U.S. DOT FY 2026 Phase I Pre-Solicitation Q&A
- To create a new account or to sign in with an existing account please click on “sign in” located at the top right of the page
- A new pop-up window will open to make a selection, you can use an existing Google or Facebook account to access the site or you might select to create a new account.
- If you choose to access UserVoice with an existing Google or Microsoft account, you will be required to enter your login credentials for Google or Microsoft and agree to terms of service
- If you need to create a new account, click "Create an Account" underneath the password box
- In the next screen, type in the e-mail and click "Verify E-mail".
- Navigate to your inbox and click the link within the e-mail to verify. The link will be generated by noreply@trymagic.com
- That link will be live for 20 minutes. Once that time elapses, you will have to request another one
- Navigate back to UserVoice, and you will need to provide your name, a password, and agree to terms of service and storage permissions. Click "Create Account".
- Select the research topic your question is related to from the drop-down menu that appears when you begin typing.
- You may add more detail in the Description box (optional). Do NOT attach any files. The U.S. DOT shall not consider any submitted materials other than questions.
- Enter your e-mail address and password.
- When finished, select “Post idea.” If you registered, you will be able to track responses to your post. Please include only one question or comment per post to help us keep the forum organized.
90 results found
-
Communication technology stack flexibility
The topic mentions "ready-to-implement secure V2X communication (such as C-V2X (5G/4G/LTE), Satellite, etc.) or other communication technologies." Is there a preference among these, or is the choice left to the proposer? Are proposals using novel or proprietary communication mechanisms (provided they meet documented latency and security requirements) considered responsive?
1 vote1 comment · 26-FH1: Edge AI-V2X Integrated Practical Solutions for Congestion Prevention and Mitigation · Admin → -
Hardware-in-the-loop testbed expectations
Phase I requires hardware-in-the-loop simulation testing. Are commercial HIL platforms (e.g., dSPACE, NI VeriStand, CARLA + ROS2) acceptable, or does DOT have a preferred testbed? Is virtual-only simulation acceptable in cases where the architecture is purely software / firmware, or is physical hardware integration required for Phase I?
1 vote1 comment · 26-FH1: Edge AI-V2X Integrated Practical Solutions for Congestion Prevention and Mitigation · Admin → -
Phase I human factors testing depth
Phase I deliverables include "human-centric design" and human factors testing of advisory messaging. Is the expected depth a small-N usability study within the proof-of-concept (e.g., 5 to 10 participants for comprehension testing), or a statistically powered human factors experiment? Approximately what budget allocation does DOT expect for the human factors component within the Phase I budget cap?
1 vote1 comment · 26-FH1: Edge AI-V2X Integrated Practical Solutions for Congestion Prevention and Mitigation · Admin → -
Phase II agency commitment level and timing
Phase II requires "at least one state or local agency committed to provide access to live traffic data." At what stage is that commitment expected, and at what level? Is a Letter of Intent or MOU at Phase I proposal time sufficient, or must a binding partnership agreement be in place at Phase II proposal time?
1 vote1 comment · 26-FH1: Edge AI-V2X Integrated Practical Solutions for Congestion Prevention and Mitigation · Admin → -
New infrastructure deployment
The topic encourages leveraging existing infrastructure (legacy fixed-point detectors, RSUs, third-party feeds). Are proposals deploying new sensing infrastructure (e.g., next-generation roadside units with multi-modal sensing) considered responsive, provided they are designed to interoperate with existing legacy data and fit within the Phase I budget envelope?
1 vote1 comment · 26-FH1: Edge AI-V2X Integrated Practical Solutions for Congestion Prevention and Mitigation · Admin → -
Multi-agent coordination scope
Topic uncertainty #5 names "how to seamlessly coordinate between multiple local-AI agents to achieve network-wide benefits" as an open question. Does this include sender-side coordination methods (i.e., proactive state propagation between agents before an event), or is the expected scope limited to receiver-side reactive coordination?
1 vote1 comment · 26-FH1: Edge AI-V2X Integrated Practical Solutions for Congestion Prevention and Mitigation · Admin → -
Architecture: edge-distributed mesh vs cloud-edge
The topic description states "the technical approach envisioned for this SBIR topic aligns with this latter category, which is cloud-edge computing." Would proposals using a fully edge-distributed mesh of perception nodes (with cloud aggregation reserved for non-real-time analytics, model training, and longer-horizon prediction) be considered responsive to this topic, or is a centralized cloud-edge split required?
1 vote1 comment · 26-FH1: Edge AI-V2X Integrated Practical Solutions for Congestion Prevention and Mitigation · Admin → -
Does 26-OS1 include commercial vehicle auction transaction data as a qualifying voluntary industry data stream?
Would a system integrating NHTSA VIN-level recall data with auction house vehicle transaction data — flagging open safety recalls at point of commercial transfer before retail re-entry — represent the Trusted Intermediary architecture and proactive safety indicator use case envisioned by this topic?
1 vote -
Would a human-centered safety communication system that generates real-time visual warning signals (based on braking behavior and environmen
The system I am developing focuses on proactive accident prevention by providing immediate, human-visible signals to surrounding drivers and pedestrians.
In addition to visual signaling, the system integrates environmental awareness (e.g., stop sign detection via GPS) to anticipate potential risk situations and provide advance warning.
I would like to understand whether such human-generated and behavior-based signaling systems can be recognized as a valid input or complementary component within predictive safety analytics frameworks.
2 votes -
Does predictive safety include human-visible communication systems designed to prevent accidents before driver reaction?
I am developing a predictive human-centered safety communication system that provides a forward-facing visual signal activated during braking to improve awareness for oncoming drivers and pedestrians.
In addition, the system is being expanded to include:
an amber-colored signal for regulatory compatibility,
a fully cordless, solar-powered design,
and GPS-based detection of stop signs to provide advance warning signals to drivers.
Given that this approach is based on human-visible communication rather than AI-based analytics, I would like to confirm whether such a system falls within the scope of predictive safety analytics for this topic.
1 vote
- Don't see your idea?