Conflict Wounds - From Biology to Battlefield Solutions: Competition Document

Question 1

1. Introduction

Accepted Answer

This UKDI competition is run on behalf of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and Ministry of Defence (MOD) Defence Medical Services (DMS). It is seeking innovations that will improve our understanding of and develop treatment options for conflict wounds. Proposals are invited under two challenges:

Challenge 1: ‘Modelling conflict wounds’ - improving the availability of biological models in which to study conflict wounding
Challenge 2: ‘Treating conflict wounds’ - developing logistically light ‘first aid’ treatment options that can be delivered early after injury by medically-trained, non-specialist users in austere operating environments

Question 2

2. Competition key information

Accepted Answer

Key Information	Competition Details
Submission deadline	12:00 Midday on 24 March 2026 (GMT)
Total funding available	£1.5 million (excluding VAT) We expect to fund 5 to 7 proposals, in the region of £200,000 to £300,000 each, but we reserve the right to fund proposals at higher and lower values than these amounts.
Technology Readiness Level (TRL)	Challenge 1: Model – Starting from a minimum of TRL 1, ending at maximum of TRL 6. Challenge 2: Treat – Starting from a minimum of TRL 4, ending at a maximum of TRL 8
Contract start month	Aim to start July 2026
Project duration	Equal to or less than 28 months
Cyber Risk Assessment (CRA) number	RAR-WVLYEMW
Feedback release date	10 June 2026
Pre-sift criteria	See Section 8 - Pre-sift Criteria

2.1 Competition Specific Requirements

If your proposed work involves either working with animals or MODREC approval, you should ensure the required information is included in your proposal; see Section 6 - Critical elements to include for details.

2.2 Where do I submit my proposal?

Via the UKDI Online Submission Service where you will need to register for an account. Only proposals submitted through the UKDI Online Submission Service will be accepted.

2.3 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 UKDI, and Partners Across Government (PAG), to describe your project and its intended outcomes and benefits. They may also be shared with international allied governments. They may be included at UKDI 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.

2.4 Further guidance

For further guidance on what to expect during the submission process and how your proposal will be assessed, please see the following GOV.UK pages and forms:

Question 3

3. Supporting activities

Accepted Answer

3.1 Launch webinar

On 10 February 2026, UKDI hosted a Launch webinar providing further detail on the problem space and a chance to ask questions in an open forum. You can watch it below.

Conflict Wounds - From Biology to Battlefield Solutions: Webinar

3.2 One-to-Ones

18 & 24 February 2026 – 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 for these sessions will be available the day after the launch webinar on 10 February 2026, on the Eventbrite pages below. Booking will be on a first come first served basis, please use the following links to register:

18 February 2026

24 February 2026

Non-technical questions about the competition process should be sent to the UKDI Help Centre, accelerator@dstl.gov.uk.

3.3 Collaboration survey

We encourage collaboration between innovators for this competition. To support this, we have a short survey to collect details of those who wish to explore collaboration possibilities. If you are interested, please complete the collaboration survey.

The information (including personal details) you provide will be circulated among the innovators who have completed the survey. 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.

All collaboration for proposal submissions is on an innovator-innovator basis. It is the innovators’ responsibility to determine the suitability of collaborators.

Inclusion or absence of collaboration will not affect assessment. The survey will stay open until 3 March 2026.

3.4 Innovation Outline

If you are uncertain of the relevance of your innovation, it is strongly recommended that you contact your local Innovation Partner to discuss your idea. You can initiate this through the submission of a Contact Form by following instructions on the Contact an Innovation Partner page if you do not already have an established relationship with your local Innovation Partner.

Your local Innovation Partner will initially explore the suitability of your idea within the context of the requirements of the competition, with specific interest in the aspects covered within the Competition Scope section.

Your local Innovation Partner will, if required, also advise you on the submission of an Innovation Outline (IO), primarily used to further explore the relevance of your idea to the competition.

Should you submit an IO this must be done through the Submission Service regardless of an established relationship with your local Innovation Partner.

To submit an IO:

log in to the submission service
select the service category UKDI Innovation Outline
from the service name select Innovation Outline: Conflict Wounds - From Biology to Battlefield Solutions
complete the form

Your local Innovation Partner will be able to advise you on the IO content.

Submission of an IO for this competition will allow socialisation of the idea across the competition team, and all elements of the IO will be shared. The competition team is made up of UKDI, Dstl, and DMS staff. You should receive a response within two weeks, confirming whether or not your idea is in scope. The competition closes at 12:00 Midday on 24 March 2026 (GMT). UKDI cannot guarantee a response to any IOs received after 10 March 2026.

All information you provide to us as part of your IO, that is not already available to us from other sources, will be handled in confidence. We will only share the information with those who can establish if your innovation is within scope of the competition. The information will only be used for the purposes for which it is provided to us. It won’t be used for other purposes, without us having obtained the necessary rights and permissions to do so.

Submitting an IO or speaking to your local Innovation Partner is not a mandatory criterion of this competition. It should be used only when unsure as to whether your proposal falls within scope after reading the information available below.

Question 4

4. Competition scope

Accepted Answer

4.1 Background

Conflict has always involved a risk of injury to service personnel and increasingly poses a risk to civilians. Wounds sustained in conflict are commonly numerous, severe, and complex, making them difficult to manage and treat. These characteristics mean that conflict wounds often result in significant morbidity, even when the patient has received optimal care.

The type of weaponry used to date predominantly causes wounding via kinetic and thermal effect to tissues, most commonly skin, muscle, and bone. These wounds, and the environments in which they are initially managed, are distinct from those encountered in civilian medicine: the wounds themselves are likely to be numerous, greater in size and severity, with complex geometry, and with higher levels of infection and other contamination. There is also evidence that they are prone to progressive tissue loss after the initial insult. The environment in which care is delivered is likely to be austere, sometimes extremely so, with long delays before patients can be evacuated to substantive healthcare facilities.

Despite advances in surgical and medical practices and capability, conflict wounds remain challenging to manage from point of wounding, throughout the healing and reconstruction process, and into scar management and return to function. Early intervention is particularly important in the context of managing conflict wounds, owing to the progressive nature of tissue loss and infection and protracted care timelines before surgical intervention. A comprehensive understanding of the pathophysiology of these wounds, which will also be important for identifying novel therapeutics, is hampered by the lack of relevant biological models that recapitulate the complexity of conflict wounds / polytrauma. The complex nature and scope of these challenges requires a multidisciplinary approach to achieve high-impact outcomes.

4.2 Scope of Competition

The key problem area in scope for this competition is the ‘complex conflict wound’. Our definition of a ‘wound’ in the context of this competition is an injury to skin, muscle, and / or bone at the extremities (including maxillofacial) or torso. We are not including injury to internal organs, traumatic brain injury, ocular injury or hearing loss.

Specifically, the problem area can be broken down into 1) the current lack of effective models available in which to study wound aetiology and test novel therapeutics and 2) the urgent need to develop novel treatments that can lead to lower morbidity and improved outcomes in those patients who sustain complex conflict wounds.

The two vignettes below provide representative examples of modern combat injuries and the challenges faced in treating them.

Vignette 1:

A soldier lies injured on the battlefield. The blast shock wave and shrapnel generated by a nearby mortar coupled with a hard landing on a jagged surface have caused extensive damage to the extremities. The soldier has open fractures of both legs, significant soft tissue loss, and the wounds are contaminated with soil and debris. The soldier is aided by a combat medic, but their location means they cannot be extracted for damage control surgery for another 36 hours. The contaminants seed and spread infection throughout the wound and tissue necrosis accelerates.

Vignette 2:

Due to the non-permissive nature of the modern battlefield, another soldier has taken 10 days to reach definitive surgical care. They have a partial amputation of their hand, fragmentation injuries to their face, and an open fracture of their left tibia with extensive skin and muscle loss. During their transfer the volume of casualties at each echelon of care has resulted in the provision of minimal treatment: partial washouts of wounds and temporary stabilisation of the open fracture. Upon reaching definitive surgical care, bacterial colonisation has resulted in the development of multi-drug-resistant infection in the wounds, including in the open fracture. The gold standard of care for this patient would involve tens of hours of operating theatre time, expensive limb salvage kit, extended courses of antibiotics, input from multiple specialist multidisciplinary teams, and months to years of rehabilitation. However, each day the receiving hospital is progressively overwhelmed by the volume of similar casualties that will continue to increase every day.

These vignettes demonstrate the need for better treatments for conflict wounds, which can be administered as early as possible following injury and before the patient reaches substantive care. To develop these treatments, we also need a better understanding of the tractable mechanisms underpinning conflict wounds. This competition therefore has two linked challenge areas:

Modelling Conflict Wounds – Relevant models of conflict wounds are essential to advance our understanding of the pathophysiology and infectious aetiology underpinning conflict wounds, and allow us to innovate, develop and test therapeutic and management strategies.
Treating Conflict Wounds – Treatments to maintain tissue viability and reduce infection during protracted evacuation, where there is prolonged, non-specialist field care, are crucial to improve clinical outcomes; early treatment reduces long-term morbidity and improves functional outcome.

All proposals, for both challenges, must make clear how they accord with the principles of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), and how the PREPARE guidelines have been used in planning any animal work.

4.3 Exploitation

This competition is funded without obligation and there is no guarantee of follow-on funding. Projects yielding positive outcomes are encouraged to seek further support from national and international funders. Funded projects will be allocated a Technical Partner, to provide support to the project and facilitate engagement with MOD and opportunities for exploitation.

Question 5

5. Competition challenges

Accepted Answer

This competition has two challenges: Modelling Conflict Wounds and Treating Conflict Wounds. They are intrinsically linked because the availability of appropriate models underpins the development and testing of interventions. We do not expect proposers to address both challenges in a single proposal, however proposals that address both challenges are welcome.

5.1 Challenge 1: Modelling Conflict Wounds

In this challenge we are looking for robust, stand-alone in vitro, in silico, ex vivo, and in vivo models (or any combination of these). The models must be ecologically valid, i.e. accurately reflect real world situations, and able to replicate as many facets as possible that define conflict wounds. This includes the ability to model:

injury of more than one tissue (of skin, muscle, and bone)
injury via a relevant mechanism (e.g. blast, shrapnel, thermal, etc.); please demonstrate that the model has potential to be wounded by these means, you do not need to demonstrate that these mechanisms have already been used on your model
injury coupled with infection of the wound with pathogens of interest (e.g. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus) implicated in multi-drug resistant wound infections and / or other relevant contamination

The model should be capable of providing output over a relevant timeline (days; a minimum of 24 hours) and those that encompass an element of wound deterioration without therapeutic intervention are of particular interest.

Ideally models will be high throughput whilst enabling study of prolonged timelines prior to substantive medical care and the impact of medical intervention during this period.

We are seeking innovations that will start from TRL 1 or above, and which will progress through at least one TRL during the project, up to a maximum of TRL 6 by the end of the project.

5.2 Challenge 2: Treating Conflict Wounds

In this challenge we are seeking the development of approaches that treat or prevent bacterial colonisation / infection, optimise tissue viability, and prevent the progression of necrosis.

Such treatments may include, but are not limited to:

novel biologics
pharmaceuticals
bacteriophages
devices

Proposals that present novel routes of administration for existing interventions are also within scope (e.g. gels, sprays, foams, etc.) but they must be feasible in austere, pre-hospital settings. Proposals that explore the repurposing of existing licensed approaches are also welcome.

We are seeking proposals outlining treatment strategies that can be delivered as close as possible to the point of injury when rapid evacuation is not possible and the casualty requires prolonged, non-specialist field care. Interventions must be able to be administered by non-specialist medical personnel in austere environments with minimal logistical burden. Of particular interest are solutions that:

are small and physically easy to carry
are ruggedised
require no refrigeration
have little or no electrical heat signature

Proposers should also consider the need to develop approaches that are easy and cost-effective to produce at scale.

We are interested in proposals to progress interventions that have already demonstrated proof of concept (i.e. that are at TRL 4 or above and have already been validated in a laboratory environment), or to explore the repurposing of existing therapeutics. We are seeking innovations that will start from at least TRL 4, which will progress through at least one TRL during the project, up to a maximum of TRL 8 by the end of the project.

5.3 We are interested in…

We want novel ideas to benefit end-users working in UK defence and security. Your proposal should include evidence of:

relevance for injury to skin, muscle, and / or bone at the extremities (including maxillofacial) or torso
the potential for your innovation to be translated into a practical demonstration in the future, whether it be theoretical development, method / technical advancement or proof of concept research
innovation or a creative approach
how the proposed work applies to any defence and / or security context

5.4 We are not interested in…

We are not interested in proposals that:

seek to develop models of simple wounds (e.g. wounding to skin only) or ‘civilian-type’ injuries such as closed fractures or dislocations.
seek to develop models of or treatments for isolated injuries to internal organs such as the brain, thoracic or abdominal contents
describe research / models based on chronic wounding related to a comorbidity (such as diabetes), or with a genetic basis (for example muscular dystrophy) without clear theoretical or empirical evidence for how the approach could be applied to a traumatic wound in a healthy individual
aim to model or treat non compressible haemorrhage (subject of an earlier UKDI competition)
seek to develop haemostatics (including bandages and tamponades, etc.) unless they present a way of delivering therapeutic to the wound
do not demonstrate accordance with the 3Rs or evidence use of the PREPARE guidelines in planning any work involving animals (regardless of whether this work is performed in the UK or elsewhere)
do not provide information about the project licence, establishment licence and personal licences for and animal work taking place in the UK (proposals with animal work taking place outside of the UK will need to include the equivalent information)
include work that requires MOD Research Ethics Committee (MODREC) review but do not account for the time required to achieve favourable opinion in their project timeline (approximately 3 months including mandatory Scientific Assessment Committee review prior to MODREC submission)
constitute consultancy, paper-based studies or literature reviews, which just summarise the existing literature without any view of future innovation
are an unsolicited resubmission of a previous UKDI 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 defence and security capabilities
offer no real prospect of out-competing existing technological solutions

Question 6

6. Critical elements to include

Accepted Answer

When writing your proposal, ensure you have:

focused on the Competition requirements but also included a brief (un-costed) outline of the next stages of work required for exploitation
included a list of other government funding you have received in this area, making it clear how this proposal differs from that work
included a detailed project plan with clear milestones and deliverables. Deliverables need to be well defined and designed to provide evidence of progress against the project plan. Your deliverables must include a written final report
planned (and costed) attendance at the following meetings, which, if not virtual, will all be in the UK: a kick-off meeting at the start of the project, regular (at least quarterly) reviews (either via a written report or meeting, with the appointed Technical Partner and Project Manager, as well as a formal yearly written report; the meeting, review and reporting schedule will be agreed at the kick-off meeting), close down meeting at the end of the project, at least one in-person stakeholder event in the UK (in July 2027 or July 2028). These activities may take place virtually. Slides presented at these meetings should be appropriately marked and made available.
identified any ethical / legal / regulatory factors. Associated risks should have been added to the Risk Register in Step 5 of the submission service along with details of how they will be managed, including break points in the project if approvals are not received
included information about the project licence, establishment licence and personal licences for any animal work taking place in the UK. For proposals with animal work taking place outside of the UK, you will need to include the equivalent information. For all proposals including work involving animals, you should demonstrate how the work accords with the principles of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) and use the PREPARE guidelines to plan your work.
included a deliverable named ‘Gain MODREC Approval’, if this is required for any of the planned work; you should clearly identify whether your work packages rely on MODREC approval or not, and any that do should be scheduled after the Gain MODREC Approval deliverable. The Gain MODREC Approval deliverable should account for the time required to achieve favourable MODREC opinion (approximately 3 months including mandatory Scientific Assessment Committee review prior to MODREC submission).
included any requirements for access to Government Furnished X (GFX). GFX is the preferred nondescript term for anything that the Government provides in which the ‘X’ could be artefacts such as information or equipment. UKDI cannot guarantee that GFX will be made available. You should have included an alternative plan in your proposal in case it is not available.

Question 7

7. Accelerating and exploiting your innovation

Accepted Answer

Ensure your deliverables are designed with the aim of making it as easy as possible for assessors to recognise expected development in technology maturity of the potential solution over the lifetime of the project. Specifically, how this demonstrates improved capability against the current known (or presumed) solutions.

Over the lifetime of UKDI awarded projects, ideas may mature and accelerate under the guidance of appropriate stakeholders, toward being functional capabilities. How long this takes, and how far towards a deployable capability the innovations progress, will depend on any future exploitation after the completion of the UKDI project.

Low TRL research and development 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.

7.1 Exploitation beyond your project plan

Include the following information within the Desirability question within the UKDI Online Submission Service application form to help the assessors understand your exploitation intentions:

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

Question 8

8. Pre-sift Criteria

Accepted Answer

Before your proposal is assessed, all proposals will be checked for compliance with the pre-sift criteria. Proposals will be rejected before full assessment if they do not comply.

For more information on how your proposal will be assessed please read Assessment process and criteria.

Conflict Wounds - From Biology to Battlefield Solutions pre-sift criteria are as follows:

Criteria	Measure - Within scope (Pass) / Out of scope (Fail)
The proposal outlines how it meets the scope of the competition	Pass / Fail
The proposal explains how it meets the UKDI criteria (Desirability, Feasibility, and Viability) in the relevant questions in Step 3 of the submission service	Pass / Fail
The proposal contains a financial plan, a project plan and a resourcing plan which demonstrate how the work proposed will be completed	Pass / Fail
The delivery schedule within your proposal includes evidence of a written final report	Pass / Fail
The final deliverable month indicated is less than or equal to 28 months from T0 where T0 is the project start date agreed by both parties	Pass / Fail
The proposal value does not exceed £1.5 million (excluding VAT); the funding available for the competition	Pass / Fail
For Challenge 1: Modelling Conflict Wounds, the innovation starts at minimum TRL 1 and ends at maximum TRL 6, progressing through at least one TRL during the project.	Pass / Fail
For Challenge 2: Treating Conflict Wounds, the innovation starts at minimum TRL 4 and ends at maximum TRL 8, progressing through at least one TRL during the project.	Pass / Fail
The proposal does not contain attachments that have been used for additional text data over the stated word counts in Desirability, Feasibility, Viability and Additional Information	Pass / Fail
If the proposal is a resubmission of a previous proposal, it adheres to the resubmission guidelines	Pass / Fail

Question 9

9. How your proposal will be assessed

Accepted Answer

Proposals that are compliant will be assessed against the standard UKDI assessment criteria (Desirability, Feasibility and Viability) by subject matter experts from the MOD (including Dstl), PAG and the front-line military commands. You will not have the opportunity to view or comment on assessors’ recommendations.

UKDI 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 UKDI for the specific purpose of evaluating or assisting UKDI in the evaluation of your proposal. In providing such information you consent to such disclosure. Appropriate confidentiality agreements will be put in place.

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

Innovators are not permitted to attend the Decision Conference.

Question 10

10. Terms and Conditions

Accepted Answer

Please read the Terms and Conditions which contain important information for innovators. For this competition we will be using the Innovation Standard Contract (ISC), Terms and Conditions. Information on the relevant DEFCONs can be found by registering on the Knowledge in Defence site.

We require unqualified acceptance of the Terms and Conditions. Where innovator organisations have a commercial department they will need to provide acceptance.

We will use deliverables from UKDI contracts in accordance with our rights detailed in the contract Terms and Conditions.

10.1 Feedback

Proposals that are unsuccessful will receive feedback in the form of bullet points and a couple of short paragraphs after the Decision Conference.

Where a proposal meets the fundable requirements for a competition, but is not funded, UKDI will continue to seek funding and shall consider your proposal fundable for 12 months from the date of the feedback release.

We will share the abstract, Proposal Value Proposition Statement (PVPS) and title of your proposal with partners across His Majesty’s Government that may express an interest in funding the proposal through UKDI, in accordance with the competition document. We may also share this information on our cross-government Ideas Marketplace platform to foster collaboration and attempt to elicit funding. If partners across His Majesty’s Government wish to read the full proposal to decide if they will fund it, we will share the full proposal with them without seeking your permission if it is within 60 days of the feedback release date. If it is over 60 days since the feedback release date 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 feedback release date.

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

Question 11

11. If your proposal is recommended for funding

Accepted Answer

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

11.1 Cyber Security Model

The Cyber Security Model (CSM) is how Defence builds cyber security into its supply chain.

On receipt of a FUND decision, successful innovators (and their sub-contractors) 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 innovators 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 innovators we ask all innovators to complete the SAQ before they submit their proposal (this is not mandated). The SAQ must be completed using the Risk Assessment number RAR-WVLYEMW.

The SAQ will be automatically scored against the Cyber Risk Profile (CRP) and you will be immediately informed of the outcome, compliant or not compliant.

If non-compliant, you will be required to complete a Cyber Improvement Plan (CIP) before the contract is placed which will need to be reviewed and agreed with the relevant project manager. The CIP template can be found here.

Before you start your SAQ you will need:

the Risk Assessment Reference (RAR) RAR-WVLYEMW
a D-U-N-S number (a unique identifier for your organisation)
a GOV.UK One Login

11.2 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 you can obtain the necessary licences as part of your proposal, you will be required to provide this information prior to contract award, should your proposal be selected for funding.

Question 12

12. Points of Contact

Accepted Answer

During the competition phase all correspondence must be via the UKDI Points of Contact detailed below.

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

12.1 Innovation Partner

UKDI has a team of locally based Innovation Partners that can provide support in working with us. It is strongly recommended that you contact your local Innovation Partner to discuss your idea for any aspect of this competition.

You can initiate this through the submission of a Contact Form by following instructions on the Contact an Innovation Partner page if you do not already have an established relationship with your local Innovation Partner.

12.2 UKDI Help Centre

Competition queries including on process, application, commercial, technical and intellectual property aspects should be sent to the UKDI Help Centre at accelerator@dstl.gov.uk, quoting the competition title. UKDI cannot guarantee a response to a query after the 3 March 2025, 3 weeks before the competitions closes.

Question 13

13. Questions and Answers from Launch Webinar 10 February 2026

Accepted Answer

13.1 General competition questions

Q: We deem our project to cover both Challenge 1 Model and Challenge 2 Treat, would this be acceptable? If so, how does this affect the minimum required TRL?

A: It is acceptable to submit a proposal that addresses both challenges. Both elements of your proposal still need to adhere to the TRL parameters laid out for each of the challenges in the competition document.

Q: Is there any advantage to projects that cover both challenges, for example a novel wound treatment that is assessed using a new in vitro wound model?

A: There is no requirement to address both challenges in a proposal, and there is no bias in the scoring for those which do. All proposals will be assessed in accordance with the UKDI assessment criteria.

Q: Can one organisation submit independent bids for both Challenge 1 and Challenge 2?

A: Yes. We are happy for an organisation to submit multiple bids, but they must not be dependent on each other (see guidance on multiple submissions). Multiple bids will be scrutinised during assessment as we need to be sure you have the resources to fulfil contracts if all proposals were funded. You can address that in your risk registers.

A: Not presently, but you can keep in touch with CWRN via LinkedIn where further updates and information will be shared. You can also sign up to the CWRN mailing list at CWRN@dstl.gov.uk.

Q: Please can you expand on ‘realistic adoption pathway’, and ‘delivering the technology in reasonable time’. What time period is considered ‘reasonable’?

A: We can’t provide specific timeframes, but historically we have classed rapid impact of ideas as being within 3 years. UKDI is looking at rapid adoption of technologies, so please be clear of exploitation pathways in your proposal so your idea can be adopted at pace in the future.

Specifically for this competition, under Challenge 2 Treat we are open to receiving bids for solutions that can reach up to TRL 8, as there is a very clear underlying defence need which requires in-service capability as soon as possible. However, we understand medical innovation takes time and appreciate that lower TRL submissions under Challenge 1 Model may take a longer pathway to adoption than those submitted under Challenge 2.

Click here for more information on TRL and their definitions.

Q: Would projects that have just completed proof of concept (TRL 3), but have not yet initiated technology validation (TRL 4), be considered eligible?

A: Your innovation must meet the minimum TRL laid out for each of the competition challenges to be deemed in scope. If you are unsure whether your innovation’s TRL is in scope of the competition, submit an Innovation Outline (IO) through the Submission Service.

Q: What is the background of the assessors?

A: Each proposal will receive a minimum of 3 assessments from experts across UK government with an appropriate scientific / medical background. There will be one military clinician reviewing each proposal to assess the end user desirability. In this way we provide a spread of expertise on each proposal to ensure an appropriate and high-quality assessment of every bid; read more about UKDI’s assessment process here.

Q: Is the project duration (up to 28 months) expected to incorporate regulatory approval timelines?

A: You should ensure that your proposal allows sufficient time for any approvals required to conduct the research activities proposed (MOD Research Ethics Committee, animal ethics, etc. as relevant). We acknowledge that regulatory approvals (MHRA, FDA, EMA, etc.) for the onwards licensing of a product will likely exceed the timelines for funded projects.

Q: Are there expedited regulatory review & approval channels available for military applications?

A: No. Expedited review through internal MOD channels is available only where an urgent operational requirement exists. That is not currently the case for proposals under this competition. Standard timelines for regulatory approvals (MHRA, FDA, EMA, etc.) will apply, as they do for other submissions external to MOD.

Q: Would there be any benefit in engaging British military clinicians?

A: As this is a live call, UKDI is unable to connect proposers with military clinicians to assist in the development of their proposal. The requirements of the competition are outlined within the competition document and have been informed by extensive consultation with clinical stakeholders.

Q: Does the MoD have wound data that they can make available?

A: Where possible, MOD aims to publish its research, meaning some information is available in open publication. For funded projects, the technical partner might facilitate provision of government furnished assets (GFX) if these would be beneficial to the exploitation of the work. This is not guaranteed and would be on a case-by-case basis. The information would not exceed OFFICIAL classification, meaning it would likely only comprise the already published data.

Q: Can a novel idea be submitted that would only cover part of the challenge but require collaboration to deliver the end use?

A: If your idea covers part of the challenge you can seek a collaborator in order to meet the challenge. This should be done by you before the proposal is submitted; use the collaboration survey to help you identify potential collaborators – you may collaborate with as many organisations as needed to address the challenge fully. Proposals which do not fully meet any of the challenges may be pre-sifted out.

Q: In the absence of a novel idea, could our organisation offer to be a potential collaborator to deliver a manufacturing solution?

A: Yes, this would be fine. Please use the collaboration survey to help you identify potential collaborators.

Q: Will there be support in the future to proceed or develop the idea to manufacturing stage?

A: We want to see successful innovations exploited, and aim to support these as appropriate and practical, but we cannot state in advance what that might look like. Please refer to the Exploitation section of the competition document for more details.

Q: Are you preferentially looking for applications from academia or industry?

A: No preference to either industry or academia. We would expect to see the relevant information, as requested in the competition document, included in proposals from all types of organisations – including an exploitation pathway.

Q: Is prior work with Dstl on funded projects seen as favourable e.g. as a continuation or expansion of previously funded projects?

A: No, this isn’t seen as favourable. An understanding of our problems space is needed; this is laid out in the competition document.

Q: Are psychological or mental ’wounds’ outside the scope of this competition?

A: Yes, they are out of scope. Please ensure that you’ve fully addressed the challenges laid out in the competition document before submitting a proposal.

Q: Is a proposal costed at £500k more likely to be rejected than one costed at £200k (if requesting salaries as part of the first estimate)?

A: We expect to fund proposals in the region of £200,000 to £300,000, but reserve the right to fund proposals of a higher or lower value than this. Value for money will be considered as part of assessment, to ensure value for the taxpayer; each proposal will be assessed on its own merit. Salaries may be included in the requested costs.

Q: The vignettes were very useful. Will any more be produced?

A: No more will be produced for this competition.

Q: Are you interested in work in the microgravity space?

A: There is some crossover in terms of the progressive tissue and muscle deterioration seen in microgravity environments and in conflict wounds, and there can be some relevant cross over in the models used for each. However, this competition is specifically focused on conflict wounds seen in contemporary conflict so a strong case would need to be made for how lessons might be translated from a microgravity context. Please submit an Innovation Outline should you need further clarification on the scope of your idea in relation to this competition; this must be done through the Submission Service.

Q: What early stage evidence (through the project or track record) will need to be shown, demonstrating the innovation is suitable for combat?

A: We expect this to be dependent on the specifics of the innovation being proposed. We are open to ideas that may previously have been used in non-military settings, if they comply with the competition scope and can demonstrate their relevance to the competition challenge(s). We advise a discussion with your IP if further clarification is required.

13.2 Scope questions - Challenge 1: Model

Q: If a submission combines monitoring to produce a local and accurate model of wound deterioration, is it less likely to be accepted?

A: Relevant models are needed to advance our understanding of the pathophysiology of conflict wounds, and to allow testing of therapeutics. If monitoring data was used to produce an in silico model, the model would be in scope for the competition. If real-time monitoring was used to produce a model, like a digital twin, this would be more like monitoring than modelling. If you are concerned about the applicability of your technological solution to this competition then please submit an Innovation Outline (IO). Should you submit an IO this must be done through the Submission Service.

Q: Would an in silico model of wound progression with predictive outcomes be considered in scope for Challenge 1 Model, or would it be considered ‘monitoring’?

A: An in silico model would be in scope for Challenge 1 Model. However, if the model is only to be used in real-time to predict future outcomes (e.g. for triage) then it would be considered monitoring. For clarity, ‘monitoring’ is not part of this competition, but we’d take it to mean using and tracking data captured in the field and relating it to outcomes in patients; it could also involve novel sensing technologies.

Q: Can data from civilian chronic wound clinical trials, or other physical trials of complex injuries be leveraged for use in trauma wounds?

A: We acknowledge proposals might include a pivot from a civilian physiological space; however, we would have to assess these on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the data generated in those trials fits the conflict wound rationale. Military wounds have different characteristics, so your proposal might be of limited interest depending on the wound used in the trial. The competition document details the types of injuries and the associated timelines we are interested in.

Q: Given the emphasis on high throughput models (providing output in days), how relevant are models that provide mechanistic understanding?

A: We would be interested in proposals which provide mechanistic understanding over timelines that are relevant to the operational patient care pathway, which is days.

Q: Is a proposal consisting solely of computational work acceptable?

A: Yes. If it relates to the biology, or the progression of the wound and leads to better understanding of what is happening, or if it allows interrogation or aids the development of novel therapeutics, then a solely in silico proposal would be in scope.

A: Yes, the aetiology of the index injury must be related to combat trauma. Infection / anti-microbial resistance are additional key areas of interest in the context of the conflict wound.

Q: Where do you want the modelling to take place? In advance, or in the field / field hospital?

A: The modelling will take place in a laboratory environment, not in the field or field hospital. Findings from the model will be used to generate improvements in the treatment / management of combat injury. We are not seeking modelling at the front line.

Q: Would a project that could evaluate the virulence of an infection compared to known standards and allow triage of patients be in scope?

A: We would generally class technologies to triage patients as monitoring, which would not be in scope. If you are unsure whether your innovation is in scope of the competition, please submit an Innovation Outline (IO) through the Submission Service.

13.3 Scope questions - Challenge 2: Treat

Q: Are diagnostics considered relevant for Challenge 2 Treat, e.g. diagnostics that help to guide better treatment?

A: No. We consider diagnostics to fall under ‘monitor’, which is not part of this competition.

Q: Our innovation is therapeutic (wound dressing) and diagnostic (hydrogel and biomarker detection). Is this relevant to the competition?

A: If a treatment is part of your innovation, that part is in scope for Challenge 2 Treat.

Q: Does the technology need to be usable on the battleground, or can it be implemented at any stage as long as it benefits the defence teams? For example, would treatments that can remove anti-microbial resistant infections in conflict wounds in Role 3 and Role 4 be in scope?

A: In terms of the operational patient care pathway (from in field to evacuation home), we would consider any technologies that would help a patient in field, early in the patient care pathway, up to the point prior to evacuation (Role 1 to Role 3).

Q: What are examples of key deliverables for a treatment? In 28 months, it is unlikely to develop a battlefield ready product.

A: If your treatment therapy is not currently suitable for in-field use, or testing against relevant pathogens, for example, your proposal should indicate how it will progress at least one TRL during the course of your funded project as a step towards exploitation. Similarly, if your treatment has been previously used in a non-defence context, a pivot to defence might inherently lower the TRL of the technology whilst you align with use in austere environments by non-medical personnel.

Q: Would tuning of next generation designs, specifically to meet the size, ruggedness etc areas of interest be considered sufficient in this award?

A: Yes, if your innovation is currently at least TRL 4. This would be a repurposed innovation to make it relevant for defence.

Q: Can this competition fund preclinical in vivo work aiming to validate a refined technology?

A: Yes, pre-clinical work could fall under the accepted TRL range for Challenge 2 Treat.

Q: In Challenge 2 Treat, will an in vitro / ex vivo proof of concept innovation be acceptable? Or does it have to be in vivo / animal model?

A: Innovations for Challenge 2 Treat must be at a minimum TRL of 4, ‘basic validation in a laboratory environment’ (see TRL definitions). Proof of concept in vitro or ex vivo innovations are both in scope of the competition.

Q: If a technology is not at TRL 4 yet but enables an existing treatment to be administered sooner or more effectively, would that be considered?

A: No, the technology needs to be currently at least TRL 4 to be eligible.

Q: Is the development of an existing product into multiple formulations for different conflict stages, from early non-healthcare professional use to an injectable for bone injuries, of interest?

A: Yes. An existing product that can be developed into multiple formulations, which would benefit the treatment of personnel along the operation patient care pathway, would be of interest. Proposals should be mindful of the logistical burden, and seek to reduce and not increase it. Formulations must also be suitable for use in austere environments by non-medical personnel to be in scope of the competition.

Q: The competition document mentions that electrical heat signature is to be avoided. What level of heat emission is too much, e.g. two AA batteries? Do you mean body heat signature only - or does this include any electromagnetic radiation, i.e. equipment that could be picked up with an aerial?

A: As a general principle and to be consistent with what is already extant in the field, solutions should not change the EM signature / heat signature of the person, so as not to make the service personnel any more visible than they already are.

Q: Could the proposal outline a strategy for addressing the situations in the vignettes? For example, answer where / when in the roles of evacuation how a solution could be used and what to expect at each stage?

A: The vignettes have been included to provide context, and proposals should answer the questions in the competition document.

If you are proposing a novel therapeutic intervention which has a layered approach, i.e. part of the intervention can be used very early, and part later on as the echelons of care increase, you must describe when and how it could be used.

Q: Wounds that are bleeding profusely were not discussed. Is that relevant to this challenge? Are novel solutions with haemostatic properties relevant?

A: Haemostatic properties are not the primary focus of either challenge in this competition. The primary focus of Challenge 2 Treat is the preservation of tissue viability and prevention or treatment of infection. However, if there is a haemostatic element nearer the point of wounding would be relevant, so long as not the primary focus of the proposal.

Q: What is the state of the art and what are the unmet needs in complex trauma management? For first line care, materials and haemostats are already in use.

A: The competition document outlines the gaps in capability. Haemostats are already in use for haemorrhage and antibiotics for infection. Reliance on antibiotics needs to be reduced and there are currently no other approaches in use by UK MOD specifically for preventing or reducing infection, or that focus on the maintenance of viable tissue / early potentiation of tissue regeneration.

Q: Would dual-use smart compression bandages be of interest?

A: That depends on what is meant by dual-use. For example, if dual-use meant something that would maintain tissue viability and reduce / prevent infection then this would be relevant. If you are unsure whether your innovation’s TRL is in scope of the competition, submit an Innovation Outline (IO) through the Submission Service

Q: Are materials that resist anti-microbial resistance, which can be incorporated into a dressing, within scope?

A: Yes, dressings to combat anti-microbial resistance would be within scope.

Q: Will materials for military use need to meet the same regulations as for civilian, e.g. in terms of risk of irritation, or allergenic reactions?

A: Yes, we want the same regulatory approvals to be met as would be required for civilian use.

Q: Would an innovation focussed just on skin repair be looked upon less favourably than a broader application covering skin, bone and muscle healing?

A: A treatment for skin repair only would be in scope, but its novelty, compared to the many existing skin-only models, would need to be demonstrated. Treatments will be more favourable if they are for more than one tissue, and address polytrauma, which is a key aspect of conflict wounds.

13.4 UKDI process questions

Q: Are non-UK researchers and institutions allowed to apply?

A: Yes. All types of innovator from any country are eligible to apply. Proposals receiving a fund decision will be subject to basic due diligence during the contracting process, which includes checks on research workers (see Research workers for more details).

Q: Is collaboration with international partners accepted and could they receive funding, or provide in-kind support?

A: Yes, collaborations with international partners are accepted. Those partners would be able to receive funding if named as sub-contractors in the proposal, however all payments are made to the lead organisation.

Q: Is there any advantage for submissions by UK-based companies over submissions from EU-based or international companies?

A: UKDI’s mission is to ‘accelerate development and exploitation of technology to ensure UK armed forces have a competitive advantage’. However, there is no scoring bias towards bids submitted from organisations whose entire supply chain is based within the UK. The UKDI International Innovation Parter can provide support with bids submitted by non-UK based organisations.

Q: Are proposals that include collaborations between UK entities favoured over those with collaborations with non-UK entities / no collaborations?

A: No. We would like you to form collaborations that enable the best solutions to the challenges, are most impactful, and provide highest quality science & technology. Please sign up to the collaboration survey to identify suitable organisations to partner with.

Q: How many collaborators can a project have?

A: There is no formal limit to the number of collaborators that you can have; you should form collaborations that will provide greatest benefit to your project.

Q: Will you help bring people with relevant technologies / ideas together?

A: We don’t directly bring together organisations, or their technologies / ideas. We have set up a collaboration survey to help you find organisations to collaborate with; please sign up here.

Q: Is there any limit on the nationalities of research staff involved in the project? Are Russian applicants eligible?

A: There are no restrictions on the nationalities of applicants, subcontractors, or the location of organisations that are involved in your proposal. There are restrictions on components being sourced from Russia and / or Belarus and should your proposal be selected for funding, you would need to confirm that you’ve not sourced any material from either country.

Proposals receiving a fund decision will also be subject to basic due diligence during the contracting process, which includes checks on research workers (see Research workers for more details).

Q: What are the specific eligibility requirements (if any) for companies as the primary applicants, and does this also apply to partners?

A: Applications are welcome from any size organisation - from sole traders to industry leaders. You will need to have a legal body through which you can be contracted. If you’re working with other organisations, you should reference them as sub-contractors in the proposal, but we would only contract with the lead organisation.

Q: Are you open to projects led by early career researchers / senior post-doctoral research assistants? Or does the principal investigator need to be a more experienced academic?

A: Applications will be assessed based on there being appropriate expertise on your team to undertake your project, regardless of career stage.

Q: Do we need to register for an account on UKDI if we already had / have an account on the DASA submission portal?

A: No, you don’t need to register on UKDI; it will be a seamless transition from DASA.

Q: Do you fund 100% cost of the project? How is the funding administered to successful applicants?

A: Yes, we fund 100% full economic costs (FEC), with a wide range of eligible costs that can be included. Please be aware that this is a contract, not a grant. We can only pay for work completed. Payment is against milestones with tangible deliverables, which are checked and approved before payment; up to six payments are allowed per project. Please reach out to your Innovation Partner who will be able to provide you with more information.

Q: Could you provide further details on eligible costs? Does UKDI support the salaries of research personnel?

A: Any costs that directly help the development of your idea would be deemed eligible; this can include salaries. For in-depth clarification of potential costs, please speak with your Innovation Partner.

Q: How are overheads expected to be calculated?

A: UKDI will fund reasonable overheads for the proposed work; value for money will be considered as part of the assessment process.

Q: Can VAT be costed in the budget?

A: There is no need to include VAT in the costings in your proposal.

Q: Will you consider funding projects that also receive funding from other streams?

A: You are welcome to include information about any other funding or in-kind support you expect to receive in order to deliver your UKDI project, however it is not mandatory to be receiving such support. We will not fund project activity that is already being funded from another source including other government sources. Your project cannot rely on funding from another source that has not yet been confirmed. Contact your Innovation Partner for further queries and see What UKDI does not fund.

Q: Is match funding from other source(s) required?

A: No, this is not required.

Q: Could the project start later than July 2026?

A: There is limited flexibility on the start date. Innovators should be prepared to start promptly following the funding decision, should their proposal be funded. The competition has a fixed project completion date in FY28/29, so a delay to kick off could risk successful completion of the project.

Q: Would it be possible to recruit a research associate for this project?

A: Yes. You can recruit researchers for your project, but you must include that as a risk in your proposal and how you plan to mitigate any delay / failure in recruitment. It may be advantageous to include recruitment as part of a project deliverable.

Q: For any developed solutions, who owns the intellectual property, the patentable therapies themselves and royalties associated with them?

A: Any intellectual property or equity generated under the contract belongs to your organisation under DEFCON 705, as detailed in the terms and conditions. Make sure your legal team have reviewed and are content with it.

You can contact your Innovation Partner for any clarification points.

Q: Is there an interview as part of the process?

A: No, there is no interview as part of the application process. Proposals that receive a fund decision will be subject to basic commercial due diligence on research worker during contracting.

A: No, the proposals are not judged blind. All submitted information is available to assessors for their assessment, including names.

Q: If we are unsuccessful, what feedback would we receive?

A: Innovators will receive a small amount of feedback on their proposal if it has been deemed not fundable. The feedback is final, and there will not be an opportunity to respond. Any proposals deemed ‘fundable’, but which are not awarded funding will not receive any specific feedback.

Q: If a proposal addressing some of this competition’s challenges has already been submitted to UKDI’s Open Call, can we still submit to this competition?

A: Yes, you may still submit, but the work will not be funded twice. Please refer to our guidance on multiple submissions and ensure that any new submission addresses the challenges specified in this competition.

Q: If an innovation was previously submitted and deemed fundable, and changes have since been made to the TRL and project plan, can we resubmit?

A: Fundable proposals meet the requirements for a competition but are not funded; UKDI continues to seek funding for them and considers the proposal fundable for 12 months from the date of feedback release.

If the 12 months has passed on such a proposal, resubmission would be fine, as long as the submitted proposal addresses at least one of the challenges in this competition. If it’s still within the 12 month period, we’d need to remove the original proposal from the fundable list.

If the TRL and project plan have been changed, or substantial changes have been made to the proposal, it might be considered a new proposal. Please contact your Innovation Partner if you are considering submitting a proposal that is similar in any way to your previously submitted proposals, and follow our guidance on resubmissions.

Cookies on GOV.UK