Notice

Frequently Asked Questions: Novel Technology for Intervening in Non-Compressible Haemorrhage

Updated 29 September 2025

1. NCH Treatment Methods

Q: Can you clarify the eligibility of a delivery device for a material such as a foam?

A: Changes to existing NCH treatment methods, such as incremental improvements of wound packing materials or foam chemicals, alone would not be enough to be in scope for this competition. However, novelty around the delivery device itself might qualify the submission for consideration. For example, novel could mean methods to get the foam to the target area, and to keep it in place over the bleeding structure. Any such device would need to be able to safely be introduced into a body cavity to access the site of the bleed, either via the wound track or via un-injured tissue.

If via the wound track, it would need to deal with tracks of different dimensions and aperture sizes, and be able to overcome the ‘baffle’ effect caused by overlying tissue layers obstructing device navigation down the track and impeding access. Your proposal should include details of how the proposed device can apply the foam into or other material to a bleed. Be sure to detail how it overcomes the challenges posed by narrow access sites, the pressure of blood flow and detail how it can be used in a pre-hospital environment when the site and scale of the bleed is not known.

Q: Is there interest in novel clotting factor research (engineered proteins) outside of the competition?

A: Unfortunately, development of a novel clotting factor would not fall within the scope for this competition as this call is focussed on devices rather than thrombotic agents. However, it should be noted that if a proposal also included a novel delivery mechanism for thromo-active agents, which would enhance the delivery of such agents to the site of bleeding in difficult-to-reach body cavities or where there is limited access, then this would be considered.

Q: Do you have a preference for submissions for treating torso haemorrhage over those designed for junctional haemorrhage?

A: There’s no preference. We recognise that there are many different types of non-compressible haemorrhage. Junctional haemorrhage is an important part of the non-compressible haemorrhage spectrum and so generation of the next non-incremental solutions for junctional haemorrhage would definitely be within scope. It should be emphasised that these should be non-incremental solutions.

As an example, if an innovator has an application for a new wound tampon, which has a novel prothrombotic accelerant coating, then that would be considered to be incremental.

Q: Would a solution involving bandages that use a substance to massively accelerate clotting be out of scope of this competition?

A: Yes, this would be of out scope. Bandages that contain a thrombotic agent wouldn’t comply with the requirements of the competition. By definition, a bandage is something that’s going to provide a wound contact layer with a bleeding surface, which suggests that this is not targeting a cavity haemorrhage or junctional haemorrhage.

There are a vast number of potential solutions, some in the form of haemostatic dressings, that can encourage native thrombosis but that sole approach is not within scope as we’re looking for devices that can be utilised for non-compressible haemorrhage.

Q: Would you consider a step-change in an existing equipment? For instance, if a currently clinical intervention could be made suitable for non-skilled use?

A: It was mentioned that an incremental change to REBOA would include minor modifications such as adjusting the balloon, or changing the catheter size. An example of a non-incremental change for REBOA would be an autonomous robotic solution to accessing the femoral artery which would bring it into the hands of a non-specialist. That would be equivalent to a step change in an intervention - in order to be in scope for this competition then the proposed change would have to be sufficiently novel and allow the technology to be applied in a different setting, it cannot only be an incremental modification. Please keep in mind that the proposal must start between TRL 2 to 4.

2. Costings

Q: What is the ultimate price point envisaged for a single device?

A: There is not a price point for your device. The competition details explain that we wish to fund a number of proposals within the £1.5m competition budget. It’s important that you include as much information as possible so it is clear how the value for money (VFM) of your proposal can be justified. We’re interested in both the work that you would do in the bounds of this competition, that takes you from the starting TRL level towards further development, but we’re also interested in your anticipated onwards commercialisation plans and approximate costs. The price of the device should be considered alongside the plan for the next steps of the project, including scaling up, to give us an idea of a realistic price point for your innovation.

Q: Please explain what costs can be included, how much full economic costings (FEC) will be covered etc.?

A: Yes, we will fund 100% of the FEC of your proposal. This can include indirect costs such as; contribution towards the state, charges or university overheads. However, all costs will be considered against the value for money of the entire proposal.

It is really important is that you tell us about the costs within your bid, please remain transparent to clearly define what you are spending throughout the project and why you need to spend it in that way. We will pay for costs associated with the delivery of the proposal. There are a few ineligible costs, primarily around activities that aren’t directly involved with the delivery of the project, for example we will pay for travel costs directly linked to project delivery but not for attending a conference to talk about your project. You cannot include specific costs associated with commercialising the idea or protecting your IP.

Please check out the DASA website for guidance on what we will fund. Also follow up with your local Innovation Partner, as they can have an in-depth conversation with you to advise accordingly.

3. Proposal submission

Q: How much engagement could we have with the DMS clinical team, as access to trauma surgeons would be very useful?

A: There is nothing to stop individual teams from pursuing partnerships with surgeons via their own networks. The DASA competition process can’t provide bespoke DMS clinical collaboration for proposal teams prior to submission of their bids. However, there is a mechanism for the successful proposal teams to have technical points of contact to enable collaboration thereafter. This is carried out through technical partnership in the event that a proposal is funded.

Additionally, the supplier 1-2-1s are opportunities to talk directly to the competition team about your idea, in a short form, pre bid discussion.

Please remember that if you wanted to include collaborators such as DMS colleagues within your proposal, those colleagues need to be considered officially as a resource within your proposal. You will need to request their participation as a Government Furnished Asset (GFA). There is no guarantee that we’ll be able to provide you with that GFA or Government Furnished Information (GFI), hence it is essential that as part of your proposal you include a mitigating plan in the event that GFA or GFI can’t be obtained.

Q: Can the same organisation submit multiple proposals for different devices?

A: Yes, the same organisation can submit multiple proposals. Please consider how you will manage your available resources in the event that more than one of your submitted proposals are successfully funded - do you have capacity to actually deliver all the proposal milestones concurrently? You would have to be able to demonstrate that within the proposal you have given sufficient consideration to 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 associated with the less desirable proposal.

Q: Can you expand on what TRL 2 looks like for this kind of tech? Perhaps by using an example of what TRL 2 looked like for the ResQFoam?

A: The Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) describe the maturation of basic concept through to something that’s been qualified by being proven in real world use. TRL levels 2, 3 and 4 are the entry criteria for this competition.

Applying the TRL 2 criterion to ResQFoam, then this would be that the concept for ResQFoam has been conceived with an understanding of the attributes that the foam should exhibit and the way in which the potential candidate precursor elements have been identified. There is likely a publication or other document that outlines the concept, discusses the use cases and provides a realistic assessment of the necessary steps required to develop the concept. These attributes would be the entry point for ResQFoam. TRL 4 would describe the foam technology of ResQFoam that has been validated in a laboratory to determine which precursor chemicals are likely to prove non-toxic and that are likely to deliver the required pressure within the abdomen. This may have been modelled within the laboratory environment, but not yet in a clinical environment.

Please look at the terms and conditions on the DASA website for each TRL level, from TRL 1 through to TRL 9 and apply those definitions within your proposal, to justify the TRL level of your proposed innovation. We want your proposal to start within TRL 2 to 4. Please find a link to the TRL table within the competition document.

Q: Can you fund animal research with this funding?

A: Yes - animal research can be included as part of your proposal. However, all research involving animal testing sponsored by DASA is subject to processes that ensure appropriate ethical review and responsible use. If animal research is required, please detail the specifics within your proposal. Further information is included within our ethical, legal and regulatory guidance.

4. General

Q: Is this competition open to researchers from Australia? Or would there be opportunities to partner with UK researchers on application?

A: Yes, the competition is open to submitters from outside of the UK. In order to facilitate collaboration and partnering with innovators from other countries and with specific capabilities, we have launched a collaboration survey for this competition to allow you to partner with other organisations or specialists. For example, if your proposal would benefit from additional expertise, then using the collaboration survey will allow you to look for suitable partners.

Entering your details on the collaboration survey will be a request indicating that you are interested in looking for a particular type of innovator to join your team. You would need to state your abilities and what type of skill you are seeking. The survey list will be circulated weekly to all the innovators who have signed up to the collaboration survey.

Q: Do the innovators need to consider medical technology and energy it is emitting - revealing the presence, location of personnel, vehicles etc to adversaries?

A: Consideration is relevant, but applications that do not have a potential solution to energy/emissions will not be discounted (given the low maturity nature of technologies being sought and opportunity to mitigate emission as development progresses).

Q: Are you planning to have gynaecologists judging the applications?

A: A wide pool of subject matter experts will assess your proposal, to ensure that we obtain a broad perspective on the assessment criteria that we use. Further information on the assessment process is included within our guidance on how your proposal is assessed.

Q: Is there any additional clinical data on the most prevalent injury types/diagnoses?

A: The publicly-available scientific literature contains multiple reports detailing evidence of trauma epidemiology and injury patterns.