The objective of this Statement of Need (SON) was to identify alternative chemicals and polymers that can be used to effectively replace emerging chemicals of concern, such as those identified currently by the DoD^[1], in munitions applications. Proposers had to provide the following:

• Identify the purpose for the use of an emerging chemical of concern in the specific application and identify key property/performance requirements. Note, this may require access to controlled unclassified information (CUI) and may not be appropriate for some project teams or individuals within a project team.
• Develop alternatives that do not contain emerging chemicals of concern that have an environmental benefit relative to the state of the art and investigate whether they have the potential to meet relevant munitions performance requirements through experimental or computational methods. Acceptable alternatives shall not contain any per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), perfluorinated polymers, such as Viton^TM or Teflon^TM, or other chemicals or materials that have been the subject of extensive replacement and/or cleanup efforts.^[2]

Toxicity and environmental effects were verified for proposed alternatives through analysis. Alternatives identified had a path forward for transition for use and thus did not use highly regulated chemicals (based on toxicity and environmental effects). Additionally, commercial alternatives could not have major supply chain issues (e.g., there is a sunset to manufacturing). Note, new chemicals/materials that are not commercially manufactured were acceptable for consideration unless manufacturing this chemical/material required use of a precursor with major supply chain issues.

Developed materials had to have the potential for the munition to operate at similar conditions, with similar or improved reliability, range, lethality, precision, and insensitivity. 

Proposals included a plan to conduct a Sustainability Analysis^[3] of appropriate proportion to the proposed research and development to help indicate the economic and environmental cost benefit associated with the proposed process relative to current processes. Proposals established a lifecycle framework that can mature as the technology or process advances through the acquisition process. This tiered approach aims to develop and document a minimum data set at each stage of research and development that can be used to make informed decisions and streamline transition to an acquisition program. The Sustainability Analysis could include varying depths of data and information that can inform: the goal and scope of an analysis; the identity and quantity of relevant inputs and outputs to the system; and the estimation of life cycle impacts and costs.

Some applications of emerging chemicals of concern could have been CUI or classified. We recommended that the proposal not include CUI to enable proposal review from the scientific community, while an addendum document could be provided that included the relevant CUI for the SERDP Office to review. CUI could be kept at the Distribution C level to enable review by other federal representatives, while Distribution D could be accommodated if necessary. Distributions B and E and classified proposals were not accepted. As an alternative to Distribution C or D, the following Distribution F authorization was acceptable: Distribution authorized to SERDP and their designated support contractors; employees of other federal agencies and their designated support contractors; and SERDP-designated subject matter experts for the express purpose of facilitating peer review or scientific/technical assessment of this proposal. SERDP ensured all personnel being provided this document meet eligibility criteria to access and protect CUI. If it is important to discuss classified information, the proposer was able to brief the PM on those elements in the proper classified environment.

There is a potential that various emerging chemicals of concern may no longer be available to paint companies due to lack of availability or regulation. Munitions could benefit from improved products using novel or new organic and polymeric materials. These would reduce worker and environmental regulatory risks and improve asset operational performance and readiness. 

Emerging chemicals of concern are used in a variety of energetics applications. These include burn-rate modifiers, slurry processing, insensitive munitions, and others. Chemicals of potential concern include perfluorinated chemicals and polymers, lead, chromium, as well as other potentially hazardous and environmentally toxic chemicals. 

The cost and time to meet the requirements of this SON are at the discretion of the proposer. Proposers submitting a Standard or Limited Scope Proposal must provide the rationale for the proposed scale. The two options are as follows:

Standard Proposals: These proposals describe a complete research effort. The proposer should incorporate the appropriate time, schedule, and cost requirements to accomplish the scope of work proposed. SERDP projects normally run from two to five years in length and vary considerably in cost consistent with the scope of the effort. It is expected that most proposals will fall into this category. 

Limited Scope Proposals: Proposers with innovative approaches to the SON that entail high technical risk or have minimal supporting data may submit a Limited Scope Proposal for funding up to $250,000 and approximately one year in duration. Such proposals may be eligible for follow-on funding if they result in a successful initial project. The objective of these proposals should be to acquire the data necessary to demonstrate proof-of-concept or reduction of risk that will lead to development of a future Standard Proposal. Proposers should submit Limited Scope Proposals in accordance with the SERDP Core Solicitation instructions and deadlines.