DAF SBIR DAF26BX06-DV511: Low SWaP-C Tactical Awareness Payload for Proliferated, Agile Satellites (TAPPAS) for Space Domain Awareness
Quick Answer
DAF26BX06-DV511 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DAF 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. The Space Force wants a compact, low size, weight, power, and cost sensor payload that gives a host satellite persistent 4 pi steradian awareness of its own local space environment in geosynchronous orbit. Think of it as a self-awareness bubble: the satellite sees what is around it, tracks nearby objects autonomously, and assesses whether they are debris, unremarkable neutral objects, friendly, or a potential threat. The deliverable at the end of Phase II is a production representative article of flight qualifiable hardware. Awards are up to $3,000,000 for up to 24 months, with a 20 page technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
This is the largest award ceiling in the release and also the most hardware-committed. The government states plainly that its primary focus is on the speed of delivery for proven technology now. That framing should shape everything about your proposal: this is a manufacturing and qualification topic more than a research topic, and a proposal that reads as exploratory will lose to one that reads as production ready.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: DAF26BX06-DV511
Title: Low SWaP-C Tactical Awareness Payload for Proliferated, Agile Satellites (TAPPAS) for Space Domain Awareness
Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO), Release 6, Direct to Phase II
Program type: Direct to Phase II (D2P2), no Phase I awards will be made for this topic
Award maximum value: $3,000,000, the highest in this release
Award maximum duration: 24 months
Technical volume page limit: 20 pages or slides
Component Technology Priority Area: Space Technology
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)
Export control status: Restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774
Target orbit environment: Geosynchronous, the GEO belt
Expected maturity at Phase II completion: approximately TRL 6, a system or prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time stated in the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO
Selection timeline: within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: surveillance, space based surveillance, proliferation, constellation, resident space object, space domain awareness, geostationary orbit, GEO belt, visual magnitude, electro optical, infrared, radio frequency, free flyer, GEO SDA, low size weight and power, own-ship awareness, local area sensor
Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions point applicants to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO for the submission deadline date and time. DoW SBIR CSO deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting rather than assuming end of day.
The Performance Requirements, Stated Plainly
These are the numbers your proposal will be measured against. State your position on each one explicitly.
Field of regard: persistent 4 pi steradian awareness of the local space environment for the host vehicle. Occlusion zones are probable and should be minimized based on satellite design and sensor placement.
Power: the ideal payload would not exceed 50 watts of power consumption.
Mass: the ideal payload would not exceed 15 kilograms.
Self-awareness bubble range: 200 kilometers as the threshold, 500 kilometers as the objective radius.
Detection sensitivity: ability to detect a 0.5 meter object as the threshold, down to 0.2 meter as the objective.
Detection confidence: probability of detection of 0.8 and probability of false alarm of 0.01.
Phenomenologies of interest: multiple, including but not limited to electro-optical, infrared, and radio frequency.
Bus compatibility: to be suitable for integration across a wide range of buses, solutions must be aggressively optimized for low size, weight, and power, with affordability in mind.
The topic softens the SWaP figures with the phrase "while any available tested technology will be considered," and calls the 50 watt and 15 kilogram figures ideal rather than absolute. Do not read that as permission to ignore them. Read it as an invitation to propose something proven that comes close, and to justify any excess against the platform integration argument the topic makes, which is that these characteristics are critical for enabling integration onto platforms with stringent resource limitations.
What the Space Force Is Actually Looking For
The operational logic
The modern space domain requires a layered sensing architecture to ensure resilience. This topic targets one element of that architecture: a compact, efficient payload that gives its host vehicle persistent local awareness.
The Space Force draws an explicit analogy to other warfighting domains. Following the traditions of air, maritime, and ground combat architectures, proliferated tactical sensors and their on-board assessment technology must become part of any combat system baseline. In plain terms, combat aircraft and ships carry their own sensors for self-protection as a matter of course, and satellites do not yet. This topic is about closing that gap.
The dual purpose is stated clearly. The effort targets the combination of in-space sensing and sense-making, with the goal of enabling both self-protection, through the organic ability to detect, track, and characterize immediate threats to support threat response, and contribution to shared awareness of the tactical space picture across the domain. So the payload serves the host vehicle and the broader Space Domain Awareness enterprise at the same time.
The payload capability is described as a critical enabler for mission resilience and ultimately space superiority, through greater autonomy, decision-agility, and survivability in contested space warfighting environments.
Beyond detection: the sense-making requirement
This is where the topic asks for more than a sensor. The sensor data must feed into advanced on-board analytics to autonomously track nearby objects, to support assessment of intent, distinguishing between debris, unanticipated neutral or friendly objects, and potential threats, to enable both autonomous tactical response and intuitive operator visualization.
Four elements in that sentence deserve individual attention in your proposal. On-board analytics, meaning processing at the edge rather than downlinking raw data. Autonomous tracking. Object classification into debris, neutral or friendly, and potential threat categories, which is a characterization problem, not just a detection problem. And output that supports both machine action and human understanding.
A proposal that delivers excellent detection with no on-board sense-making has answered half the topic.
The four named key challenges
The topic lists four challenges to be addressed. Use them as an organizing structure, because they map to what the evaluators are looking for.
Autonomous threat detection in a low SWaP-C package: proactively gathering, processing, and analyzing data to characterize threats using a highly efficient, lightweight payload.
Scalable, mature, and manufacturable solutions: solutions must emphasize high Technology Readiness Level, Manufacturing Readiness Level, and scalability for hardware and software. Note the explicit inclusion of Manufacturing Readiness Level. MRL is rarely called out in SBIR topics and its presence here reinforces the production orientation. Address your MRL directly.
Efficient hardware integration: use common interfaces for power, data, and thermal to ease integration onto platforms. Minimize footprint and be flexible with mounting options.
Efficient data integration: optimize the payload to provide decision-quality information efficiently, with an architecture that allows for integration with enterprise data systems.
Phase II activities and success criteria
The successful completion of Phase II should be production of a production representative article, or PRA, that can be space qualified and meets the SWaP and performance requirements.
Four Phase II activities are named. Prototype fabrication and assembly: fabricate or procure necessary components to fabricate and test a PRA. Firmware and software development: develop and integrate firmware and software necessary to support processing of sensor data and provide output that can be ingested by the bus for autonomous operation, with necessary data formatted for further exploitation on the ground. Environmental and performance testing: conduct a comprehensive test campaign to validate payload performance and survivability, expected to include thermal-vacuum cycling representative of the GEO thermal environment, random vibration testing to assess launch survivability, and electromagnetic interference testing to ensure no harm to other space vehicle subsystems. Laboratory-based performance demonstration: conduct performance testing in a laboratory environment to validate key performance parameters.
Successful completion is determined by demonstration of three things: demonstrated performance of the unit, successful completion of space environmental testing covering TVAC, random vibration, and EMI, and demonstrated data output format.
Phase II deliverables
Five primary deliverables are listed. A Production Representative Article. Performance and environmental test data and reports, described as an End Item Data Package. A reliability analysis. A preliminary Interface Control Document. And ground software for commanding the sensor payload and processing telemetry and mission data.
Read that list against your 24 month schedule and $3,000,000 ceiling. Hardware fabrication, a full environmental test campaign at GEO-representative conditions, an ICD, a reliability analysis, and ground software is a substantial program. The proposals that win will show a credible schedule with test facility access identified, not an optimistic one.
Phase III
Phase III activities, funded through non-SBIR/STTR government contracts or other appropriate funding mechanisms, are intended to support continued maturation, qualification, and operational integration. The focus would be advancing the payload toward flight-qualified configurations suitable for incorporation into operational Space Domain Awareness mission architectures.
Potential Phase III activities include qualification of the payload design for space flight, refinement for manufacturability and scalability, integration support with host spacecraft platforms, and preparation for operational testing and evaluation. Where appropriate, Phase III may also support Low-Rate Initial Production planning and execution, subject to government priorities and funding availability.
On the maturity ladder: upon successful completion of Phase II the payload is expected to achieve approximately TRL 6, a system or prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment. Phase III efforts may mature the technology to TRL 8 through flight qualification and system-level testing, and ultimately to TRL 9 upon successful on-orbit deployment and operational use.
The topic notes that the full scope of potential Phase III efforts is defined in 15 U.S.C. 638 and the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive Section 4(c), and that per Section 4(b)(2) of the Policy Directive the Government may, at its discretion, include Phase III procedures in its Phase II Funding Agreement. That last point is worth flagging to your counsel: a Phase III provision inside the Phase II agreement is a meaningful commercial advantage if it materializes.
The Feasibility Requirement
Direct to Phase II means you must document that you already did the Phase I equivalent work outside the SBIR program. The DAF disqualifies proposals where the Phase I equivalency documentation does not establish feasibility and technical merit, and applies that screen before evaluating technical merit.
What this topic requires
The topic states it is intended for technology proven ready to move directly into Phase II, and that Phase I awards will not be made. The applicant is required to provide detail and documentation in the D2P2 proposal demonstrating accomplishment of a Phase I type effort, including a feasibility study. That includes determining, insofar as possible, the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas appearing to have commercial potential.
Then two specific requirements that are easy to under-deliver on. The applicant must have validated the product-mission fit between the proposed solution and a potential Air Force or Space Force stakeholder. And the applicant should have defined a clear, immediately actionable plan with the proposed solution and the DAF customer and end-user.
Notice what those two sentences require. Not just that your sensor works, but that you have engaged with a specific Air Force or Space Force stakeholder and validated that your solution fits their mission, and that you and that customer have a plan you could act on now. That is a business development requirement embedded in a technical feasibility requirement, and it cannot be manufactured in the four weeks the topic is open. If you have not had those conversations, that is the gap to close first.
The general D2P2 rules
The feasibility work must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.
Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. This authority exists for companies that matured technology outside the SBIR pipeline.
If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property rights, provide IP rights assertions, plus a short summary for each item asserted with less than unlimited rights describing the restriction's nature and the intellectual property intended for use in the proposed research.
Feasibility documentation can be included as part of Volume 5 and is listed as required of all proposal submissions.
For a hardware topic like this one, useful feasibility evidence includes prior flight heritage of the sensor or its components, environmental test reports from non-SBIR work, breadboard or engineering unit performance data against the detection thresholds, and documented stakeholder engagement establishing the product-mission fit.
Funding Allowance and Cost Structure
Award ceiling
Up to $3,000,000 across up to 24 months. The topic index warns that proposals in excess of this amount will not be considered for evaluation or award, and proposals in excess of this duration will not be considered for evaluation or award.
The DAF also notes that per-award and per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only, more or less funding may become available, multiple procurements are planned and anticipated, each proposal is a separate procurement evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to other awards under the same topic.
Contract type and fee
Generally firm-fixed-price contracts are appropriate for Phase II awards, and per the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Phase II contracts must include profit or fee.
A firm-fixed-price hardware program with a full environmental qualification campaign carries real cost risk. Build your estimate with that in mind, since the Government may award without exchanges if it takes no exceptions to your proposal, meaning your initial submission should carry your best terms rather than an opening position.
Technical and Business Assistance
Up to $50,000 per Phase II award, in addition to the per-topic total, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal. Applicants may elect to use $25,000 on a first SBIR Phase II award and $25,000 on a sequential SBIR Phase II award.
TABA can only fund the activities in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E): access to a network of scientists and engineers, assistance with product sales, intellectual property protections, cybersecurity assistance, market research, market validation, development of regulations and manufacturing plans, and access to technical and business literature through online databases. For this topic, development of manufacturing plans deserves a serious look, given the explicit Manufacturing Readiness Level emphasis and the Phase III scalability and Low-Rate Initial Production framing.
The detailed request must appear in Volume 5, including provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks the provider will perform including purpose and objective, and total provider cost with hours and labor rates. Average or blended rates are acceptable. The task milestone list must track to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant. Requests that only specify a value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.
Cost volume expectations
A detailed cost proposal by individual cost element and by contractor fiscal year, in sufficient detail to determine the basis for estimates and the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each. Cost proposal attachments do not count toward page limits, and cost proposal information will be treated as proprietary.
For a hardware program, several cost volume elements carry unusual weight here.
Direct cost materials: an itemized list of types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. For planned computer or software purchases, detailed information such as manufacturer, price quotes, proposed use, and support for the need will be required. Long-lead space-qualified parts belong here with quotes.
Other direct costs: specialized services such as machining or milling, special test and analysis, and costs for temporary use or lease of specialized facilities or equipment, with usage hours expected, rates, sources, and a brief discussion of purpose and justification. Thermal-vacuum chamber time, vibration table time, and EMI chamber access all live in this category. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase rationale.
Special tooling, special test equipment, and material: inclusion will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work. Purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort, and should not be of a type an applicant would otherwise possess in the normal course of business. These may include innovative instrumentation or automatic test equipment.
Subcontracts: must be supported with copies of subcontract agreements adequately describing the work and cost bases, including a statement of work, assigned personnel, hours and rates, materials, and proposed travel. A letter from a subcontractor agreeing to perform a task at a fixed price is expressly not considered sufficient. The prime must accomplish price analysis including reasonableness of proposed subcontractor costs, and provide cost analysis where price analysis techniques are inadequate or the FAR requires cost or pricing data.
Consultants: a separate agreement letter for each, stating the service, hours required, and hourly rate, plus a short concise resume.
Travel: each effort should include at a minimum a kickoff or interim meeting, justified with destinations, trips, travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and ground transportation against the Joint Travel Regulation.
Indirect costs: indicate proposed rate bases, identify specific rates and allocation bases, and provide rates and applications per fiscal year across the anticipated performance period. Do not propose composite rates.
Non-SBIR governmental or private investment is allowed but not required and will not be a proposal evaluation factor.
Work performance requirements
The instructions state two thresholds that do not obviously align. The Consultants and Subcontractors section requires, per the SBA SBIR Policy Directive, a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D be performed by the proposing firm unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The Performance of Work Requirements section states that for Phase II a minimum of one-third of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit. Separately, the proposed total of all consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-half of the total contract price unless approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.
This is a live problem for space hardware specifically. If you are buying detector assemblies, procuring space-qualified components, and leasing TVAC and vibration facilities, those costs accumulate against the one-half cap quickly. Model your cost distribution early. Planning to perform at least half the R/R&D in house and keeping all outside costs below half the contract price satisfies every reading.
If you cannot meet it, requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and again as part of the initial proposal submission. The DAF will not consider these requests before proposal submission. Given the ambiguity between the stated thresholds, raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk early in the open period.
Where work must be performed
All R/R&D must be performed in the United States by the small business and its team members. Based on rare and unique circumstances the DAF may approve a particular portion of the work to be performed or obtained outside the United States, and the awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Requests must accompany the initial proposal submission.
Export Control, Which Is Explicit on This Topic
The technology in this topic is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including export of sensitive technical data, and the EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items.
Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work tasks intended for accomplishment by those individuals. The topic advises that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.
A foreign national means any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States, not a lawful permanent resident, and not a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b. All applicants proposing to use foreign nationals must follow the FY26 SBIR CSO and disclose regardless of whether the topic is subject to ITAR.
Where the topic area is subject to export control, permitted foreign national participants are limited to work in the public domain, and assigned tasks must not be capable of assimilation into an understanding of the project's overall objectives, which the instructions note prevents foreign persons from acting in key positions such as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer.
For projects with military or dual-use applications developing beyond fundamental research, the contractor must comply with all U.S. export control laws, is responsible for obtaining appropriate licenses or approvals including for deemed exports of hardware, technical data, and software, must obtain export licenses before using foreign persons including where work is performed on-site at any Government installation whether inside or outside the United States, is responsible for regulatory record keeping associated with licenses and exemptions, and must ensure these provisions apply to its subcontractors.
If asserting export-controlled status, a certified DD Form 2345 Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission, belongs in Volume 5, and DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award.
Space sensing companies frequently employ non-U.S. persons in engineering roles. Resolve who can work on what before you build your key personnel section.
Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes
Formatting, with a note about the tighter page limit
Type no smaller than 11-point on standard 8.5 by 11 paper, one-inch margins, pages consecutively numbered. This differs from Army SBIR instructions, which allow 10-point.
The technical volume limit for this topic is 20 pages or slides, notably tighter than the 35 pages allowed for the two air-domain topics in the same release. Pages in excess will not be considered by the Government in evaluations. That constraint matters here because the topic asks for a great deal: performance against seven or eight numeric requirements, four named challenges, four Phase II activities, five deliverables, environmental test planning, and a commercialization plan. Ruthless economy is required. Push resumes, subcontract documents, and cost detail into the volumes where they do not count against the limit.
Proposals should be direct, concise, and informative. Applicants are discouraged from including promotional and non-programmatic items, and if included, such material counts toward the page limit. Marketing material will not be evaluated.
Preferred submission format is PDF, graphics must be distinguishable in black and white, and all submissions must be virus-checked. Note that "pages or slides" means a slide-format technical volume is acceptable, which many hardware teams find more efficient for conveying design and test information within a tight limit.
Volume 6 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse training must be completed before submission, and DSIP will not allow submission until it is complete and certified. The DAF recommends completing submission early because site traffic is heavy prior to close and causes system lag, will not be responsible for proposals not completely submitted before the deadline due to system inaccessibility unless advised by DoW, and will not accept submission outside DSIP.
Volume 1, Cover Sheet
Per DSIP instructions. The technical abstract should include a brief description of program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits, commercial applications, and a list of keywords and terms. The abstract of each successful proposal goes to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released, so keep sensitive design detail out of it.
Volume 2, Technical Volume
Required items in the order provided: table of contents immediately after the cover sheet; glossary of acronyms and abbreviations; milestone identification with a program schedule showing all key milestones; identification and significance of the problem or opportunity; Phase II technical objectives with technical approach and methods and an assessment of potential commercial application for each objective; work plan; deliverables; related work; commercialization potential; relationship with future R/R&D efforts; key personnel; facilities and equipment; consultants and subcontractors; and prior, current, or pending support of similar proposals or awards.
The work plan is a separate and distinct part of the package, divided from the technical proposal by a page break and begun on a new page. It must contain a summary description of the technical methodology and task description in broad enough detail to provide contractual flexibility, and must not contain proprietary information, because if the proposal is selected the work plan will be incorporated into the resulting contract by reference. Recommended format is 1.0 Objective, a brief overview of the specialty area explaining purpose and expected outcome; 2.0 Scope, a concise description of the work including technology area, goals, and major milestones, with task development and deliverables as key elements, consistent with section 4.0; 3.0 Background, identifying applicable specifications, standards, and other documents, constraints to understanding requirements, relationships to previous, current, or future operations, and techniques previously determined ineffective; and 4.0 Task and Technical Requirements, with detailed individual task descriptions in orderly progression, sufficient detail to establish overall program requirements and goals, work segregated into major tasks in separately numbered paragraphs, each delineated by subtask. Every task must appear in definite, realistic, clearly stated terms. Use "shall" for binding provisions, "should" or "may" for a declaration or purpose, and "will" where no contractor requirement is involved.
For this topic, the work plan is where your environmental test campaign, PRA fabrication sequence, and deliverable production get expressed contractually. Because it becomes part of the contract by reference, be deliberate about which statements you make binding with "shall."
Deliverables must clearly describe the specific sample or prototype hardware and software to be delivered, plus data deliverables, schedules, and quantities. Be aware of the possible requirement for unique item identification under DFARS 252.211-7003, Item Identification and Valuation, for hardware, which is directly relevant to a Production Representative Article. If hardware or software will be developed but not delivered, provide an explanation. At minimum all Phase II contracts require Scientific and Technical Reports. Rights in technical data including software developed under a SBIR contract generally remain with the contractor, and the Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights in all data developed or generated under the contract for 20 years commencing at contract award, after which the Government has Government purpose rights to the SBIR data. The Final Report's first page is a single-page project summary identifying purpose, briefly describing the effort accomplished, and listing potential result applications, which may be published by DoW and therefore must contain no proprietary or classified information. Status reports are due quarterly at a minimum. The Air Force may require additional reporting including software documentation and users' manuals, engineering drawings, operation and maintenance documentation, safety hazard analysis when the project results in partial or total development and delivery of hardware, and updates to commercialization results.
Related work must describe significant directly related activities including previous programs conducted by the principal investigator, proposing firm, consultants, or others, their application to the proposed project, how they interface with it, and planned coordination with outside sources. List any applicant-identified subject matter experts regardless of affiliation with comments regarding the applicant's knowledge of the state of the art in the specific approach proposed. Describe previous work not directly related but similar, with a short description, the client including an individual to be contacted and phone number, and the date of completion.
Commercialization potential requires a commercialization plan with the Phase II proposal addressing the first planned product to incorporate the technology, probable customers and estimated market size, how much money is needed to bring the technology to market and how it will be raised, whether the firm has necessary marketing expertise and how it will compensate if not, and probable competitors with the anticipated price or quality advantage. Commercial potential is evidenced by the existence of private sector or non-SBIR governmental funding sources demonstrating commitment to Phase II efforts and results, the existence of Phase III follow-on commitments for the research subject, and other indicators of commercial technology potential including the firm's commercialization strategy. If awarded, the awardee must periodically update commercialization results via SBA, at completion of the effort and when submitting a new SBIR/STTR proposal to DoW, with annual updates requested from firms not submitting new proposals. The Commercialization Plan and the Company Commercialization Report are distinct documents.
Relationship with future R/R&D efforts must state the anticipated results of the proposed approach, specifically addressing plans for Phase III if any, and discuss the significance of the D2P2 effort in providing a basis for the Phase III effort if planned. Given how specific this topic is about the TRL 6 to TRL 8 to TRL 9 path and Low-Rate Initial Production, this section should track that language.
Key personnel must identify all key personnel with information directly related to education, experience, and citizenship, and include a technical resume for the principal investigator with publications. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants are also useful. Identify all non-U.S. citizens expected to be involved as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants, and for those individuals provide countries of origin, type of visa or work permit held, and the tasks they are anticipated to perform. The principal investigator's primary employment must be with the small business at the time of award and during the entire period of performance, where primary employment means more than one-half of the PI's time is spent in the small business's employ, which precludes full-time employment with another entity. Only one principal investigator or project manager may be designated per proposal.
Facilities and equipment must describe instrumentation and physical facilities necessary and available to carry out the effort, justify equipment to be purchased with detail in the cost proposal, and state whether proposed performance locations meet federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations for airborne emissions, waterborne effluents, external radiation levels, outdoor noise, solid and bulk waste disposal practices, and handling and storage of toxic and hazardous materials. For this topic, identify your access to TVAC, vibration, and EMI test facilities here, whether owned or contracted.
Consultants and subcontractors: private companies, consultants, or universities may be involved, all should be described in detail and included in the cost proposal, and signed copies of all consultant or subcontractor letters of intent must be attached, briefly stating the contribution or expertise being provided, with statements of work, detailed cost proposals, and information regarding unique qualifications. Subcontract copies and supporting documents do not count against the page limit, which is a meaningful relief valve on a 20 page topic. Identify any subcontractor or consultant foreign citizens.
Prior, current, or pending support: while it is permissible with proper notification to submit identical proposals or proposals containing a significant amount of essentially equivalent work under numerous federal program solicitations, it is unlawful to enter into contracts or grants requiring essentially equivalent effort, and any potential for that must be disclosed to the solicitation agencies before award. If substantially the same as another proposal submitted previously, currently, or in the process of being funded by another federal agency, DoW component, or the DAF, indicate so on the cover sheet and provide agency names and addresses, submission or award dates, proposal titles, PI names and titles, solicitation titles, numbers and dates, contract numbers if awarded, and applicable topics. If the section does not apply, state so in the proposal and certify on the cover sheet, "No prior, current, or pending support for proposed work."
Volume 3, Cost Volume
Covered above.
Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report
Required in DSIP. The DAF states that information contained in the CCR will not be considered during proposal evaluations, which differs from Army SBIR practice. Complete it for compliance.
Volume 5, Supporting Documents
May be required if applicable: DD Form 2345, which applies to this export-controlled topic; Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the DoW SBIR FY26 CSO; and Technical Data Rights Assertions if asserting data rights restrictions.
Required of all submissions: feasibility documentation as described above, including IP rights assertions with a short summary for each item asserted with less than unlimited rights.
If appropriate, include a reference or works cited list as the last page. Do not include marketing material.
Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training
Complete once per year, before submission.
Volume 7, Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries
Complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP submission. It will not be accepted as a PDF supporting document in Volume 5, and previous versions of the form must not be uploaded to Volume 5.
How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated
The criteria for this topic
DV511 is evaluated under the criteria set covering DV026, DV511, DV512, and DV513, in descending order of importance.
Criteria A, most important: the soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution, and the qualifications of the proposed principal and key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants. This includes whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the technical proposal.
Criteria B, second: the degree of mission impact and the urgency of the identified need, the specificity of the defense requirement addressed, and the adequacy of the proposed effort in fulfilling the research topic or subtopic solution.
Criteria C, third: the potential for commercial application in the Government or private sector and the benefits expected to accrue from that commercialization.
Two implications for a hardware proposal. First, cost realism lives inside the top-weighted criterion, and on a firm-fixed-price hardware program with a qualification test campaign, an unrealistic cost estimate is a technical credibility problem, not just a pricing problem. If your work plan promises TVAC, random vibration, and EMI testing, your cost volume must show facility access, hours, and rates that make that plausible. Second, "incremental progress toward topic solution" rewards showing where you start and where you land. Anchor your current maturity honestly and show the delta.
General evaluation process
D2P2 proposals are evaluated on a competitive basis by subject matter expert scientists, engineers, or other technical personnel, with confidential proposal and evaluation information protected to the greatest extent possible. Proposals will be disqualified and not evaluated if the Phase I equivalency documentation does not establish the proposed technical approach's feasibility and technical merit.
Selections are based on a determination of the overall technical value of each proposal and an evaluation of the cost volume for selection of the proposals most advantageous to the Government. Where technical evaluations are essentially equal in merit, cost or price will be considered. All evaluation criteria other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest, multiple procurements are planned and anticipated, each proposal is a separate procurement evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none.
Foreign risk evaluation
The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns submitting under this release on whether they present a security risk, using the due diligence process required under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv), disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g) and (o), and coordination with the intelligence community as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947, federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.
The risk-based assessment covers cybersecurity practices, patent analysis, employee analysis, foreign ownership including financial ties and obligations covering surety, equity, and debt obligations of the concern and its employees to a foreign country, person, or entity, foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel with an entity in a foreign country of concern, investment relationships with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern, technology licensing agreements or joint ventures including joint venture like agreements with an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern, and business relationships between a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel and an individual or entity in a foreign country of concern. The DAF also assesses proposals using open-source analysis and analytical tools for nondisclosures of information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examines any relationship of the concern to any entity or individual on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).
If the DAF assesses security risks, it may either create a mitigation plan or decide not to select the proposal based on a totality of the review.
Awards must be denied under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16) or 638(o)(20) where the concern has an owner or covered individual party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; an owner or covered individual with a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or a security risk connecting the concern, including any affiliates, to an entity or individual on the UFLPA Entity List maintained by DHS, the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List maintained by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Section 889 Prohibition List, the Section 1260H list of Chinese Military Companies, the Military End User List maintained by Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, the Entity List maintained by BIS, the FCC List of Equipment and Services, or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Awards are also denied where the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified, or a security risk the DAF determines warrants denial.
Applicants must disclose under penalty of perjury the representations, attestations, and certifications required under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) and 638(o)(17), fulfilled by completing Volume 7, and must provide a written statement of any substantial changes to the foreign disclosure form to the awarding agency within 30 days while on a DAF project.
For space hardware, the parts supply chain is the exposure. Detectors, focal plane assemblies, radiation-tolerant compute, and passive components frequently trace to suppliers with entries on one or more of those lists. Audit the bill of materials against them before you propose.
Ownership, support contractors, status, and protests
Small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics. That matters on this topic in particular, since venture-funded space companies are the natural applicant pool.
Proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors, which may include APEX, Peerless Technologies, Engineering Services Network, HPC-COM, Mile Two, REI Systems, MacB (an Alion company), Montech, Oasis, Astrion/Oasis, and Infinite Management Solutions. Only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporation working under contract to provide technical support to Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and Space Force may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Concerns about any of these contractors go to the DAF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer.
The principal investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the cover sheet will be notified by email regarding selection or non-selection, with a separate notification for each proposal submitted. Automated feedback is provided for proposals designated Not Selected, and additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF. Proposals are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic, each operating on its own schedule, so notification timeframes vary.
The DAF anticipates all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the DAF for status before that time. Protests after award should be submitted, as prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to the Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer and to the individual procuring contracting officer listed on the firm's selection notification. Final reports go to the awarding DAF organization per contract instructions, not directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.
Timeline and What to Do When
The dates
Topic opens: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time specified in the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern. Confirm on DSIP.
Selections finalized: within approximately 90 calendar days of close, on or about January 19, 2027
Period of performance: up to 24 months from award
A working backward plan
Before September 23. The hardest items here are not writing tasks. Confirm your stakeholder validation: you need a documented product-mission fit with an Air Force or Space Force stakeholder and an immediately actionable plan with that customer. Secure written commitments or at least confirmed availability for TVAC, random vibration, and EMI test facility access within your schedule window, because the cost volume needs rates and hours. Get quotes for long-lead space-qualified parts. Audit your bill of materials against the foreign entity denial lists. Resolve export control staffing questions, since the topic warns foreign nationals may be restricted. Start DD Form 2345 if you do not hold one. Complete Volume 6 training, verify SAM and DSIP alignment, and send clarifying questions to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk, which explicitly encourages early inquiries.
September 23 through October 3. Draft Volume 2 against the 20 page limit, which will require several passes to compress. Build a compact requirements response covering 4 pi steradian coverage and occlusion minimization, 50 watts, 15 kilograms, 200 to 500 kilometer bubble, 0.5 to 0.2 meter detection, probability of detection 0.8 and false alarm 0.01, phenomenologies, TRL and MRL, and common power, data, and thermal interfaces. Consider a slide-format volume, which the page or slide limit permits and which suits hardware and test content.
October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume by element and fiscal year, with materials quotes, test facility usage hours and rates, special test equipment justification, and indirect rates per fiscal year with no composite rates. Collect signed letters of intent, statements of work, and detailed cost proposals from every subcontractor and consultant, since a letter agreeing to a fixed price is not sufficient. Check the one-half subcontract and purchase agreement cap and your R/R&D percentage. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA.
October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page limit, 11-point minimum type, one-inch margins, consecutive page numbers, graphics legible in black and white, virus-checked PDF, no marketing material, no proprietary content in the technical abstract or the work plan.
October 17 through October 19. Submit and certify in DSIP.
October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is DAF SBIR topic DAF26BX06-DV511?
DAF26BX06-DV511 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Low SWaP-C Tactical Awareness Payload for Proliferated, Agile Satellites (TAPPAS) for Space Domain Awareness," released under the DAF 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. It seeks a compact sensor payload providing a host satellite persistent 4 pi steradian awareness of its local space environment in the GEO belt, with on-board analytics that autonomously track and characterize nearby objects.
How much funding is available under DAF26BX06-DV511?
Up to $3,000,000 for a period of performance up to 24 months, the largest ceiling in this release. Proposals exceeding either limit will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $50,000 in Technical and Business Assistance may be requested in addition.
When is the proposal deadline?
The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions point to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO for the exact submission time, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting.
When does this topic open?
September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.
What are the size, weight, and power targets?
The ideal payload would not exceed 50 watts of power consumption and 15 kilograms of mass. The topic frames these as ideal rather than absolute, noting any available tested technology will be considered, but states these characteristics are critical for enabling integration onto platforms with stringent resource limitations. If you exceed them, justify it against the integration argument.
What detection performance is required?
A self-awareness bubble with a range of 200 kilometers threshold to 500 kilometers objective radius, the ability to detect a 0.5 meter object at threshold and 0.2 meter at objective, with a probability of detection of 0.8 and a probability of false alarm of 0.01. Coverage is persistent 4 pi steradian, with occlusion zones minimized through satellite design and sensor placement.
What sensing phenomenologies are of interest?
Multiple, including but not limited to electro-optical, infrared, and radio frequency.
Is this only a sensor, or does it need onboard processing?
It needs onboard processing. The sensor data must feed advanced on-board analytics that autonomously track nearby objects and support assessment of intent, distinguishing between debris, unanticipated neutral or friendly objects, and potential threats, enabling both autonomous tactical response and intuitive operator visualization. A detection-only proposal answers half the topic.
What is the Phase II deliverable?
Successful Phase II completion should produce a Production Representative Article that can be space qualified and meets the SWaP and performance requirements. The five primary deliverables are the PRA, performance and environmental test data and reports as an End Item Data Package, a reliability analysis, a preliminary Interface Control Document, and ground software for commanding the payload and processing telemetry and mission data.
What environmental testing is expected?
A comprehensive test campaign validating payload performance and survivability, expected to include thermal-vacuum cycling representative of the GEO thermal environment, random vibration testing to assess launch survivability, and electromagnetic interference testing to ensure no harm to other space vehicle subsystems. Successful completion is determined in part by successful completion of that space environmental testing.
Can I submit a Phase I proposal for this topic?
No. This topic is intended for technology proven ready to move directly into Phase II, and Phase I awards will not be made.
What feasibility documentation does this topic require?
Detail and documentation demonstrating accomplishment of a Phase I type effort including a feasibility study, determining insofar as possible the scientific and technical merit and feasibility of ideas appearing to have commercial potential. Critically, you must have validated the product-mission fit between your proposed solution and a potential Air Force or Space Force stakeholder, and should have defined a clear, immediately actionable plan with the proposed solution and the DAF customer and end-user.
Can I use a prior SBIR award as my feasibility basis?
No. Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and the feasibility effort must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.
How long can my technical volume be?
20 pages or slides for this topic, tighter than the 35 pages allowed for the two air-domain topics in the same release. Pages in excess will not be considered during evaluations. Type must be no smaller than 11-point on 8.5 by 11 paper with one-inch margins and consecutively numbered pages. Note that subcontract copies, supporting documents, and cost proposal attachments do not count toward the limit.
Can I submit slides instead of a written document?
The limit is expressed as pages or slides, so a slide-format technical volume is acceptable. Many hardware teams find slides more efficient for conveying design and test content within a tight limit.
Is this topic export controlled?
Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774. You must disclose any proposed foreign nationals with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and assigned statement of work tasks, and the topic advises those individuals may be restricted from performing due to the technical data involved. A certified DD Form 2345, or evidence of application, belongs in Volume 5, and approval will be required if selected.
How is my proposal evaluated?
Under three criteria in descending order of importance. Criteria A, most important, covers soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the approach, incremental progress toward a solution, the qualifications of key personnel, and whether proposed cost elements are realistic and consistent with the technical proposal. Criteria B covers degree of mission impact, urgency of the identified need, specificity of the defense requirement, and adequacy of the effort. Criteria C covers commercial application potential. All criteria other than cost or price, combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.
Does Manufacturing Readiness Level matter?
Yes, and unusually so. One of the four named key challenges is scalable, mature, and manufacturable solutions, which explicitly requires emphasis on high Technology Readiness Level, Manufacturing Readiness Level, and scalability for hardware and software. MRL is rarely called out in SBIR topics, and its presence signals a production orientation. Address your MRL directly.
How much of the work must my company perform?
The instructions state two thresholds. The Consultants and Subcontractors section requires at least 50 percent of the R/R&D be performed by the proposing firm unless the Contracting Officer approves otherwise in writing. The Performance of Work Requirements section states at least one-third of the Phase II research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by direct and indirect costs excluding profit. Separately, all consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements together may not exceed one-half of the total contract price without written Contracting Officer approval. That last cap is a real constraint on space hardware programs that buy components and lease test facilities. Performing at least half the R/R&D in house satisfies every reading; deviation requests must be made twice, prior to submission during the open period and again with the initial proposal.
Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?
No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but the DAF states information contained in the CCR will not be considered during proposal evaluations.
What is TABA and how do I request it?
Up to $50,000 per Phase II award in addition to the per-topic ceiling, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal, splittable as $25,000 on a first SBIR Phase II and $25,000 on a sequential one. The detailed request must be in Volume 5 with provider name, point of contact, unique qualifications, tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, and the task milestone list must track to your milestone payment schedule. Requests specifying only a value in Volume 3 will not be considered. Development of manufacturing plans is an eligible activity worth considering on this topic.
Who owns the data and software I develop?
Rights in technical data including software developed under a SBIR contract generally remain with the contractor. The Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights in all data developed or generated under the contract for 20 years from contract award, after which the Government has Government purpose rights to the SBIR data.
What happens in Phase III?
Phase III, funded through non-SBIR/STTR government contracts or other appropriate mechanisms, supports continued maturation, qualification, and operational integration, advancing the payload toward flight-qualified configurations for operational Space Domain Awareness mission architectures. Potential activities include space flight qualification of the design, refinement for manufacturability and scalability, integration support with host spacecraft platforms, preparation for operational testing and evaluation, and where appropriate Low-Rate Initial Production planning and execution subject to government priorities and funding. The Government may, at its discretion, include Phase III procedures in the Phase II Funding Agreement per SBA Policy Directive Section 4(b)(2).
What technology readiness level is expected?
Upon successful completion of Phase II the payload is expected to achieve approximately TRL 6, a system or prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment. Phase III may mature it to TRL 8 through flight qualification and system-level testing, and ultimately TRL 9 upon successful on-orbit deployment and operational use.
Are venture-backed companies eligible?
Yes. Small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics.
When will I hear about selection?
The DAF anticipates all proposals evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027. The principal investigator and Corporate Official on the cover sheet are notified by email.
Who do I contact with questions?
The DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us for general program and proposal preparation questions, and the DAF encourages requesting clarifying information as early as possible because delays constrain its ability to respond. For DSIP submission system issues, dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. Address or point of contact changes after submission go to the One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 SBIR CSO Address Change."
Positioning Advice for Startups Considering This Topic
Read "speed of delivery for proven technology now" as the governing sentence. The government wrote that its primary focus is speed of delivery for proven technology. That is a direct instruction about what wins. Existing hardware with test heritage, an established supply chain, and a manufacturing path beats a better architecture that needs to be invented.
Answer the numbers in a compact traceability section. With eight or so quantitative requirements and only 20 pages, a tight requirements response near the front of the volume earns its space. Meet, exceed, or path to meet with the risk named, for each one.
Do not neglect the sense-making half. Many sensor companies will propose excellent detection and treat the on-board analytics as a software afterthought. The topic asks for autonomous tracking, characterization into debris, neutral or friendly, and potential threat, and output serving both autonomous response and operator visualization. That is a distinguishing opportunity.
Put Manufacturing Readiness Level in writing. It is named as a key challenge alongside TRL. Give your MRL, justify it, and describe the production scaling path. Very few competitors will do this well.
Prove your test facility access with specifics. TVAC at GEO-representative conditions, random vibration, and EMI within 24 months is a scheduling problem before it is a technical one. Named facilities, confirmed availability, and rates in the cost volume make the schedule believable and directly support the cost realism element inside Criteria A.
Close the stakeholder validation gap now, not in the proposal. The feasibility requirement demands validated product-mission fit with an Air Force or Space Force stakeholder and an immediately actionable plan with that customer. If you have not had those conversations, that is the binding constraint on your eligibility, and the open period is short.
Model the subcontract cap before you finalize the architecture. Buying focal planes, procuring space-qualified parts, and leasing test chambers can push your outside costs past one-half of the contract price. Discovering that after you have committed to a design is expensive.
Audit the supply chain against the eight denial lists. Space electronics bills of materials touch them more often than teams expect, and a denial under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16) or 638(o)(20) is mandatory, not discretionary.
Build the commercialization case on the commercial GEO market. Criteria C is third in importance but should not be thin. Commercial GEO operators, satellite manufacturers who would embed the payload as a baseline subsystem, and insurers with an interest in collision and proximity risk are all natural buyers for local space awareness, and the topic's own framing of proliferated tactical sensors as part of any combat system baseline generalizes cleanly to commercial fleets.
