Skip to content

U.S. DOT FY 2026 Phase I Pre-Solicitation Q&A



5/29/26 Update: The Pre-solicitation is now closed. Topic questions are no longer being accepted. * * *

This U.S. DOT Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Pre-solicitation Q&A Forum provides small businesses an opportunity to submit clarifying questions on the topics published in the U.S. DOT Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Phase I Pre-Solicitation. Questions will be answered by the Technical Experts/Topic Authors at the U.S. DOT Operating Administrations during this period. Questions shall be limited to improving the understanding of a particular topic's requirements and should not share proposal ideas nor proprietary information.

The U.S. DOT’s FY 2026 Pre-Solicitation period is April 29, 2026, through May 29, 2026, at 5:00 pm Eastern Time (ET). Only questions posted within this period will be responded to.

How to Use the SBIR Pre-solicitation Q&A Forum:

Register : Anyone can view questions but registration is required if you wish to post a question and receive a notification when it is responded to.
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. If you need to create a new account, click "Create an Account" underneath the password box
  5. In the next screen, type in the e-mail and click "Verify E-mail".
  6. Navigate to your inbox and click the link within the e-mail to verify. The link will be generated by noreply@trymagic.com
  7. That link will be live for 20 minutes. Once that time elapses, you will have to request another one
  8. 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".
Search: Browse the existing questions by category to find the topic you are interested in and to see if your question has already been addressed. If you see a question, you are also interested in, you can add a vote to the question, or leave a comment.

Post: If your question has not already been posted, use the “Type your technical question” box at the bottom of the page to enter your question.
  1. Select the research topic your question is related to from the drop-down menu that appears when you begin typing.
  2. 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.
  3. Enter your e-mail address and password.
  4. 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.
Please note, all comments will be public information. Potential offerors shall not include in the question(s) or comment(s) any information that they do not wish to be made public. Telephone inquiries or meeting requests will not be addressed and may be removed. The U.S. DOT shall not respond to requests for advice or guidance on any offeror’s solution to any SBIR topic and shall not consider any submitted materials other than questions.

  • Hot ideas
  • Top ideas
  • New ideas
  • My feedback

229 results found

  1. HIL Testbed requirments clarification

    The topic requires hardware-in-the-loop testing. For a proposer whose Phase I architecture includes both hardware (RSU with embedded firmware) and software (TMS platform), is a bench-level HIL testbed — consisting of the embedded hardware prototype connected to the TMS software processing archived traffic data — sufficient to satisfy the HIL requirement, without requiring a field-deployed corridor?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  2. Budget flexibility

    The Phase I budget ceiling is $200,000. For a proposer developing both hardware prototype components (RSU electronics, V2X radio integration) and software components (TMS proof-of-concept, ML congestion prediction model), is it acceptable to allocate the majority of the Phase I budget to personnel costs for two technical staff rather than equipment procurement, with hardware costs limited to evaluation kits and bench prototype components?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  3. Corridors where no existing RSU infrastructure is present

    For a proposer deploying new RSU infrastructure on rural interstate corridors where no existing RSU infrastructure is present, is the strong justification requirement satisfied by demonstrating: (1) absence of existing RSU coverage on the target corridor, (2) solar-powered off-grid installation requiring no civil works, (3) full interoperability with the existing connected vehicle fleet via standard SAE J2735 messaging, and (4) integration with existing state DOT TMC data systems via standard TIM message exchange?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  4. Real-time operational advisories

    Does the scope of Phase I include real-time operational advisories delivered to on-scene first responders and law enforcement officers — such as a Move Over law corridor activation triggered by an officer-worn device during a traffic stop on an active highway — as an intended advisory recipient class alongside vehicle operators and TMC personnel?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  5. Integration of Micro-Transit Services

    Micro-transit services – such as on-demand, publicly-funded van services operating within defined geographic boundaries – differ significantly from fixed-route transit in terms of data standards and real-time availability, and several states have already funded pilots that operate entirely outside GTFS standards. Does FTA expect Phase I proposals to demonstrate awareness of these existing programs and include a concrete plan for incorporating them into a complete trip planning framework?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  6. Data Privacy Requirements

    A system that learns traveler preferences over time necessarily involves collecting and storing behavioral data. Does FTA have expectations around data privacy frameworks or consent mechanisms that should be addressed during Phase I work?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  7. Preference Learning Requirements in Phase I

    The solicitation emphasizes that the system should learn a person's preferences and travel needs over time – including preferences users may not be able to articulate explicitly. For Phase I, is it sufficient to propose an architecture and methodology for preference learning (covering both implicit behavioral signals and stated preferences), or does FTA expect even a limited working demonstration of adaptive personalization logic?

    Are there existing personalization frameworks in transit or adjacent domains FTA would point to as a reference model, or is the expectation that proposers develop their own approach?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  8. Minimum vehicle speed during inspections?

    Is there a minimum vehicle speed that the proposed solution should maintain during inspections?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  9. Maximum total cost of proposed inspection system?

    Is there a target cost threshold for the sensor suite and data collection and processing system that the proposed solution should not exceed to be considered economically viable for state DOT deployment?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  10. Specific Geometric Constraints?

    Are there specific geometric constraints or dimensional ranges – such as grate aperture size, basin depth, or internal geometry variation across common US designs – that the proposed solution must accommodate to be considered broadly applicable across a typical state DOT inventory?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  11. Is there a desired maximum inspection time?

    Is there a desired inspection throughput or cycle time that the proposed solution should target, such as a minimum number of catch basins per day or a maximum time per basin, that would represent a meaningful improvement over current inspection methods?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  12. On-scene traffic management personnel as advisory recipients?

    The topic focuses on advisories delivered to drivers and TMC operators. Would the system scope also include real-time operational guidance delivered to on-scene traffic management personnel – such as law enforcement officers or flaggers directing traffic at incidents, work zones, or special events – as an intended advisory recipient class?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  13. Scope of 'No Interference' Constraint

    The topic states the system should complement existing traffic control infrastructure without interference. Does this preclude the system from issuing signal timing recommendations to TMC operators as a human-in-the-loop advisory – where a human makes the final control decision – or does without interference apply only to automated actuation?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  14. Will there be any restrictions on the sensory data for this project?

    I'm asking because in our NSF project, within wireless sensor networks (WSNs), a Bluetooth sensor captures the MAC addresses of Bluetooth units equipped in mobile devices and car navigation systems, and a ZigBee transceiver transmits the collected MAC addresses to edge computing device or a server for processing (a cloud-server was proposed in our FHWA Phase II proposal before).

    The drawback of the Bluetooth sensor is its dependence on the device being turned on. Thus, visual/RADAR sensors will complement such a drawback, such as video cameras, RTMS RADAR. For example, the RTMS RADAR was used by NJDOT as ground truth…

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  15. V2x

    Since the research topic allows trusted communication technologies beyond V2X, can a system that does not rely on connected vehicle connectivity still be considered responsive if it delivers secure, location specific advisories?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  16. Event Prediction vs Traffic Prediction

    Does DOT consider prediction of precursor events (vehicle disablements, overheating vehicles, roadside incidents, parking overflow, cargo issues) to be within scope if they materially affect freight corridor performance?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  17. Integration with Traffic Management Centers

    Should Phase I concepts demonstrate how predictive outputs could integrate with TMC, ATMS, 511, or existing DOT operational workflows, or is standalone analytics sufficient?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  18. Truck Parking as a Corridor Variable

    Should truck parking availability, truck parking utilization, rest-area saturation, or queue spillback conditions be considered relevant predictive variables for freight corridor intelligence models?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  19. Corridor Intervention / Actionability

    For Topic 26-OS2, is the desired outcome limited to prediction, or is DOT also interested in systems that recommend or trigger operational interventions (e.g., routing adjustments, dynamic parking utilization, traveler messaging, dispatch actions, or corridor management responses)?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  20. Would operational advisory systems designed to support emergency-incident roadway coordination and responder convergence?

    For Topic 26-FH1, would operational advisory systems designed to support emergency-incident roadway coordination and responder convergence through real-time human-centric guidance be considered responsive to the topic objectives for congestion mitigation and localized traffic operations?

    1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea