Rapid transfusion diagnostics: optimising safety on deployed operations: Competition Document

Question 1

1. Introduction

Accepted Answer

This UKDI competition is run on behalf of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) and Defence Medical Services (DMS). It is seeking proposals that develop technology to reduce the logistical burden associated with collecting, testing and administering blood in a deployed setting.

In the absence of biomedical scientists (BMS) and formalised testing, where a recipient’s blood group cannot be reliably established, Group O, Low anti-A and anti-B Titre can be used (in this competition document referred to as ‘universal’ product), but this is often in short supply. To resolve this issue, rapid, accurate, point of care testing capabilities are required to establish the suitability of donor blood for a specific recipient. This would expand accessible blood stock in theatre and reserve the use of universal donor product for when it is truly required.

The capability should also allow blood borne virus (BBV) screening (HIV, Hepatitis B and C) to assure emergency blood collection and augment the capacity to build-up contingent stock far forward.

Question 2

2. Competition key information

Accepted Answer

Key Information	Competition Details
Submission deadline	12:00 Midday on 2 June 2026 (BST)
Total funding available	£3 million (excluding VAT). We expect to fund 4 to 6 proposals, in the region of £500,000 to £700,000 each, but we reserve the right to fund proposals at higher and lower values than these amounts.
Technology Readiness Level (TRL)	Starting at a minimum of TRL 4, ending at a maximum of TRL 8, progressing through at least one TRL during the project
Contract start month	Aim to start early September 2026
Project duration	Equal to or less than 24 months
Cyber Risk Assessment (CRA) number	RAR-G8PC6KL
Feedback release date	30 July 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 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

19 March 2026 – Launch webinar 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.

3.2 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 12 May 2026.

3.3 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 UKDI Form by following instructions on the Contact a UKDI 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: Rapid transfusion diagnostics: optimising safety on deployed operations
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 as appropriate, 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 2 June 2026 (BST). UKDI cannot guarantee a response to any IOs received after 19 May 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.

Question 4

4. Competition scope

Accepted Answer

4.1 Background

The provision of blood and blood components (together referred to as ‘blood’ in this document) is critical to the survival of personnel who have suffered haemorrhage, a characteristic feature of injury sustained in conflict. Time is also crucial; early blood-based resuscitation is critical for survival of the casualty.^{[footnote 1]}

Blood and blood components have a limited shelf life and require specific storage and transport conditions to ensure their safety; this creates a high logistical burden. Additionally, demand can be hard to predict and can quickly outstrip supply especially during periods of high tempo or large-scale combat operations. Therefore, a multilayered approach to blood supply is required.

A multilayered approach to blood provision

The principal layer is to transport blood into the area of operations (AO) from the UK civilian blood services to meet demand. However, this approach relies heavily on a robust logistics chain and storage capacity, is time‑consuming, and can be easily disrupted.

Another crucial layer of blood supply is blood collected on operations from donors who are pre-screened prior to deployment to establish blood group and absence of blood-borne viruses (BBV). These individuals form an Emergency Donor Pool (EDP), which is formed and co-ordinated prior to deployment by specialist biomedical scientists (BMS), with testing performed by civilian blood services in line with national regulations.

In the AO, blood can be collected from EDP donors for immediate use or for storage (contingent blood collection). Both scenarios require confirmatory testing for blood group and BBV, which is carried out by a deployed BMS when there is one. When no BMS is available, only universal donors are used; this is to reduce the risk of ABO incompatible blood transfusion, which can be lethal. However, only a small proportion of the population are universal blood donors (in the region of 13% for red blood cells, 6% for whole blood and <2% for plasma depending on population)^{[footnote 2]}, which impacts the use of universal blood at scale.

The need for optimised blood testing on operations

High tempo or large-scale combat operations will place extreme stress on blood supply. Additionally, contingent blood collection and storage is constrained by limited BMS-led laboratory capability, which cannot be guaranteed in all AOs, and the number of universal donors is inherently limited.

To limit death from haemorrhage due to inadequate blood supply, the collection of blood from higher risk sources, such as non-pre-screened donors or unknown blood systems, may be required. Accurate testing of blood then becomes critical to mitigate the risk of ABO incompatible blood transfusion or transfusion transmitted infection. Additionally, out of necessity this testing may fall to non-specialist medical staff (carried out under supervision).

The availability of logistically light, accurate testing capabilities (for blood group and / or BBV) that can be operated by non-specialists would enhance the safety of blood collected, and expand available stock on operations. Such capabilities would increase confidence in this critical layer of blood supply and improve the availability of safe blood to the deployed force, ultimately helping to save more lives.

4.2 Scope

The scope of this competition is to develop an innovative, logistically light blood testing device(s) to test for ABO blood group and / or BBV. The device needs to be suitable for point of care use by non-specialists, in operational environments.

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.

The final device will need to meet medical device regulations for use in the UK, by UK military personnel^{[footnote 3]}. This is not mandatory as part of this competition.

Question 5

5. Competition challenge

Accepted Answer

This competition has one main challenge with two facets to it: to develop an innovative, logistically light blood testing device(s) to test for ABO blood group and / or BBV. It’s essential that solutions for both blood grouping and BBV testing are identified; we therefore intend to fund proposal(s) so that both these facets will be addressed.

Proposals may address one or both of these facets, but it’s highly desirable that both facets are addressed. To achieve this, proposers are encouraged to collaborate with groups offering solutions that would complement their own; the collaboration survey can be used for this purpose.

The essential requirements and desirable features for each of the types of device are outlined below; proposals should address the requirements as comprehensively as possible. All essential criteria for the relevant testing device(s) should be met. Your proposal is eligible without any desirable features but addressing these would be advantageous for your submission. Criteria that are applicable to both ABO blood group testing and BBV testing are marked with an asterisk (*).

Essential for ABO blood group testing devices:

test can identify the presence or absence of A and B surface antigens on red blood cells
sensitivity and specificity of these tests should be at least 99%
design of the tests should look to facilitate the comparison of ABO blood group between donor and recipient by non-specialists in challenging and pressurised situations
*test can be performed at the patient / donor bedside: a point of care test
*test can be reliably performed, regardless of the expertise and experience of the operator (low inter-operator variability), with results interpreted, by non-specialists with minimal training
*supplied instructions for use are clear, concise and facilitate safe use of the device(s)
*test can be performed and interpreted by individuals that are colour-blind, in challenging conditions (e.g. low light) and when exposed to operational environments (e.g. wind, dust, low/high humidity, vibration)
*test includes a control indicator to show successful performance of the test
*test result is readable when photographed (with or without flash)
*no component of the testing capability requires refrigeration, and the test can be stored and operate reliably at expected operating temperatures (2°C to 40°C)
*where components of the test system have different shelf lives, these are packaged separately so the expiration of one component does not result in the discard of all test components
*test results are stable and readable for at least 12 hours following completion of the test.
*test results are available within a maximum of 10 minutes, but ideally in less than 5 minutes
*packaging for reagents and test device is ruggedised for operational environments (e.g. able to protect contents from damage from shock / vibration and extremes of temperature)

Desirable for ABO blood group testing devices:

highly desirable that the identification of ABO blood group is achieved via both forward group testing (identification of red blood cell ABO blood group) and confirmatory reverse group testing (identification of anti-A / anti-B antibodies, if present)
*highly desirable that both facets are addressed (i.e. blood group and BBV testing), though proposals addressing only one facet of the competition will be accepted
*highly desirable that the number of different tests / devices required is minimised, and that there’s compatibility of reagents between devices, though a device that comprises all blood group and BBV tests in one unit is not expected
*test results should be stable and readable for over 24 hours following completion of the test
*solutions that include the ability to reliably track test results and blood donation events, e.g. by the creation of a unique identifier
*evidence to suggest the device(s) retain(s) viability when stored for a minimum of 24 months, e.g. a 6 month stability study at a broad range of temperatures and humidities
testing for Rhesus D antigen status
identification of high titre anti-A and anti-B (>1:256 IgM)
antibody screen against non-naturally occurring and clinically significant blood group systems (e.g. Kell)
ability to tether the evidence of test result to blood bag or medical record

Essential for BBV testing devices:

point of care test for serological infection; ability to test for HIV-1, HIV-2, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C
all tests on a single device
sensitivity of >99% and specificity of >97.5% for each of the four viruses
*test can be performed at the patient / donor bedside: a point of care test
*test can be reliably performed, regardless of the expertise and experience of the operator (low inter-operator variability), with results interpreted, by non-specialists with minimal training
*supplied instructions for use are clear, concise and facilitate safe use of the device(s)
*test can be performed and interpreted by individuals that are colour-blind, in challenging conditions (e.g. low light) and when exposed to operational environments (e.g. wind, dust, low/high humidity, vibration)
*test includes a control indicator to show successful performance of the test
*test result is readable when photographed (with or without flash)
*no component of the testing capability requires refrigeration, and the test can be stored and operate reliably at expected operating temperatures (2°C to 40°C)
*where components of the test system have different shelf lives, these are packaged separately so the expiration of one component does not result in the discard of all test components
*test results are stable and readable for at least 12 hours following completion of the test.
*test results are available within a maximum of 10 minutes, but ideally in less than 5 minutes
*packaging for reagents and test device is ruggedised for operational environments (e.g. able to protect contents from damage from shock / vibration and extremes of temperature)

Desirable for BBV testing devices:

*highly desirable that both facets are addressed (i.e. blood group and BBV testing), though proposals addressing only one facet of the competition will be accepted
*highly desirable that the number of different tests / devices required is minimised, and that there’s compatibility of reagents between devices, though a device that comprises all blood group and BBV tests in one unit is not expected
*test results should be stable and readable for over 24 hours following completion of the test
*solutions that include the ability to reliably track test results and blood donation events, e.g. by the creation of a unique identifier
*evidence to suggest the device(s) retain(s) viability when stored for a minimum of 24 months, e.g. a 6 month stability study at a broad range of temperatures and humidities
testing for serological evidence of syphilis infection
direct identification of organisms causing infection is not expected, but approaches that do this will not be excluded, provided other essential criteria are met
scope to expand tests for novel / emerging transfusion-transmitted infections where scientifically feasible, e.g. pathogen X (e.g. Zika, Hep E)
sensitivity of >99.5% and specificity of >99.5% for each of the four viruses

5.1 We are interested in…

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

the potential for your innovation to be translated into a practical demonstration, 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

5.2 We are not interested in…

We are not interested in proposals that:

describe technologies that require a specialist user
describe technologies that require fixed infrastructure or electrical power (internal or external)
describe technologies that require significant volumes (circa 2ml) of test reagents
describe solutions that require more blood than is drawn from standard finger prick from test subjects
describe technologies that are not low size, weight and power
outline solutions that do not offer advantages over current deployed point-of-care tests or methodologies such as a blood-typing card
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 DASA or 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 any 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 will all be in the UK. Meetings may also take place virtually. Slides presented at these meetings should be appropriately marked and made available:

Meetings to be planned and costed
a kick-off meeting at the start of the project (ideally supplier site based)
regular reviews (the meeting, review and reporting schedule will be agreed at the kick-off meeting): 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 (virtual)
close down meeting at the end of the project (virtual)
at least one in-person stakeholder event in the UK

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.

Rapid Transfusion Diagnostics: Optimising Safety on Deployed Operations 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 must contain 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 proposal value does not exceed £3 million (excluding VAT); the funding available for the competition	Pass / Fail
The final deliverable month indicated must be less than or equal to 24 months from T0 where T0 is the project start date agreed by both parties	Pass / Fail
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) and the essential and desirable criteria outlined in the Competition Challenge section. You should ensure all essential criteria relevant to your innovation have been addressed. All assessment will be undertaken 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 UKDI 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-G8PC6KL.

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 Implementation 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-G8PC6KL
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 UKDI. 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 UKDI Form by following instructions on the Contact a UKDI 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 12 May 2026, 3 weeks before the competitions closes.

Shackelford SA, Del Junco DJ, Powell-Dunford N, Mazuchowski EL, Howard JT, Kotwal RS, Gurney J, Butler FK Jr, Gross K, Stockinger ZT. Association of Prehospital Blood Product Transfusion During Medical Evacuation of Combat Casualties in Afghanistan With Acute and 30-Day Survival. JAMA. 2017 Oct 24;318(16):1581-1591. ↩
Grant SWJ, Scanlon E, Willis D, Brewer M, Naumann DN. Availability of low-titre group O fresh whole blood for emergency donor panels within the UK Defence Medical Services: an observational study. BMJ Mil Health. 2025 Nov 10:military-2025-003114. doi: 10.1136/military-2025-003114. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41218830. ↩
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/in-vitro-diagnostic-medical-devices-guidance-on-legislation ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK