential solution over the lifetime of the contract and how this relates to improved capability against the current known (or presumed) baseline.

6.2 How to outline your exploitation plan

A higher technology maturity is expected in subsequent development of innovations. Include the following information to help the assessors understand your exploitation plans to date:

• the intended defence or security users of your final product and whether you have previously engaged with them, their procurement arm or their research and development arm

• awareness of, and alignment to, any existing end user procurement programmes

• the anticipated benefits (for example, in cost, time, improved capability) that your solution will provide to the user

• whether it is likely to be a standalone product or integrated with other technologies or platforms

• expected additional work required beyond the end of the contract to develop an operationally deployable commercial product (for example, “scaling up” for manufacture, cyber security, integration with existing technologies, environmental operating conditions)

• additional future applications and wider markets for exploitation

• wider collaborations and networks you have already developed or any additional relationships you see as a requirement to support exploitation

• how your product could be tested in a representative environment in later stages of development

• any specific legal, ethical, commercial or regulatory considerations for exploitation

6.3 Is your exploitation plan long term?

Long term studies may not be able to articulate exploitation in great detail, but it should be clear that there is credible advantage to be gained from the technology development.

Include project specific information which will help exploitation. This competition is being carried out as part of a wider MOD programme and with cognisance of cross-Government initiatives. We may collaborate with organisations outside of the UK Government and this may provide the opportunity to carry out international trials and demonstrations in the future.

7. How to apply

Submission deadline

12:00 midday on 18 February 2025 (GMT)

Eligibility

This competition is open to all innovators; submissions are welcome from the private sector, academia, public sector research establishments or any innovator. There are no nationality restrictions.

Laboratory network members of the UKMFC are eligible to apply to the competition. In this instance, the submitting organisation will not assess any proposals submitted to the competition.

The UKMFC has an Advisory Board, comprising senior scientists and sector leaders from across the UK, which has approved the competition themes. Advisory Board members must therefore not have been involved in any discussions regarding the drafting of a proposal and are excluded from submitting a proposal. Bidders shall be asked to confirm that proposals have been written without input from any Advisory Board member; your proposal shall be sifted out if this condition has not been met.

Where do I submit my proposal?

Via the DASA Online Submission Service for which you will be required to register.
Only proposals submitted through the DASA Online Submission Service will be accepted.

Please note that this competition has an additional question on top of those listed on Submit a proposal. This question asks you to confirm that no UKMFC Advisory Board member has been involved in the discussion about or drafting of your proposal, which is part of this competition’s pre-sift criteria.

Total funding available

The total funding available for this competition is £1 million (excluding VAT).

How many proposals will DASA fund

We are looking to fund a minimum of 4 and up to 10 projects, each up to a maximum value of £250,000.

For further guidance

Click here for more information on our competition process and how your proposal is assessed.
Queries should be sent to the DASA Help Centre – accelerator@dstl.gov.uk.

7.1 What your proposal must include

• the proposal should focus on the competition requirements but should also include a brief (uncosted) outline of the next stages of work required for exploitation

• when submitting a proposal, you must complete all sections of the online form, including an appropriate level of technical information to allow assessment of the bid and a completed finances section

• completed proposals must comply with the financial rules set for this competition. The upper-limit for this competition is £250,000 (excluding VAT). Proposals will be rejected if the financial cost exceeds this capped level

• you must include a list of other current or recent government funding you may have received in this area if appropriate, making it clear how this proposal differs from this work

• a project plan with clear milestones and deliverables must be provided. Deliverables must be well defined and designed to provide evidence of progress against the project plan and the end-point for this competition; they must include a final report

• you should also plan for attendance at a kick-off meeting at the start of the project, as well as regular reviews with the appointed Dstl Technical Partner and Project Manager; all meetings will be in the UK. Meetings may also take place virtually. Any slides presented at these meetings need to be made available. You will also be invited to an end of project Stakeholder Event at the end of the project, which will involve attending an in-person event in London in January / February 2027 at which you will present the work of your entire project to relevant stakeholders. Please refer to Table 1, which outlines the required reporting and meeting attendance; these should be detailed in your proposal.

Deliverable	Attendees	Frequency	Venue	Deliverable Type / format
Kick-Off Meeting	Technical Partner; Supplier; Dstl project team	Once, within one month of contract start	Virtual or In-Person	PowerPoint and project plan
Host an onsite in-person meeting	Technical Partner; Supplier; Dstl project team	Once during the course of the contract	Supplier’s laboratory	PowerPoint
Progress meeting	Technical Partner; Supplier; Dstl project team	Monthly	Virtual	PowerPoint and / or report
Mid-project reporting	Technical Partner; Supplier; Dstl project team	Once, at the mid-point of project	Virtual	PowerPoint and / or report
End of project report	N/A	Once, at end of project	N/A	Report detailing all findings and progress
In-person presentation / demonstration at a Stakeholder Event	All suppliers from the competition; Dstl project team; relevant stakeholders	Once (date TBC; anticipated for FY26/27)	In-person, UK (London)	PowerPoint

Table 1: The required reporting and meeting attendance for your project; these should be detailed in your proposal.

• your proposal must demonstrate how you will complete all activities / services and provide all deliverables within the competition timescales (up to 18 months; the project must be completed by 31 December 2026). Proposals with any deliverables (including final report) outside the competition timeline will be rejected as non-compliant.

7.2 What your resourcing plan should include

Your resourcing plan must identify, where possible, the nationalities of proposed employees that you intend to work on your project.

7.3 If your proposal is recommended for funding

In the event of a proposal being recommended for funding, the DASA reserves the right to undertake due diligence checks including the clearance of proposed employees. Please note that this process will take as long as necessary and could take up to 6 weeks in some cases for non-UK nationals.

You must identify any ethical / legal / regulatory factors within your proposal. As stated in We are not interested in, you must make it clear in your proposal that you DO NOT require the completion and attainment of ethical favourable opinion from the Ministry of Defence Research Ethics Committee (MODREC). Due to the timescales for this project, if MODREC approval is required your proposal will be rejected. If you are unsure if your proposal will need to apply for MODREC approval, then please refer to the MODREC Guidance for Suppliers or contact your Innovation Partner for further guidance. For clarity, MODREC approval applies in every instance where the research involving human data is to be MOD-funded. It is required even if you have obtained previous research ethics committee or panel approval because MODREC still needs to be satisfied that the research is ethically compliant.

You must identify the risks associated with any ethical, legal or regulatory factors and how they will be managed, including break points in the project if approvals are not received. Requirements for access to Government Furnished Assets (GFA), for example, information, equipment, materials and facilities, may be included in your proposal. DASA cannot guarantee that GFA will be available. If you apply for GFA, you should include an alternative plan in case it is not available.

Failure to provide any of the above listed will automatically render your proposal non-compliant.

7.4 Export control for overseas partners

All relevant export control regulations will apply if a company ultimately wants to sell a developed solution to a foreign entity. All innovators must ensure that they can obtain, if required, the necessary export licences for their proposals and developments, such that they can be supplied to the UK and other countries. If you cannot confirm that you can gain the requisite licences, your proposal will be sifted out of the competition.

Additionally, if we believe that you will not be able to obtain export clearance, additional checks may be conducted, which may also result in your proposal being sifted out of the competition.

7.5 Cyber risk assessment

Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ)

On receipt of a ‘Fund’ decision, successful suppliers must prove cyber resilience before the contract is awarded. The start of this process is the submission of a Supplier Assurance Questionnaire (SAQ). The SAQ allows suppliers to demonstrate compliance with the specified risk level and the corresponding profile in Def Stan 05-138, and the level of control required will depend on this risk level.

To expedite the contracting time of successful suppliers we ask all suppliers to complete the SAQ before they submit their proposal. The SAQ can be completed here using the DASA Risk Assessment RAR-241016B02. and answer questions for risk level “Very Low”. In the form, for the contract name please use the competition title and for the contract description please use the title of your proposal.

Defence Cyber Protection Partnership

The Defence Cyber Protection Partnership (DCPP) will review your SAQ submission and aim to respond within 2 working days with a reference number and an indication of your compliance status. They welcome emails if you think a response has not been provided in this time. The resulting email response from DCPP should be attached (JPG or PNG format) and included within the DASA submission service portal when the proposal is submitted. You will also be asked to enter your SAQ reference number. Please allow enough time to receive the SAQ reference number prior to competition close at 12:00 midday on 18 February 2025 (GMT).
The SAQ will be evaluated against the CRA for the competition, and it will be put it into one of the following categories:

1. Compliance Status Met – no further action

2. Compliance status Not Met – if successful in competition and being funded, the innovator will be required to complete a Cyber Implementation Plan (CIP) before the contract is placed, which will need to be reviewed and agreed with the relevant project manager.

Innovators can submit a proposal without all controls in place, but are expected to have all the cyber protection measures necessary to fulfil the requirements of the contract in place at the time of contract award, or have an agreed Cyber Implementation Plan (CIP).

The CIP provides evidence as to how and when potential innovators will achieve compliance. Provided the measures proposed in the Cyber Implementation Plan do not pose an unacceptable risk to the MOD, a submission with a Cyber Implementation Plan will be considered alongside those who can achieve the controls.

A final check will be made to ensure cyber resilience before the contract is placed.  Commercial staff cannot progress without it. This process does not replace any contract specific security requirements.

Additional information about cyber security can be found at: DCPP: Cyber Security Model industry buyer and supplier guide.

7.6 Public facing information

When submitting your proposal, you will be required to include a title, Proposal Value Proposition Statement (PVPS) and a short abstract. The title, PVPS and abstract you provide will be used by DASA, and other government departments, to describe your project and its intended outcomes and benefits. They may be included at DASA events in relation to this competition and in documentation such as brochures. As this information can be shared, it should not contain information that may compromise Intellectual property.

7.7 How your proposal will be assessed

At Stage 1, all proposals will be checked for compliance with the competition document and may be rejected before full assessment if they do not comply. Only those proposals that demonstrate compliance against the competition scope and DASA pre-sift criteria will be taken forward to full assessment. For more information on how your proposal will be assessed please read Assessment process and criteria.

Pre-Sift Criteria
The proposal outlines how it meets the scope of the competition	Within scope (Pass) / Out of scope (Fail)
The proposal fully explains all three sections of the DASA submission service, how it meets the DASA criteria (Desirability, Feasibility and Viability) and competition scope	Pass / Fail
The proposal must contain a financial plan, a project plan and a resourcing plan which demonstrate how the work proposed will be completed	Pass / Fail
Your deliverables include a written final report	Pass / Fail
Maximum value of proposal is £250,000 (excluding VAT)	Pass / Fail
The final deliverable month indicated must be less than or equal to 18 months from T0 where T0 is the date the contract is agreed by both parties; the project must be completed by 31 December 2026	Pass / Fail
Innovations must start at a minimum of TRL 2 and reach a minimum of TRL 4 and a maximum of TRL 6 by the end of the project	Pass / Fail
The proposal confirms there is no need for MODREC	Pass / Fail
No UKMFC Advisory Board member has been involved in any discussion about or drafting of the proposal	Pass / Fail

Proposals that pass Stage 1 will then be assessed against the standard DASA assessment criteria (Desirability, Feasibility and Viability) by subject matter experts from the MOD (including Dstl), other government departments, including government laboratory members of the UKMFC, and the front-line military commands. You will not have the opportunity to view or comment on assessors’ recommendations.

DASA reserves the right to disclose on a confidential basis any information it receives from innovators during the procurement process, which includes the full proposal, to any third party engaged by DASA for the specific purpose of evaluating or assisting DASA in the evaluation of your proposal. In providing such information you consent to such disclosure. Appropriate confidentiality agreements will be put in place.

Further guidance on how your proposal is assessed is available on the DASA website.

After assessment, proposals will be discussed internally at a Decision Conference where, based on the assessments, budget and wider strategic considerations, a decision will be made on the proposals that are recommended for funding.

Innovators are not permitted to attend the Decision Conference.

Proposals that are unsuccessful will receive brief feedback after the Decision Conference.

7.8 Things you should know about DASA contracts: DASA terms and conditions

Please read the DASA terms and conditions which contain important information for innovators. For this competition we will be using the Innovation Standard Contract (ISC), link to the contract: Terms and Conditions. We will require unqualified acceptance of the terms and conditions; if applicable, please ensure your commercial department has provided their acceptance.

More information on DEFCON 705 can be found by registering on the Knowledge in Defence.

Funded projects will be allocated a Project Manager (to monitor the project) and a Dstl Technical Partner (as a technical point of contact). In addition, the DASA team will work with you to support delivery and exploitation including, when appropriate, introductions to end-users and business support to help develop their business.

We will use deliverables from DASA contracts in accordance with our rights detailed in the contract terms and conditions, including sharing with the UKMFC Laboratory Network, in confidence, for information purposes, and potentially for adoption or implementation to meet the requirements of the 2023 UK Biological Security Strategy.

For this competition, £1 million (excluding VAT) is currently available to fund proposals. Where a proposal meets the fundable requirements for a competition, but is not funded, DASA may continue to seek funding from partners across government and shall consider your proposal fundable for 12 months from the date of the decision release. We may share the abstract, PVPS and title of your proposal with any other UK government departments that may express an interest in funding the proposal through DASA, in accordance with the competition document. If a budget holder within the MOD wishes to read the full proposal to decide if they will fund it, we will share it with them under these circumstances. If it is within 60 days of the original NOT FUNDED decision release date, we will share the full proposal with them without seeking your permission. If it is over 60 days since the original NOT FUNDED decision we will seek your permission before sharing the full proposal with them.

For other potential funders, we will seek your permission before sharing the full proposal regardless of the number of days since the original NOT FUNDED decision release.

In the event that funding becomes available, DASA may ask whether you would still be prepared to undertake the work outlined in your proposal under the same terms. Your official DASA feedback will indicate if your proposal was deemed fundable, but not awarded funding at the time.

8. Key dates

Dial-in	9 January 2025
Pre bookable 1-1 telecom sessions	15 & 21 January 2025 (Registration details to be published the day after the dial in session, i.e. on 10 January 2025)
Competition closes	12:00 midday on 18 February 2025 (GMT)
Feedback release	30 April 2025
Contracting	Aim is for contracts to commence by the start of June 2025 and end by 31 December 2026

9. Help: Contact the DASA Help Centre

Competition queries including on process, application, commercial, technical and intellectual property aspects should be sent to the DASA Help Centre at accelerator@dstl.gov.uk, quoting the competition title. If you wish receive future updates on this competition, please email the DASA Help Centre.

While all reasonable efforts will be made to answer queries, DASA reserves the right to impose management controls if volumes of queries restrict fair access of information to all potential innovators.

10. Questions and Answers from webinar 9 January 2025

10.1 General competition questions:

Funding

Q: Are there any financial restrictions on overhead rates, use of funds, etc.?

A: You can only include costs which directly relate to the delivery of the DASA proposal. As part of the assessment, value for money will be taken into consideration. To help with this, prices in your proposal must be supported by a full cost breakdown. Therefore, all financial costs need to be justified to demonstrate why they are good value for money. 

Q: Will 100% full economic costs be funded, including overheads and indirect costs? Are there ineligible costs?

A: DASA will fund 100% full economic costs (FEC), whereby university applicants can also include indirect costs (i.e. the contribution towards estate charges and other central university overheads). Ineligible costs will be those that are not involved with directly delivering the project, e.g. attendance at a conference to talk about your project. However, travel to meet the Dstl project team to attend a project meeting or demo event should be costed and included in your finance table DASA will not pay for any costs related to protecting your IP or commercialisation.

Q: Does the £250,000 funding limit include VAT?

A: No, it’s excluding VAT. All prices quoted for DASA proposals are firm (non-variable) and must be exclusive of VAT. Prices quoted are not subject to the effects of escalation or exchange-rate variation.

Q: Can any profit be included in the project costs?

A: Yes, if you don’t already include a ‘profit’ in your labour rates, you can state the profit percentage that you would like to apply in the relevant section of the finance schedule. Please note that adding in a profit percentage is optional and at your discretion.

Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

Q: How do you define TRL? Is it limited to just technological readiness level or also commercial, regulatory etc?

A: Please refer to the DASA terms and conditions page, where there is a table defining each TRL.

Q: Why is the competition restricting the final solution to TRL 6 at the end of the project?

A: Under the terms of the DASA funding, DASA can only contract up to TRL 6.

Project duration

Q: Are there any limitations or expectations regarding the start dates of the projects?

A: The only limitation is that there is a fixed end date; projects must be completed by the end of December 2026. DASA will aim to get suppliers on contract by early June 2025 and projects can be up to 18 months in duration.

Research workers

Q: Can non-UK national post-doctoral research assistants work on projects?

A: Yes.

Q: What clearance level will be required for those working on a funded project?

A: Before we can award a contract, we need each proposed research worker to complete a Form 388 that we will use to perform due diligence and obtain necessary clearances. Please note that this process will take as long as necessary and could take up to 6 weeks in some cases for non-UK nationals. A Form 388 will be sent to you if you’re successful under a DASA competition.

Eligibility of applicants

Q: Are there any limitations regarding which organisations an innovator can engage with for their proposal?

A: No, with one exception: UKMFC Advisory Board members are not allowed to advise or be involved in any bid.

Q: Are laboratory network members of the UKMFC eligible to bid into the competition?

A: Yes. However, if there a bid is submitted from a laboratory network member of the UKMFC, the submitting organisation will not assess any proposals submitted into the competition. This is to avoid a conflict of interest and ensure a commercially fair competition.

Q: Can more than one proposal per supplier be submitted?

A: Yes. There is no limit on the quantity of proposals you can submit to DASA at any one time. However, you must make DASA aware:

• that you plan to create multiple submissions
• of the maximum amount of projects you can feasibly undergo at any one time
• if there is any duplication of work across proposals.

You may not submit proposals that are interdependent. The proposals must be sufficiently differentiated from each other and able to be run as independent projects. DASA would need to have full assurance that there is the resource and bandwidth to deliver the projects concurrently in the event that multiple projects were funded.

Collaboration and letters of support

Q: Is collaboration with international colleagues encouraged?

A: Yes, as are multidisciplinary teams. Innovators can have as many collaborators, partners, subcontractors etc. as is necessary to deliver the project.

Q: Could an innovator submit a multi-site bid, e.g. multiple institutes with more than one theme?

A: Innovators would have to decide who would be the lead applicant. DASA can only contract with one main applicant and then behind that, there can be as many other organisations and institutes as needed.

Q: Can suppliers include letters of support in their proposals?

A: Yes. They are not mandated, but there is an opportunity in the proposal to upload documents, including letters of support. Please note that proposal attachments are limited to .png, .jpg, or.jpeg files only.

Q: If a supplier had many ideas could they use a workshop approach and give the competition team the option of refining the project? Alternatively, should innovators define a single approach via an expression of interest?

A: It would be the latter. The supplier can put in multiple ideas using expressions of interest and DASA will provide feedback from the customer on which ones would be the highest priority. Please contact your DASA Innovation Partner for more information and please submit one idea per expression of interest (see Expressions of interest for more information).

Q: Would setting up a stakeholder group be of benefit?

A: It depends on what the group is tasked to do. If a supplier is setting up a group to define the problems space, that would be somewhat obsolete as the UKFMC already has a reasonable understanding of the challenges. On the other hand, if the group is in some way helping a supplier to deliver its science and technology research by having that stakeholder group as part of its research project, then that would be of benefit.

Expressions of interest

Q: What turnaround time should we assume for expressions of interest?

A: In most cases, it will be within a week. It will be a maximum of two weeks. There is a cut off time for expressions of interest, which is 2 weeks before the closing date for the competition.

Q: How is it decided which proposals are genuinely innovative?

A: DASA asks assessors to look at the desirability, the feasibility and the viability of all proposals to understand whether they a) meet the competition scope and are desirable for the end user, b) are technically feasible and c) are viable and likely to be completed in the given time frame and with the planned resources. There are specific assessment criteria that you can find on DASA’s website that assessors will be asked to use to look at the proposals; see for more information, Assessment process and criteria.

DASA also assigns more than one assessor per proposal, which ensures a broad range of expertise which will be used and relied on to determine whether a bid is innovative or not. It is also suggested that any supplier familiarises themselves with the current capabilities within microbial forensics, and from that determine their likely level of innovation.

Supporting events

Q: Will slides be available after the webinar?

A: Yes, slides will be sent out to registrants and will be uploaded to the DASA GOV.UK website, here.

Q: Will the answers to all the questions that have been taken offline for discussion be shared with everyone?

A: Yes. As long as they are generic and anonymised, they will be shared on the competition document with the rest of the questions.

Q: Are there any other online events after this Q&A session?

A: DASA will be leading two innovator 1-1 sessions where innovators can talk directly to the competition technical team, and ask questions in a closed forum. These events take place on 15 and 21 January. Aside from this, innovators can submit an expression of interest for technical queries, or email accelerator@dstl.gov.uk if they have any queries regarding the submission process.

Future phases and exploitation

Q: What level of exploitation plan is required in the proposal?

A: For an exploitation plan, you should demonstrate that you’ve considered the next steps following the DASA-funded stage and how you plan to  further develop your innovation and how it will be commercialised; one or two paragraphs would suffice. Include project specific information which will help exploitation. This competition is being carried out as part of a wider MOD programme and with cognisance of cross-Government initiatives. You can also include information on how your idea may be integrated into existing systems and capabilities.

Q: Is Phase two funding available?

A: No, there are no current plans for a Phase two.

10.2 Scope

Q: Would a proteomics by sequencing approach be of interest?

A: Yes, especially if it’s a novel protein sequencing method.

Q: Are you interested in RNA sequence data, as well as DNA?

A: Yes.

Q: Could you clarify what you’re interested in with reference to standard genomic data readouts?

A: Genomic data sets that simply identify a microbe are not of interest; we are seeking more information from an organism other than solely its identification. That could be identification of an anomaly, e.g. a genetic insert.

Q: Is this competition only interested in genetic manipulations, or are other forms of manipulation of interest too? If so, what other types of manipulation?

A: The competition is looking for systems that can detect anomalies whether they be genomic or those found in other omic data sets. There has been reference to genetic manipulations and engineering as an example of an anomaly that UKMFC might want to detect, but that might not be the only thing that is wanting to be detected, so it could be evidence of the systems that are used to create the genetic engineering, whether it’s plasmids, or large scale deletions, (as examples). The common thread is it is showing that a particular sample that has gone through sequencing is showing something unusual. That is what the completion is about.

Q: How will the competition go about differentiating between a random mutation and genetic engineering?

A: We would expect a supplier to propose solutions to this problem with an aspiration that a technology option provides a definitive indication that a sequence has been deliberately engineered. Where this isn’t possible then a likelihood score could be provided as an alternative, though it would need to be made clear what criteria informed the final score.

Additional text has been provided signposting suppliers to the wide range of genetic manipulation methods that have been described.

Ideally, proposals should be standalone in the delivery of the work and not dependent on government furnished assets (GFA), whether that be data, equipment, or laboratories

Q: Would it be possible to get an outline as to how you currently determine whether a sequence is modified / manipulated?

A: We have provided some additional information on the bioinformatic pipelines being developed.

Q: Is the scope restricted to human pathogens? Or are you also interested in bioterrorism against livestock, plants etc.?

A: The UKMFC is a One Health capability, so we are interested in all of the above.

Q: Could a list of pathogens that the competition team would like AMR reported on be shared?

A: No, the UKMFC want to move away from a list-based approach. As part of a robust experimental plan a supplier could use a pathogen or a model organism to demonstrate that they can detect AMR in materials. The identification of AMR should also infer that the agent in question has been deliberately engineered to include this - rather than just AMR that is present through natural evolutionary processes.

Q: Noting the interest in technologies that could address all microbes, does that mean that technology for bacteria alone is out of scope?

A: Ideally, capabilities that are being proposed should be agnostic of the agent class. However, there would be a serious consideration of a technology that looked at bacteria alone.

Q: Should suppliers focus on just bacteria or other microorganisms e.g. viruses?

A: Ideally, bids should span all the agents. However, there will still be serious consideration of bids that focus in one class of agent.

Q: Must microbes to be studied be on the list of those followed already, or can a study be proposed that would allow a substitute e.g. category 2 pathogens?

A:  A proposal to cover all classes of agents would be ideal. However, if there is a robust experimental plan that shows technology demonstration using a category 2 agent as a model then that is perfectly acceptable.

Q: Will you accept proposals on more traditional forensics techniques or is it purely bacterial / microbial etc.?

A: If this is to mean applying traditional forensic techniques to bacterial microbial datasets, the answer is yes.

Q: Is a technology that picks up a range of microbes quantitatively and rapidly of any interest to this competition?

A: This competition is looking for something that does more than identify an organism or organisms.

Q: Is a novel AI methodology for predicting AMR from minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values, i.e. not omics but still a forensic capability, of interest?

A: This is potentially of interest, however the method would need to be able to identify that the antimicrobial resistance had been deliberately introduced into the agent.

Q: Are you interested in emerging methods that have not been fully validated? Can a contract cover rigorous validation and evaluation of a new method?

A: Yes to both of those questions.

Q: Given the competition is uninterested in existing commercial solutions, would it be acceptable to propose a bid to work with a commercial provider to develop a novel solution?

A: Yes

Q: Would there be an interest in reviewing commercial bioinformatics tools or is there only interest in bespoke solutions?

A: If the commercial tools can be used in novel ways to meet the aims of this competition then yes. However, if it is a simple review of, or demonstration of existing, current commercial software this would not be of interest.

Q: Can suppliers extend the capabilities of tools they have already developed for Dstl or do they have to be completely novel?

A: Yes. It is clear in the competition document that bids which extend the capabilities of any technology will be considered. It is up to the supplier (in their application) to demonstrate the novelty of their technology for DASA funding.

Q: Are you specifically looking for analysis of one sequencing platform (e.g. Oxford Nanopore Technology or Illumina)?

A: The aspiration is that a technology option should be agnostic of sequencing platform where practically possible. If a proposal details an option able to analyse only one form of data (i.e. long or short read) then a justification for this should be provided in the proposal.

Q: For Challenge 1, are you looking to avoid commercially available offerings? The speaker mentioned current Illumina or Oxford Nanopore Technology offerings.

A: The aim of challenge 1 is not to identify new methods of sequencing pathogens; systems such as this exist already. The aim is to find novel computational tools to use with output data from any commercial DNA sequencing method. It’s about understanding sequenced data, not the generation of sequence data.

Q: For challenge two, would proteomic data derived from genetic sequences be acceptable, e.g. protein sequence analysis on sequences obtained from translating genes?

A: Yes.

Q: Could a novel rapid phenotypic antimicrobial susceptibility test potentially be in scope for challenge 2?

A: Potentially, if it could also be identified that that antimicrobial resistance had been deliberately engineered into the agent in question.

Q: Is DASA expecting an in silico or in vitro demonstration of computational tools?

A: In silico, at the end of this project.

Q: Is in vitro / experimental validation desirable, or is that out of scope?

A: If it could be fitted into a robust project plan then yes that would be desirable.

Q: Are there any examples that can be shared of recent ‘alerts’ and the associated sequence / sample that caused the alert?

A: Not directly from Defence Science and Technology. However, there are a couple of examples in the competition document of previous microbial forensic investigations; 2001 Amerithrax Incident and 2008 US Ricin incident.

Q: For software development and computational detection capabilities are there particular capabilities missing in the bioinformatics team which stand out?

A: We have provided some additional information on the bioinformatic pipelines currently being developed. Overall, new innovative analysis techniques that are either supportive or augment this approach are being sought.

Q: Can you give an estimate of the compute capabilities that would be available to run tools on so we can ensure our solution is financially viable?

A: The compute infrastructure is variable across the laboratory network. Ideally the solution will run with as small a footprint as possible. However, novel methods requiring high specification compute (e.g. GPUs) will be considered, providing the outputs are novel and unobtainable from lower specification compute.

Q: Is there any information on the existing pipeline created by the Bioinformatics Working Group in terms of detecting signatures of manipulation / editing etc.?

A: As it currently stands, the pipelines are based around using current methods that are robustly utilised by the laboratory network to enable the build-up of collaborative infrastructure and cross-government working. We have provided some additional information on the bioinformatic pipelines being developed.

Q: Are tools expected to work on whole genome assemblies, contigs or read from metagenomic sequencing?

A: The competition scope would include the consideration of tools to work on any of the above, but ideally tools should be able to accept either FASTQ or FASTA format files as input.

Q: Would tools be able to take metadata into account? For example, provenance of sample, similarity to other samples etc., may impact algorithm.

A: If possible. However, due to the complex nature of metadata across the One Health, cross-sector laboratory network, functionality of any tool should be retained if metadata is not available.

Q: Is there an interest in novel surveillance platforms and networks that could feed samples and data to the UKMFC network?

A: No, this competition is only interested in technologies that identify additional information from an already identified pathogen and general biosurveillance is therefore out-of-scope.

Samples

Q: What sample types are of interest to be analysed, e.g. wastewater, air samples, swab samples, blood samples, etc.?

A: The UKMFC would not be overly interested in general surveillance samples such as wastewater. A typical UKMFC analysis would be from an agent identified / isolated from a sample obtained following a specific presentation / observation of host symptoms and not one from background surveillance activities.

Q: For work where samples / generation of data may be required, e.g. epigenetic measurements, would there be recommendations / guidance on ‘ideal model’ samples?

A: Ideally, proposals should be standalone in the delivery of the work and not dependent on government furnished assets (GFA), whether that be data, equipment, or laboratories. We have provided some additional information on experimental design for the identification of laboratory passage.

Q: For environmental and clinical bacterial samples, do you typically receive bacterial isolates?

A: The UKFMC as a whole receives bacteria isolates, but there could also be other sample types where the agent in question has not been isolated, e.g. bloods, plant material etc.

Q: Could the competition team speak any more to the difference between ‘surveillance samples’ and the target samples from their network?

A: A typical UKMFC analysis would be from an agent identified / isolated from a sample obtained after following a specific presentation / observation of host symptoms and not one from background surveillance activities.

Q: Are patient samples the target data (rather than environmental samples)?

A: A One Health capability is the ideal solution, if possible. However, we will seriously consider bids that just focus on one sector.

Q: Is dust a substrate of interest?

A: A typical UKMFC analysis would be from an agent identified / isolated from a sample obtained following a specific presentation / observation of host symptoms and not one from background surveillance activities.

Data supply

Q: Will any data be available to develop against / validate suppliers’ methods or will suppliers need to curate their own? Will any government furnished assets (GFA) be needed / provided for projects?

A: Ideally, proposals should be standalone in the delivery of the work and not dependent on government furnished assets (GFA), whether that be data, equipment, or laboratories.

No GFA will be needed. GFA can be requested, but we cannot guarantee the supply of any GFA. Therefore, if GFA is requested in your proposal, you should identify the risk associated with not receiving it and outline mitigations that you will take against this risk; the project should not be reliant on receiving GFA.

There are some circumstances where it might be possible to consider providing GFA, e.g. if there is a need to test data at the end of a project, this might be considered as part of the technical partnering. However, a proposal should not be reliant on GFA being supplied.

Q: Does Dstl have existing databases of manipulated sequences that could be exploited as test data sets?

A: No. There is a desire for a supplier to help generate those if possible.

Q: For challenge 1, does Dstl envisage supplying any data for use in algorithm development?

A: No, data used for testing and algorithm development should be acquired in-house, in silico generated, or sourced from publicly available sources. Ideally, proposals should be standalone in the delivery of the work and not dependent on government furnished assets (GFA), whether that be data, equipment, or laboratories.

Use of the cloud / open source tools

Q: Would solutions that work on cloud platforms be accepted? Are suppliers allowed to access cloud for uploading data and analysis?

A: It is fine for suppliers to work on cloud platforms, but portability [of data] should be borne in mind when the solution is being built, so that it can work on local Linux based systems at a minimum.

Q: Do the tools have to be novel or can they use a combination of open access?

A: They could be from either. If using only open access tools the bid would need to detail the innovative way the tools are being utilised and/or the innovative data handling implemented around the tools.

Q: Is it acceptable for an innovation to use open source dependencies?

A: Yes.

Q: Can the tools that are being developed be released open access?

A: You must provide details to us of any related public announcement for review prior to release. Once approval has been granted for publication then a tool could be released for open access.

Q: Are there requirements for cloud computing infrastructure for bioinformatics tools, e.g. must they be UK based?

A: It is fine for suppliers to develop the technology option on cloud platforms, but portability of data should be considered when the solution is being built, so that it can work on local Linux based systems at a minimum. A cyber security assurance check is also conducted as part of the contracting process, to ensure successful suppliers prove cyber resilience before the contract is awarded; see Cyber Risk Assessment for more details.

11. Questions and Answers from Innovator 1-1 sessions 15 January 2025

11.1 General competition questions

Q: How will the capabilities that a supplier develops be demonstrated?

A: Proposals should include a robust project plan for innovators to demonstrate the utility of the tools they develop. No specific in silico trial is planned, but we would expect you to demo the utility of the tool against a representative data set that you identify; a technical partner, which successful bids will be assigned, could help shape that.

Q: Can tools developed in funded projects be used for innovators’ own commercial use cases, or will it be owned by a separate entity, e.g. MOD?

A: The intellectual property remains with the supplier.MOD will have either full or limited rights as indicated in the Terms and Conditions. The innovator is free to exploit the innovation as they wish.

Q: Is the integration into the existing work streams already included in the 18-month period for the project or does that come after the project has concluded?

A: The competition team is happy to accept proposals that do not require integration. Ideally the technology would take something like FASTQ data as input to make it widely applicable across the laboratory network. Integration into a wider tool set would generally be more difficult, so a standalone option would be better.

Q: Can a supplier have a proposal that spans less than 18 months?

A: Yes. 

11.2 Scope questions

Q: Is there interest in a field-based technology?

A: No, we are not interested in a technology that is only mobile.

Q: Is being able to link any determinants (mainly AMR) to the species in a microbiome sample of interest?

A: If additional determinants to AMR were addressed, and they could indicate a deliberate genetic modification, which is also linked to the actual pathogen in question (even from a metagenomic data set), then yes that would be in scope.

Q: What other determinants are you looking for?

A: Any determinant can be used, as long as it can show that engineering has taken place and the determinant has been deliberately introduced to the pathogen.

Q: What microbiomes are of interest?

A: Ideally, it would be datasets that span all pathogens from all sectors, whether it be human, clinical animal, plants, food or agriculture; this is a One Health competition.

Q: Does the UKMFC have a focus on particular known pathogens?

A: The UKMFC is a One Health capability, specifically focusing on pathogens within different sectors. That is human, clinical, animal, plant, food and agriculture. The ideal innovation would be a tool that could span all those sectors.

Q: Are phages of interest?

A: Maybe, but make it clear how it relates to the competition as a whole.

Q: Which sequence assembly tools are currently used in the bioinformatics group?

A: This is not confirmed yet, but is a work in progress by the group; an overview of the modular design of the tool being developed will be published on the main DASA competition document in the next few weeks.

Q: Due to the kinds of changes seen in evolution, even viruses could easily be flagged as false positives; some metrics might need flagging for experts to look at, would that be acceptable?

A: Yes, the idea is that the output from any tool would go to an expert. Where a definitive indication cannot be provided by a tool then a likelihood score should be provided as an alternative, though it would need to be made clear what criteria informed the final score.

Q: Is it within scope to validate a tool, or are you looking for something that has already been tested and is ready to deploy?

A: The competition is looking for a new technology option, which will be developed and then validated over the term of the project and / or after. Further validation is expected after project completion.

Q: The possibility of engaging with Dstl experts for support with developing our innovation is appealing; would that be available as part of the competition?

A: Yes. The competition is being run because there is a desire to develop something that does not already exist. However, there is a lot of expertise at Dstl that can help you to both align your project to the scope of the competition but also give you additional technical expertise. If successful a Dstl Technical Partner will be assigned to you to help the project align with the aims of the UKMFC.

Q: In terms of outputs, is it more helpful to have a clear probability of a pathogen being natural / nefarious, or to explain why it was flagged?

A: Where a definitive indication cannot be provided by a tool then a likelihood score should be provided as an alternative, though it would need to be made clear what criteria informed the final score.

Q: Would surveillance activities and applying novel surveillance activities around eDNA and eRNA, with both forward and reverse modelling to help with attribution, be of interest?

A: This sounds like general surveillance, whereas the competition document talks about the proposed concept of operations of the laboratory network that is being set up here in the UK. Please refer to the concept of operations in the competition document.

Samples

Q: What frequency and type of sample is expected, e.g. an ongoing data stream, or more like an event where samples are gathered for analysis?

A: More the latter. There might be further sampling after the event, but there would not necessarily be further sample gathered from the location of the incident.

Q: Can you say anything about the types of samples and sequencing data that would be best for this competition?

A: The sample is likely to come from a host. It could be either a metagenomic data set or a whole genome sequence of an isolated pathogen. Ideally, the innovation could span both those particular datasets. The sample itself could be a range of different things from plant material through to human samples.

Data sets

Q: Are there data sets that innovators could use to help identify the mutations?

A: No. That is one of the reasons why challenge 1 has been included in the competition document. The desire is to demonstrate motifs or genomic scars that represent genetic engineering, thus improving data sets. There are publicly available databases for use and the competition would welcome proposals that seek to improve the quality of these data sets; this would enable the UKFMC to look for anomalies. In short, it will be up to the applicants to source data sets and they can be either publicly available or co-generated. There is an expectation that we are looking for something over and above what is already publicly available.

Q: Would datasets of engineered sequences be available e.g. for validating methods?

A: No, the supplier is responsible for finding or using their own data set for validation. However, in the case of a successful bid a technical partner from Dstl would be assigned to the supplier which can help assist them in this.

Q: Is there potential for ongoing access to data through the network?

A: There are not datasets to share at the moment, but successful bidders will be assigned a technical partner who could look at data access, if needed.

Databases

Q: If an innovator creates a database for multiple omics, would there be any possibility to connect with other teams to allow them to upload their data onto it?

A: There will be technical partners assigned to each successful bid and if the opportunity arises, there could be potential for connections. However, that is not something that has been specifically asked for in a project. Any activity in the project would be bound by the costs outlined in the proposal.

Q: Would a database of virulence factors and pathogens be in scope? It would show provenance.

A: It needs to offer something over and above what is already publicly available. Showing provenance would be in scope.

Software

Q: Could software that we develop be run on a cloud server; would that fit this competition?

A: Ultimately, the software needs to be portable. As long as the software runs on the cloud then it covers off the cloud compute base, which is fine for development, but it is best if it can also be run on a local S Linux system.

Q: How does the competition team envision the software getting used?

A: In its most simple terms, an event will be flagged – the most likely way is by a diagnostic test – then the UKMFC investigative processes will begin; they will investigate the pathogen(s) in greater depth.

Q: Is the expectation that the supplier would be providing the full source code for the tool? If so, who gets access to that source code?

A: As a bare minimum, Dstl would wish to see the source code to interrogate it and understand what it does, how and why. The source code will be shared with the laboratory network; only the bioinformatics team from the laboratory network would be able to see it and it would not be shared publicly. This would include an academic laboratory member of the UKMFC (Queens University Belfast).

Q: Are you expecting projects that are guaranteed to produce a computer program at the end, or is the competition open to more exploratory analysis?

A: The innovation must start at a minimum of TRL 2 and progress up to a minimum of TRL 4 and a maximum of TRL 6 by the end of the project. Ideally we would like software to test at the end of a project.

Q: What are the opportunities for ongoing income if a supplier develops a successful solution?

A: If a product is developed, there is an expectation that the UKMFC would pay a license fee for use of it.

Q: Is making an existing platform secure in the cloud within scope?

A: Making a platform secure does not fit into the scope of the competition; that is something that would be looked at after the project had ended.

Q: What is the best/preferred format for adding process data and genome data into the system?

A: FASTQ or FASTA are the most useful formats across the network and therefore has greatest utility.

12. Questions and Answers from Innovator 1-1 sessions 21 January 2025

12.1 General competition questions

Q:  Would you prefer a project with a realistic, achievable goal or are you more interested in a higher level of risk?

A: As stated in the competition document, bids will be accepted for innovations that start at TRL 2 and increase over the course of the project to at least TRL 4 and a maximum of TRL 6. The competition is looking for next generation innovations.

Q: Is the competition looking for something that expands on what is currently available, or is it looking for something completely novel?

A: The term used in the competition document is next generation.

Q: How do I submit an expression of interest?

A: Fill out an enquiry form and populate it. If you need to submit images as well, these can’t be added to the form, but you can send them to your Innovation Partner by email to be added in.

Q:  Is a smaller project more likely to receive funding than a larger project?

A: There is no bias regarding the size of project. Projects will be funded on merit.

Q: If a bid is unsuccessful, does the applicant receive detailed feedback or recommendations for future submissions or future calls to work with?

A: Yes, feedback is given to innovators who are unsuccessful; for more information about feedback release, see DASA’s Assessment process and criteria.

Q: Is it acceptable for a member of the UKMFC Bioinformatics working group to be involved in a bid for this competition?

A: Yes, this is acceptable and would not be a conflict of interest. However, it would be a conflict of interest for any UKMFC Advisory Board member to be involved in a bid, which is why all bidders will need to confirm that no UKMFC Advisory Board members have been involved in the drafting of their proposal.

Additionally, to avoid conflict of interest in the assessment process, any UKMFC member organization that submits a bid will not provide assessors for the competition.

Q: Who will use the output data / report from an innovation? This might determine the format of the output, e.g. will it be used by a bioinformatician or a non-scientific user?

A: The innovation must provide a report of some description, which will be used by subject matter experts in a particular pathogen or from a sector. They would be a scientist, and bioinformatics input would be available if it was not in the user’s skill set.  The most important thing is that there is some sort of report.

Q: Can the work be publishable or form part of a PhD thesis?

A: Yes. There might be an embargo period, to allow details to be checked, but this would not prevent publication.

12.2 Scope questions

Q: We are planning a combination of both wet chemistry and bioinformatics techniques although with a stronger focus on bioinformatics tools. Would this be in scope?

A: Yes, but we would advise you to 1) be clear how much wet lab burden there would be, 2) be cognisant of the need to determine whether a pathogen is natural or has been engineered and 3) be clear what innovation is being supplied from a bioinformatics perspective. Also, look at the pipeline, which will be added to the competition document Q&A section, which will give an idea of the tools currently in development.

Q:  Would a portable piece of hardware that would replace a wet chemistry approach be within the scope for this call?

A: Potentially. We are not looking for a solely portable technology. However, if it is a portable technology that can be put into and used within a highly resourced bio surveillance lab, that could be acceptable.

Q: Would a specific proteomics focus be of interest?

A: Yes, this would be relevant to challenge 2, which looks at either the generation and / or analysis of other (non-genomic) omic datasets, which could include proteomes.

Q:  Would there be interest in a method to determine antimicrobial resistance?

A: This sounds more like what would happen in a public health investigation. This competition seeks new technologies and a way of identifying whether a change, e.g. antimicrobial resistance, is natural or has been engineered. Therefore identification of AMR must also include an indication that its presence is the result of a deliberate engineering event.

Q: We are interested in exploring a published phenomenon that could be used to demonstrate deliberate genomic engineering. Would a feasibility study be in scope?

A: This is in scope, but bear in mind the preference for bids that encompass a wide range of microbes and a wide range of modifications. Also be cognisant of the requirement for innovations to start at TRL 2, which means there needs to be more than just an idea.

Q: Would an innovation that detects one or two methods of engineering be acceptable?

A: The preference is for a proposal to span more methods, not just one or two.

Q: If we have a solution that is applicable to one class of microbe, with the possibility of applying it to other class(es) in future would that be acceptable?

A: The preference is for bids that encompass all classes of agent, however bids for one class of microbe will also be considered. If there is scope for applying the innovation to additional class(es) of microbe in the future, this can be included in the exploitation plan in the proposal.

Q: Is there a greater interest in some agents than others, e.g. agents that are considered the most realistic or dangerous?

A: It is up to the supplier to decide what agents to focus on. A supplier needs to demonstrate a clear capability of its tool to detect an engineered agent.

Q: Is there a preference for the tool created being something that can be installed and downloaded locally versus it being a cloud-based service?

A: Ultimately, the software needs to be portable. As long as the software runs on the cloud then it covers off the cloud compute base, which is fine for development, but it is best if it can also be run on a local S Linux system.

Q: Would the tool be run on a device like a laptop or tablet or on a full desktop?

A: As the solution would be implemented within the UKMFC, it would be run on a range of in-house computer solutions.

Q: As no databases will be provided, could surrogate samples be used, e.g. genetically modified crops?

A: That could be complex; e.g. plants are complicated and there might not be read across to microbes.

Q:  Are there any databases for microbes that could be used for this call?

A: Nothing will be supplied as part of the competition. There are plenty of publicly available databases that list microbial datasets. NCBI and GenBank are good resources. Successful bidders will also have access to a technical partner who can help identify datasets. The aspiration would be that a new database option provides something over and above what is currently publicly available.

---

For definitions of One Health see:

World Health Organisation

World Organisation for Animal Health