Notice

Frequently Asked Questions: Countering Illegal Use of UAS Around Prisons and Sensitive Sites

Updated 24 March 2026

1. Competition Clarifications

Q. What do you mean by last line of defence?

A: Last line defence refers to the final protective measure where earlier layers of defence have been unsuccessful.

In practice, this means:

• Intervening at the point of immediate risk, when the drone has breached the perimeter of a secure site.
• Preventing the drone from achieving its intended effect.
• Providing a safe, controlled and reliable way to stop or negate the drone’s impact near buildings, people, or critical systems.

Q. What are the definitions of “low collateral” and “safe”?

A: Low collateral refers to solutions that minimise unintended or secondary effects beyond the target device.

1. Minimal risk to bystanders.
   • Little to no fragmentation, uncontrolled debris, or blast effects.
   • Little to no falling components that could injure people
2. Safe for staff to operate and deploy
   • Minimal risk to operators when handling, operating, and deploying the equipment in a sensitive site, from a Health & Safety perspective.
3. Limited structural damage
   • Avoidance of explosive or kinetic effects that could damage buildings, vehicles, or utilities.
4. No disruption to prison critical systems
   • Avoidance of broad-spectrum electronic interference that could impact prison critical systems, emergency services, aviation, hospitals, or telecoms.
5. Controlled drone outcome
   • Preferably, controlled landing, capture, or precision disablement rather than uncontrolled crash.
6. Legal and proportional use
   • Effects confined to the target drone in a manner consistent with public safety and regulatory constraints

Q. What is the definition of “acceptable level of risk”?

A: In an urban last-line counter-drone context, an acceptable level of risk is the residual probability and severity of harm that remains after all reasonably practicable mitigation measures have been applied, and which is justified by the immediacy and seriousness of the drone threat.

Defined by two principles:

1. Proportionality: The risk introduced by the defensive action must be lower than, or materially less severe than, the risk posed by the drone itself. For example: if the drone presents imminent risk to life, a higher intervention risk may be justified and if the drone presents surveillance or nuisance risk only, tolerance for secondary harm should be near zero.

2. Active risk reduction through product design: Risk reduction must be built into the system itself through features such as precision targeting, controlled neutralisation, safety buffers, and fail-safe mechanisms. Residual risk is only acceptable when further reduction would be grossly disproportionate in cost, capability, or operational delay.

Q. What is meant by “passive defeat”?

A: Passive defeat refers to non-emitting, non‑kinetic methods that prevent successful delivery.

Q. Do you expect to have an existing detect capability on sites that we should aim to integrate our defeat with? Or would a standalone detect and defeat system be ok?

A: A standalone would be okay if it offers both detect and defeat. We cannot confirm nor deny what we do or don’t have at our sites. Solutions should therefore be able to operate independently or utilise open architecture (such as SAPIENT) to enable integration with other UK counter-UAS systems where present. There is a link to further information on SAPIENT within section 5.3 of the competition document.

Q. Is it just defeat you require, not detect?

A: Defeat is the focus for this challenge and therefore it must have a defeat element. Solutions that have detection and defeat are welcome if they meet the other essential criteria. Detection only solutions are out of scope.

Q. Could you speak more on your preference for either defeating the drone versus disrupting it?

A: The competition prioritises defeat that prevents a drone from achieving its intended effect within a sensitive site. However, disruption approaches are also valid if they meet the requirements in the competition document.

Q. Is any kind of kinetic / pneumatic effect welcomed? i.e. not a traditional firearm but something else which would launch a projectile?

A: Innovators may propose non‑firearm, low‑collateral kinetic or pneumatic solutions, provided they are legally compliant, safe for use in custodial environments, and do not require a firearms licence.

Q. Is forcing a drone to return to sender or withdraw considered a success or do you want to destroy/disable/recover the drone and payload?

A: Any solution that stops the drone from successfully delivering contraband can be considered successful. This includes withdrawal/return‑to‑home effects, controlled landings, or physical defeat, so long as it is safe, low‑collateral, and legally compliant.

Q. Your competition states you’re looking for solutions that don’t require any specialist training. Can we expect a basic level of training though?

A: Yes. Solutions must be usable by nonspecialists, but basic familiarisation training is expected. We are seeking technologies that are intuitive, low‑ complexity, and simple to operate‑safely.

Q. What are the biggest issues with using existing drone solutions? (e.g. drone interceptors, net launchers, RF jamming)

A: Current options often carry high collateral risk, require specialist training/licensing, are unsuitable for our environments or are ineffective to our use cases.

Q. What are we looking for/not looking for?

A: Please refer to competition scope and section 5.3 and 5.4 on the competition document for a list of what we are and not looking for.

Q. What size/speed of target drone do you have in mind for this competition?

A: Exact specifics cannot be stated for security reasons. It would be a relatively full spectrum, with a range of speeds and an expectation that the threat picture continues to evolve and adapt to countermeasures deployed. A solution that is agnostic to drone type would be preferable.

Q. Should innovations focus on autonomous interception or manual?

A: Both interception models will be accepted; we’re not discouraging anything that is manual. Autonomous interception may have advantages when taking into consideration the end user experience. Your proposal should detail how effective they are as a last defence solution within a prison or at a sensitive site.

Q. Do you have any restrictions around technologies with active emissions? i.e OFCOM clearances for RF emitters?

A: Yes, any system using active emissions must be legally compliant, including OFCOM authorisations where required. Solutions must not interfere with protected communications systems.

Q. Is uncontrolled landing (crash landing) acceptable to meet the threshold for low collateral damage?

A: Uncontrolled landings may be acceptable where the risk is judged to be low and appropriately managed. Solutions that cause a drone to fall within the secure site perimeter or a designated secure “safe zone” could be considered in scope, provided innovators clearly explain how collateral impacts are minimised and managed.

Q. Can you employ hard kill solutions, specifically low power lasers and high-power microwaves?

A: Hard-kill options must meet the bar of low collateral, safety, and legal compliance. Many high‑energy‑systems pose safety and security challenges in an operational environment, so innovators should justify their safety case clearly if proposing such technologies.

Q. Is drone classification important alongside detect and defeat?

A: It would be helpful, but not essential. This competition focuses on defeat. However, classification that improves the safety or effectiveness of defeat is welcome.

Q. Where do you see trials taking place? And how much budget should be set aside or this?

A: Innovators should include within their proposal costs, at least £5000 ringfenced for travel and subsistence (e.g. accommodation) to attend the demonstration site. This will be adjusted once innovation details are matched to a representative environment. We have a range of sites that will be available which will be determined following funding decisions, based on the specific requirements and operational characteristics of the proposed solution.

Q. Are you interested in a technology solution currently used overseas that can be adapted for UK prisons?

A: Yes, international technologies are welcome as long as solutions comply with UK law, can be safely deployed in the representative environments, and meet the competition criteria.

2. Proposal submissions

Q. How will proposals be evaluated?

A: Once you submit your proposal we will see whether it meets the pre-sift criteria that’s outlined in a competition document. Then it will go into assessment, for assessors who are knowledgeable about your proposed idea, to review along with the customer team.

Then we will give an overview of recommendations and discuss the innovation at a decision conference. Finally, we will make our final fund decisions and begin the contracting process. If any proposals are not awarded funding, feedback will be issued to explain the reasons why they were not awarded contracts.

Q. Can the same organisation submit multiple proposals into this competition?

A: Yes, the same organisation can submit multiple proposals. Please consider how you will manage your available resources if more than one of your submitted proposals are successfully funded - do you have capacity to deliver all the proposal milestones concurrently? You would have to be able to demonstrate that within the proposal you have considered resourcing issues and provide details as to how it is feasible for your team to run multiple projects.

We would not recommend linking proposals together. This is because if there’s a problem with one proposal then it can derail the other proposals.

Q. Is there a preference between proposals submitted addressing either challenge?

A: We don’t have a preference as we are interested in receiving submissions into both challenges, they are equal priorities. The only difference between the two is the project time on offer and the maturity levels that need to be achieved.

Proposals submitted into “Challenge Area 1: Higher TRL Solutions”, should reach TRL 7 by the end of the project, with a maximum project length of 3-6 months. There is a shorter time as we want an impact quickly. “Challenge Area 2: Medium TRL Concepts for Future Capability”, we are offering to wait for the longer-term solution as we understand time will be required for development. Proposals will need to reach TRL 4 or 5 by the end of the project, with a maximum project length of 12 months.

Q. Do we need all team member roles decided on our proposals, such as the project manager, names or responsibilities of contractors, etc.?

A: As part of the feasibility part of your proposal, details should be included to explain the expertise of your team and their roles within the innovation project. You can focus on the key team members who will be delivering the project, by name and list others generally by their role titles. This is where you can provide evidence of the team’s relevant expertise and experience in the technical areas outlined within the proposal, including background research and projects completed. The proposal can also show evidence of the resources available to the team to deliver the project including facilities and labour.

Q. How can I find guidance on a proposal template?

A: There are various guides on the UKDI website. You can view a detailed proposal template that uses the Open Call competition as the example. It is still relevant to helping prepare proposals for this competition. It will give a sense of what we’re looking for in a full bid. If you reach out to your local innovation partner, they’ll discuss the difference you need to consider for this competition and guide you through the template.
There is also guidance on “how your proposal will be assessed”. By reviewing what exactly is being considered for assessment, it should tell you what to include.

3. Costings

Q. How many proposals do you expect to fund/is there a maximum bid value?

A: £1.85 million is the available budget for this competition. We are expecting to fund at least two to six proposals across the two challenge areas. For this competition we have not given a proposal limit, innovators should keep these expectations in mind when they submit their proposals.

Q. Is there a difference to the funding available for the different challenges?

A: There is not a preference between funding the different competition challenge areas. Looking at the total funding pot, there is £1.85 million available. The outcome will depend on the submissions. We are expecting to fund at least two to six proposals across the two challenge areas.

Q. What is the procurement budget and how much do you see each system costing (max)?

A: At this stage, the MOJ is undertaking R&D to explore the art of the possible. This is focused on understanding potential solution approaches, not committing to specific system designs or costs. Insights from this R&D activity will help inform budgeting and investment planning, ensuring that any subsequent procurement is proportionate, evidence based and targeted towards the most promising and cost effective solutions. Accordingly, no final procurement budget envelope has been set at this point, and suppliers should not assume unlimited funding.

4. General

Q. How can I find my UKDI Innovation Partner?

A: You can find your UKDI Innovation Partner by going onto the UKDI “get in touch with us” webpage. You can then submit an inquiry form or an innovation outline, and that will be directed to the person covering your local region.

Q. What is the link to the collaboration survey?

A: A collaboration survey is open for this competition. The survey enables innovators and innovation teams to enter their details within the collaboration survey for this competition. Each participant needs to provide an overview of what they’re looking for to join with other innovators on a joint proposal.

Consider what would make your potential proposal better. Explain what you are looking for to enhance your team. The expertise you can offer that will make you attractive to another innovation team to partner with you? The survey is circulated on a weekly basis with other survey participants. It is up to innovators to decide to reach out to other innovators and discuss the idea of working together on a joint bid.

You may want to discuss the collaboration survey with your innovation partner. In addition to the large number of regional defence and security clusters across the UK, which are designed to help foster collaboration. You can follow up with your innovation partner and find out if there is a cluster in your region, as an avenue to possibly locate potential collaborator partners.

Link to collaboration survey

Q. Do we need to need to be a certain size organisation to submit a proposal?

A: There is not an optimum minimum/maximum size of company that can submit a proposal. We welcome you putting your bid forward if you’ve got an idea that’s of interest, relevant to the aims of this competition and can deliver what the competition document outlines.

Q. What is the UKDI submission service?

A: This is where you submit your proposal. We have updated some of our webpages recently. Please follow a link to sign in or register to the UKDI submission service.

Q. Where can I find the recording of the launch webinar presentation?

A: Please find a link to the recording of the launch presentation here.

Q. How will the intellectual property be managed for this competition?

A: IP generated for this competition will remain with the submitters, we would just have usage rights. Please look at the terms and conditions, we have included an example terms and conditions on our competition page.

Q. I have an idea that is slightly outside of the scope of this competition but relevant to the overall objectives, how can I share it?

A: It is possible that we could be interested. Have a conversation with your innovation partner, they may share your details with our partners across government. We’re interested in the solutions from proposals submitted into this competition, but there are wider aims and objectives the many individual partner organisations may have. Submitting an innovation outline would be the best route to manage the individual appetite of each partner organisation. Refer to section 3.3 in the competition document for details on this.