DAF SBIR DAF26BX06-NV510: AI/ML for Next Generation of Missile Detection, Warning, Tracking, and Reporting
Quick Answer
DAF26BX06-NV510 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Phase I topic under the DAF FY26 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. SpaceWERX, working with Space Systems Command's Space Sensing System Delta 84 and the OPIR Tap Lab, wants to assess whether artificial intelligence and machine learning can improve multi-sensor fusion, missile tracking precision, and real-time situational awareness across a multi-orbit satellite framework spanning geosynchronous, medium, and low Earth orbit. Awards are up to $150,000 for a period of performance up to 3 months, with a 30 page or slide technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.
Three months and $150,000 tells you exactly what this is. It is not a build. The Air Force says Phase I deliverables are expected to focus on a feasibility study detailing United States Space Force concept of operations and technical viability, plus analytical findings, and that the research plan can include modeling, simulation, literature review, or trade studies. Algorithm prototypes or simulation results are welcome as applicable. What the Air Force actually wants out of Phase I is stated plainly: to onboard and coordinate emergent solutions into the OPIR Tap Lab and create a shared understanding of the Missile Warning and Tracking mission area problem set. Read that as an invitation to become a known quantity inside a specific government lab, with a small award as the entry ticket.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: DAF26BX06-NV510
Title: AI/ML for Next Generation of Missile Detection, Warning, Tracking, and Reporting
Solicitation: Department of the Air Force FY26 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO), Release 6, Phase I Proposal Submission Instructions
Program type: Phase I
Award maximum value: $150,000
Award maximum duration: 3 months
Technical volume page limit: 30 pages or slides
Sponsoring organizations: SpaceWERX, in partnership with Space Systems Command's Space Sensing System Delta 84 and the OPIR Tap Lab
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
Required proposal template: Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template, from the DSIP supporting documents page
Minimum work performed in house: two-thirds of the research or analytical effort
Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 per Phase I award
Named Phase III transition pipeline: the Space Modernization Initiative program within Space Systems Command's Space Sensing portfolio
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: SpaceWERX, space platforms, space sensing, Overhead Persistent Infrared, OPIR, data fusion, AI/ML, OODA, mission assurance
Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO for the proposal submission deadline date and time rather than restating it. DoW SBIR CSO deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the exact time on the live DSIP topic posting and do not plan around an end-of-day deadline.
How Phase I Differs From the Direct to Phase II Release
If you have read the DAF Release 6 Direct to Phase II instructions, several rules here are different. Getting these wrong is an avoidable way to lose.
You must use the government template. All applicants must complete their Volume 2 Technical Volume proposal submission using the template provided at the DSIP supporting documents page, titled "Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template." This is a stated requirement, not a suggestion, and it has no counterpart in the D2P2 instructions. Download it first and build inside it. Note also that the Phase I instructions do not restate the type size, margin, and page numbering rules that appear in the D2P2 instructions, which is consistent with the template governing format. Follow the template.
Two-thirds of the work must be yours. For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee. The DAF measures percentage of work by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit. The D2P2 instructions set that floor at one-third, so this is a substantially tighter constraint. If your plan leans on a university partner or an outside data science firm, check the arithmetic before you commit.
The subcontract cap is one-third, not one-half. The proposed total of consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, and profit is not included in that calculation. The instructions add that the SBIR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. On a $150,000 award, one-third is roughly $50,000 for all outside costs combined.
TABA is $6,500, not $50,000. The DAF will provide up to $6,500 for each Phase I award. The Phase I instructions state that simply, without the detailed Volume 5 provider documentation requirements that the D2P2 instructions impose. If you intend to use it, ask the One Help Desk what documentation this cycle expects rather than assuming either the simple or the detailed process applies.
There is no Phase I feasibility eligibility gate. Direct to Phase II proposals get disqualified if prior feasibility documentation does not establish technical merit. Phase I has no such screen, and the Volume 5 list here carries only three conditional documents. The feasibility study in this topic is a Phase I deliverable, not an admission requirement. That makes this topic accessible to a company that has never held a SBIR award.
The protest citations differ. Protests here are prescribed under FAR 33.106(a) and FAR 52.233-2, versus FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3 in the D2P2 instructions.
The support contractor list differs. The Phase I list names TEC Solutions, Inc., APEX, Oasis Systems, Riverside Research, Peerless Technologies, HPC-COM, Mile Two, Montech, Wright Brothers Institute, and MacB (an Alion Company). The FFRDC evaluators named are MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers.
What the Space Force Is Actually Looking For
The mission problem
The topic addresses a critical need within the U.S. Space Force's Missile Warning, Tracking, and Response mission by advancing the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve multi-sensor fusion, missile tracking precision, and real-time situational awareness within a multi-orbit satellite framework covering GEO, MEO, and LEO.
The Air Force is specific about what is currently hard. Current technologies face challenges in fusing large volumes of disparate data across multiple sensing modalities, tackling latency in data processing, and accurately tracking increasingly sophisticated threats such as hypersonic and maneuverable missile systems.
Three distinct problems sit inside that sentence. Heterogeneous data fusion at volume. Latency. And targets that do not behave like ballistic objects. A proposal that addresses only one should say which one and why that is the highest-value place to start.
The Phase I objective
The objective of this Phase I effort is to evaluate the feasibility of applying innovative data processing techniques, including AI and ML methodologies, to address the evolving challenges in missile detection, warning, tracking, and reporting.
The primary goal of the research and development initiative is to advance data fusion, sensor integration, and real-time processing methods that enhance the accuracy, responsiveness, and reliability of satellite-based missile warning systems. That includes addressing data interoperability from multi-orbit GEO, MEO, and LEO satellite constellations, optimizing on-orbit and ground-based processing frameworks, and improving data quality from diverse sensing modalities across legacy and future Overhead Persistent Infrared space architectures.
Specifically, the effort will focus on researching and developing state-of-the-art algorithms and processing techniques that support rapid and precise multi-sensor fusion, robust target identification, and accurate real-time 3D tracking of traditional, hypersonic, and maneuverable missile threats. By leveraging novel techniques in data association, sensor fusion, and edge processing, the solution will aim to mitigate limitations presented by diverse sensor resolutions, data cadences, and observational geometries. The project will also investigate methods to increase computational efficiency for onboard satellite processing and consider robustness against noise in highly dynamic operational environments.
Four technical themes are worth pulling out of that because they are where a credible Phase I can differentiate. Data association across sensors with different resolutions, cadences, and observational geometries, which is the genuinely hard part of multi-orbit fusion. Real-time 3D tracking of maneuvering and hypersonic targets, where classical filters degrade. Computational efficiency sufficient for onboard satellite processing, meaning your algorithm has to survive a flight processor. And robustness against noise in highly dynamic environments.
The desired future state, in the Air Force's own words
Phase I will assess the feasibility of AI and ML driven multi-sensor fusion techniques for real-time advanced missile detection, warning, and tracking across multi-orbit satellite systems and data architectures. The desired future state of this effort is a network-aware, autonomous constellation spanning multiple orbital regimes where ground "migrates" with space via edge fusion that compresses timelines for the joint fight without loss of quality or confidence.
That sentence is the vision statement to write toward. Ground migrating with space via edge fusion means moving processing that today happens in ground stations onto the constellation itself. Compressing timelines without loss of quality or confidence is the constraint: faster is only valuable if the answer is still trustworthy, which is why explainability appears later in the topic.
What Phase I is actually for
The goal of this Phase I effort is to onboard and coordinate emergent solutions into the OPIR Tap Lab and create a shared understanding of the problem set of the Missile Warning and Tracking mission area. Successful Phase I efforts from this topic will target capability testing within the OPIR Tap Lab, with the goal of advancing capability and de-risking follow-on capability development in subsequent phases.
Proposed solutions should include a feasibility study and algorithm prototypes or simulation results as applicable, as well as a clear path to integration and testing within the OPIR Tap Lab.
The OPIR Tap Lab is named in the topic references at boulderlab.org. Understanding what it is, how outside companies engage with it, and what integration there requires is probably the highest-return hour of research you can spend before writing. Your clear path to integration and testing is an explicit proposal requirement, and it cannot be written credibly from the outside.
The four focused topic areas
The topic states that focused topic areas can include any part of the following, which is permissive language. You may address one, several, or elements across them.
Edge Fusion and Autonomy. AI and ML solutions for on-orbit track fusion, autonomous constellation tasking, and event-driven scheduling across proliferated MEO and LEO architectures in contested environments.
Multi-Source Integration. Capabilities that fuse OPIR, electro-optical, radar, signals intelligence, and commercial sensor data to improve detection, tracking, typing, and characterization, with scalable software architectures and ML-driven sensor calibration.
Observe, Orient, Decide, Act Loop Collapse and Mission Assurance. Solutions that accelerate the sensor-to-decision-maker kill chain with sufficient confidence and explainability to assure mission-critical decisions. These can include but are not limited to dynamic user control of automation covering command and control, operator overload, and scalable operations, plus orchestration, edge computing, AI trade-space exploration, and authoritative knowledge access.
New sources and methods for Missile Warning that are outside of the current missile warning operational paradigm tactics, techniques, and procedures.
That fourth area is unusual and deserves attention. It is an explicit invitation to propose something that does not fit current TTPs. Most SBIR topics reward alignment with existing practice. This one carves out space for an approach the mission area has not tried. If your technology is genuinely orthogonal to how missile warning is done today, that is the area to claim, and the topic gives you cover for it.
Note also the phrase "sufficient confidence and explainability to assure mission-critical decisions" in the third area. For an AI proposal in a nuclear-adjacent warning mission, explainability is not a feature request, it is the precondition for the capability being usable at all. Address it directly.
The Feasibility Study and CONOPS Requirements
This is the most prescriptive part of the topic, and it is where your Phase I deliverable is defined. The Air Force tells you what a feasibility study is and what it must contain.
What the feasibility study must do
A feasibility study is an assessment of the practicality of developing and implementing a new technology within a given concept. The study aims to objectively and rationally uncover the strengths and weaknesses of the new technology, the feasibility of successful development of the technology, and the viability of the success of implementation of the technology in the proposed CONOPS.
The study should do four things.
Identify the benefits of the new technology within the CONOPS over existing solutions, or the lack thereof. Note the parenthetical. The Air Force is asking you to be honest where no existing solution exists, rather than manufacturing a comparison.
Identify the risks, uncertainties and unknowns, and issues of the proposed CONOPS with mitigation and closure measures. Both mitigation and closure, meaning how a given uncertainty gets resolved, not just managed.
Identify the critical technology elements of the new technology. Critical technology elements, or CTEs, is deliberate systems engineering vocabulary. Use it.
Provide data to support the feasibility of technology development of each CTE, to include literature research supporting technical viability or historical usage, trade studies identifying existing technologies, current developments, and feasible development pathways, analysis demonstrating technical solutions, and heritage usage of similar technology with identified differences in operations or environment for the proposed CONOPS.
That last item is the workload of the award. Per critical technology element, you owe literature research, trade studies, analysis, and a heritage comparison that names how your environment differs. Three months is enough time for that only if you scope the CTE list tightly. Identify four or five critical technology elements, not fifteen.
What the CONOPS must do
The Concept of Operations should clearly communicate how the technology is intended to support a military mission within a defined system. The main purpose of the CONOPS is to facilitate a common understanding of a future system to help develop operational and system-level requirements. CONOPS should be written at the system level first and then expanded on how the technology functions enable successful military operations.
That ordering instruction is specific and easy to get backwards. System level first, then how your technology's functions enable the mission. A CONOPS that starts from your algorithm and works outward is written in the wrong direction. Start with the missile warning system and the operational sequence, then place your contribution inside it.
Phase I deliverables are expected to focus on a feasibility study detailing USSF CONOPS and technical viability, as well as analytical findings. The Air Force also notes that a Phase II transition concept may be outlined, so a forward-looking section is welcome but is not the deliverable.
Phase II and Phase III
Phase II
Phase II aims to build off the work completed in Phase I after successfully demonstrating capability for operational use within the OPIR Tap Lab or similar environments that demonstrate integrating advanced AI and ML for real-time multi-sensor fusion and missile tracking from OPIR systems.
Activities include system development, integration, and testing in operationally relevant environments to verify performance metrics such as accuracy, latency, resilience, and coverage. Phase II will mature the feasible concepts identified in Phase I into a deployable, testable prototype, and will include design refinement, system development, and operationally relevant testing focused on delivering a measurable improvement in AI and ML techniques to detect or accurately fuse any source detecting these threats, either on the ground in the traditional processing ground stations or on board via edge processing.
The four named performance metrics, accuracy, latency, resilience, and coverage, are worth building your Phase I analytical findings around. If your feasibility study produces baseline estimates against those four, you have handed the government the measurement framework for your own Phase II.
The pathway is stated explicitly: successful Phase I efforts establish technical feasibility and transition the validated proof-of-concept into the OPIR Tap Lab or a similar testbed, and Phase II efforts continue development of technologies coming out of the OPIR Tap Lab. By using that operationally relevant environment, the work progresses to system development, integration, and testing, which de-risks follow-on capability development. The ultimate goal of the pathway is to mature the feasible concepts into a deployable, testable working prototype delivering a measurable improvement in techniques for multi-sensor fusion and missile detection, warning, tracking and reporting.
How Phase II gets requested, which matters for planning
The Phase I instructions describe a Phase II process that is not applicant-initiated on a fixed calendar. DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the conclusion of the period of performance. The decision is based on the awardee's technical progress, as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review using the Phase II review criteria.
Only Phase I awardees are eligible to submit a Phase II proposal. All Phase I awardees will be sent a notification with the Phase II proposal submittal date and detailed preparation instructions. Phase II dollar values, performance periods, and proposal content will be specified in the Phase II request for proposal. Only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award. If your physical or email addresses or firm points of contact have changed since Phase I submission, send corrected information to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk.
Two practical consequences. First, because the request can come while Phase I performance is still ongoing, and because it is based on demonstrated technical progress, front-loading real analytical results rather than saving them for the final report is strategically sensible on a three month award. Second, the DAF reserves the right to modify Phase II submission requirements and will notify all Phase I awardees if requirements change.
The instructions also note that the DAF primarily makes SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts, but awardees are strongly urged to work toward a Defense Contract Audit Agency approved accounting system. If the company intends to continue work with the Department of War, an approved accounting system will allow competition in a broader array of acquisition opportunities, including award of cost-reimbursement type contracts. That is worth acting on early if you expect a defense business, since DCAA accounting system approval is not a quick process.
Phase III
Potential Phase III efforts will pursue transition of the capability to operational use through non-SBIR/STTR funding streams, aiming for a Technology Readiness Level of 6 or 7 and demonstrating functionality in relevant environments.
A key transition pipeline for this capability is the Space Modernization Initiative program within Space Systems Command's Space Sensing portfolio. Successful efforts in potential Phase III efforts will involve full integration into OPIR operational data workflows and fielding the capability at scale to provide recurring operational value and reduce warfighter risk by expanding OPIR sensing capabilities.
A named transition pipeline is a gift in a SBIR topic, because it answers the question every proposal has to answer about what happens after the money runs out. Reference the Space Modernization Initiative and Space Systems Command's Space Sensing portfolio explicitly in your commercialization and future R&D discussion.
The topic cites the GAO Technology Readiness Assessment Guide as a reference, at gao.gov/assets/gao-20-48g.pdf. Since the Phase III target is stated as TRL 6 or 7, use GAO's definitions rather than an informal scale when you make maturity claims.
Funding Allowance and Cost Structure
Award ceiling and what it buys
Up to $150,000 across up to 3 months. The topic index states 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 adds, in the evaluation section, that any per-award or per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only and more or less funding may become available. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated to be awarded as a result of the topic, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.
Be realistic about what three months and $150,000 supports. Roughly speaking this is a small team for a quarter. That is enough for a rigorous feasibility study with a bounded CTE list, a literature and trade study foundation, some simulation work against representative data, and an integration plan for the OPIR Tap Lab. It is not enough for a demonstration against real OPIR data on a flight-representative processor. Propose the former convincingly rather than the latter aspirationally, because cost realism is assessed inside the most important evaluation criterion.
Contract type
The DAF primarily makes SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts.
The instructions add a significant procedural note: if no exceptions are taken to an offeror's proposal, the Government may award a contract without negotiations. Therefore the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If there are questions regarding the award document, contact the Phase I Contracting Officer identified on the cover page. The Government reserves the right to reopen negotiations later if the Contracting Officer determines doing so to be necessary.
Technical and Business Assistance
The Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act Section 7 mandates agencies to offer TABA, and the DAF will provide up to $6,500 for each Phase I award.
The Phase I instructions state this in a single sentence, without the detailed provider documentation requirements the D2P2 instructions impose. Because the two documents in the same release treat TABA differently, and because TABA requests are commonly denied on documentation grounds, ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period what Phase I TABA documentation this cycle requires and where it goes.
Cost volume requirements
Cost information should be provided by completing the Cost Volume in DSIP and including the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. The cost volume detail must be adequate to enable Air Force personnel to determine the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each cost element.
A helpful mechanical point: the DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information will not count against the specified page limit. The itemized listing also may be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown option.
The seven categories the instructions name:
Direct cost materials. Justify costs for materials, parts, and supplies with an itemized list containing types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. Material costs may include raw materials, parts, subassemblies, components, and manufacturing supplies.
Other direct costs. Includes but is not limited to specialized services such as machining, milling, special testing or analysis, and costs incurred in temporarily using specialized equipment. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase justification. Compute time, if you are running significant simulation or model training, belongs here with justification.
Direct labor. Identify key personnel by name if possible, or by labor category if not. Direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual are necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine whether these hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable. On a study award this will be nearly the whole budget, so it deserves the most care.
Travel. Travel costs must relate to project needs. Break out travel costs by trip, number of travelers, airfare, per diem, lodging, and similar. The number of trips required, as well as the destination and purpose of each, should be reflected. The instructions recommend budgeting at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract. On this topic, that recommendation reads as an opportunity: a trip to engage the OPIR Tap Lab supports the integration path the topic asks you to define.
Subcontracts. Involvement of university or other consultants in the project's planning or research stages may be appropriate. If so, describe in detail and include information in the Cost Volume. The proposed total of consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, and profit is not included in the calculation, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The SBIR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit. Support subcontract costs with copies of executed agreements that adequately describe the work to be performed, and at a minimum include a Statement of Work with a corresponding detailed Cost Volume for each planned subcontract.
Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. Inclusion of equipment and materials will be carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. Special tooling and special test equipment purchases must, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, be advantageous to the Government and relate directly to the effort. These toolings or equipment should not be of a type that an offeror would otherwise possess in the normal course of business, and may include items such as innovative instrumentation or automatic test equipment.
Consultants. Provide a separate agreement letter for each consultant. The letter should briefly state what service or assistance will be provided, the number of hours required, and the hourly rate.
Where work must be performed
All research and research and development work must be performed in the United States. Based on a rare and unique circumstance, the DAF may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside the United States. The awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking this approval must make the request with their initial proposal submission, and the DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission.
Performance of work deviations
Occasionally the DAF will consider deviations from the performance of work requirement. Requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests prior to the initial proposal submission, the DAF will consider the request and approve or disapprove requesting applicants to proceed with DSIP submission. Upon proposal receipt, the DAF will again consider such requests for approval for the resultant award.
Given the two-thirds in-house requirement on Phase I, this process is more likely to be relevant here than on a D2P2 topic. If a university collaborator is central to your approach, start the deviation request early in the open period.
Export Control and Foreign Nationals
The technology within 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 the foreign nationals in accordance with section 3.5 of the Announcement. Offerors are advised that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.
Missile warning is among the more sensitive mission areas in the portfolio, so treat this as a real constraint rather than a disclosure formality. AI and ML teams are frequently internationally staffed, and resolving who can work on what should happen before you write your key personnel section, not after selection. If you are asserting export-controlled status, a certified DD Form 2345 Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission, is a Volume 5 document, and DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award. The form, instructions, and FAQs are at the United States and Canada Joint Certification Program website.
Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes
Complete proposals must include Volume 1 Cover Sheet, Volume 2 Technical Volume, Volume 3 Cost Volume, Volume 4 Company Commercialization Report, Volume 5 Supporting Documents, Volume 6 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training, and Volume 7 Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries.
Volume 1, Cover Sheet
Complete the proposal Cover Sheet in accordance with the instructions provided via DSIP. The technical abstract should include a brief description of the program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits and commercial applications of the proposed research, and a list of keywords and terms.
The technical abstract of each successful proposal will be submitted to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and therefore must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the proposal's technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released, so keep sensitive algorithmic detail out of both.
Volume 2, Technical Volume
All applicants must complete their Volume 2 Technical Volume proposal submission using the template provided at the DSIP supporting documents page, titled "Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template."
Include a work plan outline in the following format:
Scope. List the effort's major requirements and specifications.
Task Outline. Provide a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during the Phase I effort.
Milestone Schedule.
Deliverables.
Progress reports.
Final report with SF 298.
Two notes. First, the required work plan outline here is much lighter than the D2P2 work plan, which demanded a separately paginated contract-language document with numbered task hierarchies. Phase I asks for an outline. Do not over-build it, but do include every named element, since omissions in a prescribed format are the cheapest kind of avoidable finding.
Second, the SF 298 is the Report Documentation Page, a standard form that accompanies a technical report. Naming it in the deliverables list means your final report needs it, so account for that rather than discovering it at closeout.
The technical volume page limit for this topic is 30 pages or slides, from the topic index. Note that the limit is expressed as pages or slides, so a slide-format submission is acceptable within whatever structure the template provides. Thirty pages is generous relative to the size of the award, which means the constraint on this proposal is analytical substance rather than space. Use the room for the feasibility study structure, the CTE analysis, and the CONOPS.
Volume 3, Cost Volume
Covered above. Remember that the DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information do not count against the page limit, and the itemized listing may also be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown.
Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. The instructions state that information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations. Complete it for compliance and do not treat it as a scoring opportunity. This matches the D2P2 instructions and differs from Army SBIR practice, where the CCR is considered.
Volume 5, Supporting Documents
Three documents may be required if applicable to your proposal.
DD Form 2345. For proposals submitted under export-controlled topics, either ITAR or EAR, a copy of the certified DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission must be included. This topic is export controlled, so this applies. DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award.
Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, which is Attachment 3 to the FY26 SBIR CSO.
Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions. For an AI and ML company whose core asset is existing models, code, and training pipelines built with private investment, this is the mechanism for protecting that background intellectual property. Do not skip it because the award is small.
Note what is absent. There is no Phase I feasibility documentation requirement in Volume 5, because Phase I is where feasibility gets established rather than where it must be proven in advance.
Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training
Fraud, Waste and Abuse training material can be found in the Volume 6 section of the proposal submission module in DSIP and must be thoroughly reviewed once per year to proceed with proposal submission. Complete this before you need it, since it gates submission.
Volume 7, Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries
Small business concerns must complete the Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The form 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. For additional details, refer to the DoW SBIR Program CSO.
How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated
The criteria
Proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria below in descending order of importance. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies that would be responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic. Multiple procurements are planned and anticipated, each proposal is considered a separate procurement and will be evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals.
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. 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.
Three observations. Cost realism sits inside Criteria A, so on a three month award the proposal that promises too much is penalized on the top criterion, not on price. The phrase "incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution" rewards a clearly bounded step, which fits a feasibility study well, so do not apologize for the modest scope. And qualifications of key personnel are inside the top criterion, which on an AI and ML topic means the credibility of your technical team relative to sensor fusion and tracking, not just to machine learning generally.
Due diligence and foreign risk
15 U.S.C. 638 and the Small Business Innovation and Economic Security Act of 2026 require the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to implement a due diligence program to assess security risks presented by small business concerns seeking a federally funded award.
The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns that submit proposals under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk for any reason. The measures the DAF will use include 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 (50 U.S.C. 3003), federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.
The DAF will assess using a risk-based approach as appropriate: cybersecurity practices; patent analysis; employee analysis; foreign ownership of a small business concern seeking an award, including the financial ties and obligations, which shall include surety, equity, and debt obligations, of the concern and employees of the concern to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity; foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel of a concern with an entity in a foreign country of concern; investment relationships of a concern 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 will also assess proposals utilizing open-source analysis and analytical tools for the nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examine any relationship of a concern seeking an award to any entity or individual included on the lists described in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16)(D) and 638(o)(20)(D).
If the DAF assesses that a concern has security risks, the DAF will review the proposal, the evaluation, and the security risks, and may choose either to create a plan to mitigate the risks or to not select the proposal for award based upon a totality of the review.
Applicants will be required to 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. In addition, a written statement with any substantial changes to a foreign disclosure form must be provided to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.
The DAF will not make an award if it determines the concern has an owner or covered individual that is party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; has a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; has an owner or covered individual that has a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or has a security risk connecting the small business concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of eight named lists: the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security; the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List of the Office of Foreign Assets Control maintained by the Department of the Treasury; the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 and maintained by the Department of War; the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and maintained by the Department of War; the Military End User List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce; the Entity List maintained by the Bureau of Industry and Security; the List of Equipment and Services maintained by the Federal Communications Commission; and the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
The DAF will also not make an award if it determines the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified, or has a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.
If the DAF denies an award under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16) or 638(o)(20), or upon determining the concern has a security risk described in that paragraph, the DAF will, as appropriate pursuant to its discretion and in a manner that does not compromise security, provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for the determination, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle. The same notification approach applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).
For an AI and ML company, three items on that list deserve a look before you propose. Cybersecurity practices, which leads the list and connects to the CMMC Level 2 self-assessment projection for this topic. Patent analysis, since machine learning patent portfolios often have international co-assignees or co-inventors. And employee analysis together with foreign affiliations, which in this field frequently means academic affiliations abroad.
Ownership and support contractors
Small business concerns that are 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.
Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors. These support contractors may include, but are not limited to, TEC Solutions, Inc., APEX, Oasis Systems, Riverside Research, Peerless Technologies, HPC-COM, Mile Two, Montech, Wright Brothers Institute, and MacB (an Alion Company). In addition, only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Contact the Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer, Daniel J. Brewer, with concerns regarding the use of support contractors.
Status, feedback, and protests
The Principal Investigator and Corporate Official indicated on the Proposal Cover Sheet will be notified by email regarding proposal selection or non-selection. Small businesses will receive a notification for each proposal submitted, so read each notification carefully and note the Proposal Number and Topic Number referenced.
Automated feedback will be provided for Phase I proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.
Proposals submitted to the DAF are received and evaluated by different organizations, handled by topic. Each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so updates and notification timeframes will vary. If contacted regarding a proposal submission, it is not necessary to request information regarding additional submissions, since separate notifications are provided for each proposal.
The Air Force anticipates that all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the CSO Contracting Officer for proposal status before that time.
Refer to the DoW SBIR Program CSO for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(a) and FAR 52.233-2, protests should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer. The DAF uses its best efforts to resolve concerns raised by interested parties at the contracting officer level through open and frank discussions, and for agency protests the DAF provides for inexpensive, informal, procedurally simple, and expeditious resolution of protests.
All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions. Companies will not submit final reports 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 3 months from award
Phase II: requested by DAF organizations based on technical progress, either during Phase I performance or any time after it concludes, with only Phase I awardees eligible and one Phase II proposal permitted per Phase I award
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Download the Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template from the DSIP supporting documents page and read it before you write anything, because it dictates your structure. Research the OPIR Tap Lab, since a clear path to integration and testing there is an explicit proposal requirement. Decide which of the four focused topic areas you are claiming. Draft your critical technology element list and keep it short enough for three months of real analysis. Resolve export control staffing questions and start DD Form 2345 if you do not hold one. Inventory your background intellectual property so you can assert data rights properly. Check your work distribution against the two-thirds in-house requirement, and if a university collaborator is central, start the Performance of Work deviation request now, since it must be made during the open period as well as with the proposal. Complete Volume 6 training, verify SAM registration and DSIP account alignment, and send clarifying questions to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk, which explicitly encourages early inquiries and warns that late ones constrain its ability to respond. Ask about Phase I TABA documentation while you are there.
September 23 through October 3. Build the technical volume inside the template. Write the CONOPS at the system level first, then expand into how your technology's functions enable the mission, following the topic's stated ordering. Structure the feasibility study around the four required elements: benefits over existing solutions or the lack thereof, risks and unknowns with mitigation and closure measures, critical technology elements, and supporting data per CTE covering literature research, trade studies, analysis, and heritage usage with identified differences.
October 4 through October 12. Complete the work plan outline with all six named elements: scope, task outline, milestone schedule, deliverables, progress reports, and final report with SF 298. Build the cost volume and itemized listing, remembering neither counts against the page limit. Include at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract, which the instructions recommend and which on this topic supports your OPIR Tap Lab engagement. Get separate agreement letters from each consultant and executed agreements with statements of work and detailed cost volumes for each planned subcontract. Verify all outside costs stay under one-third of the contract price with profit excluded.
October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5 with DD Form 2345 and Technical Data Rights Assertions, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run a compliance pass against the template and the 30 page or slide limit. Confirm no proprietary or classified content in the technical abstract, which will be publicly released if you are selected.
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-NV510?
DAF26BX06-NV510 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Phase I topic titled "AI/ML for Next Generation of Missile Detection, Warning, Tracking, and Reporting," released under the DAF FY26 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. SpaceWERX, in partnership with Space Systems Command's Space Sensing System Delta 84 and the OPIR Tap Lab, seeks to evaluate the feasibility of applying AI and ML data processing to multi-sensor fusion, missile tracking, and real-time situational awareness across GEO, MEO, and LEO satellite architectures.
How much funding is available under DAF26BX06-NV510?
Up to $150,000 for a period of performance up to 3 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or that duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance is available for each Phase I award.
When is the proposal deadline?
The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO for the exact submission time, which is ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the time on the live DSIP topic posting rather than assuming end of day.
When does this topic open?
September 23, 2026, giving a 29 day submission window.
Do I have to use a specific proposal template?
Yes. All applicants must complete their Volume 2 Technical Volume submission using the template provided at the DSIP supporting documents page, titled "Space FY26 SBIR Phase I Proposal Template." Download it before you start writing. This requirement has no counterpart in the DAF Direct to Phase II instructions.
How long can my technical volume be?
30 pages or slides, per the topic index. Pages or slides in excess of that number will not be considered during evaluations. The DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information do not count against the limit.
What is the work plan outline format?
Six named elements: Scope, listing the effort's major requirements and specifications; Task Outline, a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during Phase I; Milestone Schedule; Deliverables; Progress reports; and Final report with SF 298.
What is the SF 298?
The Report Documentation Page, a standard form that accompanies a technical report. It is named in the required work plan outline as part of the final report deliverable, so plan for it rather than discovering it at closeout.
How much of the work must my company perform?
For Phase I, a minimum of two-thirds of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee. The DAF measures percentage of work by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit. Note this is substantially tighter than the one-third floor in the DAF Direct to Phase II instructions.
What is the cap on subcontracts and consultants?
The proposed total of consultant fees, facility lease or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-third of the total contract price or cost, with profit excluded from the calculation, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. On a $150,000 award that is roughly $50,000 for all outside costs combined. The Direct to Phase II cap is one-half, so do not carry that assumption over.
Can I get a waiver on the performance of work requirement?
Occasionally the DAF will consider deviations. Requests must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and again as part of the initial proposal submission. For requests before submission, the DAF will approve or disapprove the applicant proceeding with DSIP submission, then reconsider upon proposal receipt for the resultant award. The DAF will not consider these requests prior to proposal submission opening.
What does the feasibility study have to contain?
Four things. Identify the benefits of the new technology within the CONOPS over existing solutions, or the lack thereof. Identify the risks, uncertainties and unknowns, and issues of the proposed CONOPS with mitigation and closure measures. Identify the critical technology elements of the new technology. And provide data supporting the feasibility of technology development of each CTE, including literature research supporting technical viability or historical usage, trade studies identifying existing technologies, current developments, and feasible development pathways, analysis demonstrating technical solutions, and heritage usage of similar technology with identified differences in operations or environment for the proposed CONOPS.
How should I write the CONOPS?
At the system level first, then expanded on how the technology functions enable successful military operations. That ordering is specified in the topic. The CONOPS should clearly communicate how the technology is intended to support a military mission within a defined system, and its main purpose is to facilitate a common understanding of a future system to help develop operational and system-level requirements.
What are the focused topic areas?
Four, and the topic says focused areas can include any part of them. Edge Fusion and Autonomy, covering AI and ML for on-orbit track fusion, autonomous constellation tasking, and event-driven scheduling across proliferated MEO and LEO architectures in contested environments. Multi-Source Integration, fusing OPIR, EO, radar, SIGINT, and commercial sensor data to improve detection, tracking, typing, and characterization with scalable software architectures and ML-driven sensor calibration. OODA Loop Collapse and Mission Assurance, accelerating the sensor-to-decision-maker kill chain with sufficient confidence and explainability to assure mission-critical decisions. And new sources and methods for Missile Warning outside the current missile warning operational paradigm tactics, techniques, and procedures.
What if my approach does not fit current missile warning practice?
The fourth focused topic area explicitly invites new sources and methods outside the current missile warning operational paradigm TTPs. That is unusual in a SBIR topic and gives cover for a genuinely orthogonal approach. Claim that area and say why the current paradigm limits the outcome.
What is the OPIR Tap Lab and why does it matter?
The OPIR Tap Lab is a government lab named as the destination for Phase I work, referenced in the topic at boulderlab.org. The stated Phase I goal is to onboard and coordinate emergent solutions into the OPIR Tap Lab and create a shared understanding of the Missile Warning and Tracking mission area problem set. Successful Phase I efforts will target capability testing there. Proposed solutions must include a clear path to integration and testing within the OPIR Tap Lab, which makes understanding how the lab engages outside companies essential before you write.
What are the Phase I deliverables?
Phase I deliverables are expected to focus on a feasibility study detailing USSF CONOPS and technical viability, as well as analytical findings. Proposed solutions should include a feasibility study and algorithm prototypes or simulation results as applicable, plus a clear path to integration and testing within the OPIR Tap Lab. A Phase II transition concept may be outlined. The research plan can include modeling, simulation, literature review, or trade studies.
Is this topic export controlled?
Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774. 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 them. The topic advises that foreign nationals proposed to perform may be restricted due to the technical data involved. A certified DD Form 2345, or evidence of application submission, belongs in Volume 5, and approval will be required if selected for award.
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 proposed approach, its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution, the qualifications of the principal and key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants, and whether proposed cost elements are realistic, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the methods and materials in 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.
Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?
No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 in DSIP is required, but the instructions state information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.
Do I need prior SBIR experience or existing feasibility documentation?
No. Unlike the Direct to Phase II topics in this release, Phase I has no feasibility eligibility gate and Volume 5 carries only three conditional documents. The feasibility study here is a Phase I deliverable, not an admission requirement, which makes this topic accessible to a company that has never held a SBIR award.
How do I get to Phase II?
You do not apply on a calendar. DAF organizations may request Phase II proposals while Phase I technical performance is ongoing or at any time after the period of performance concludes, based on the awardee's technical progress as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review. Only Phase I awardees are eligible. All Phase I awardees will be sent a notification with the Phase II submittal date and detailed preparation instructions, and Phase II dollar values, performance periods, and proposal content will be specified in that request. Only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.
Since Phase II can be requested during Phase I, should I change how I schedule the work?
It is worth considering. Because a Phase II request can arrive while Phase I performance is still ongoing and is based on demonstrated technical progress, producing real analytical results early rather than holding everything for the final report gives a reviewing Technical Point of Contact something to act on. On a three month award that argues for front-loading substance.
What contract type should I expect?
The DAF primarily makes SBIR Phase I and Phase II awards as firm-fixed-price contracts. Awardees are strongly urged to work toward a Defense Contract Audit Agency approved accounting system, since if the company intends to continue work with the Department of War an approved accounting system allows competition in a broader array of acquisition opportunities, including award of cost-reimbursement type contracts.
Will I be able to negotiate after submitting?
Possibly not. If no exceptions are taken to your proposal, the Government may award a contract without negotiations, so your initial proposal should contain your best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to reopen negotiations later if the Contracting Officer determines it necessary.
How do I protect my existing AI models and code?
Technical Data Rights Assertions is a listed Volume 5 document if you are asserting data rights restrictions. For a company whose core asset is models, code, and training pipelines developed with private investment, this is the mechanism for distinguishing background intellectual property from what you develop under the award. Do not skip it because the award is small.
What is TABA on this topic and how do I request it?
The DAF will provide up to $6,500 for each Phase I award. The Phase I instructions state this in one sentence without the detailed provider documentation requirements the Direct to Phase II instructions impose. Because the two documents in the same release treat TABA differently, ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period what Phase I TABA documentation this cycle requires and where it belongs.
What happens in Phase III?
Potential Phase III efforts will pursue transition to operational use through non-SBIR/STTR funding streams, aiming for TRL 6 or 7 and demonstrating functionality in relevant environments. A key transition pipeline is the Space Modernization Initiative program within Space Systems Command's Space Sensing portfolio. Successful Phase III efforts will involve full integration into OPIR operational data workflows and fielding the capability at scale to provide recurring operational value and reduce warfighter risk by expanding OPIR sensing capabilities.
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 Air Force anticipates all proposals will be 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, with a separate notification for each proposal submitted.
Will I get feedback if not selected?
Automated feedback will be provided for Phase I proposals designated Not Selected. Additional feedback may be provided at the sole discretion of the DAF.
Who do I contact with questions?
For general information related to the AF SBIR/STTR program and proposal preparation instructions, contact the AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk at usaf.team@afsbirsttr.us. The DAF encourages applicants to request clarifying information as early as possible, since delays in such requests constrain the DAF's ability to provide satisfactory resolution to applicant concerns. For questions regarding the DSIP electronic submission system, contact the DoW SBIR/STTR Help Desk at dodsbirsupport@reisystems.com. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO. The Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer is Mr. Daniel J. Brewer at Daniel.Brewer.13@us.af.mil. If your company mail or email addresses or points of contact change after proposal submission, provide the information to the AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk with the subject line "FY26 SBIR CSO Address Change."
Positioning Advice for Startups Considering This Topic
Understand what you are buying with this proposal. At $150,000 over three months, the award itself is not the prize. The prize is being onboarded into the OPIR Tap Lab and becoming part of the shared understanding of the Missile Warning and Tracking problem set, with a named Phase III pipeline in the Space Modernization Initiative behind it. Write the proposal as an entry into a relationship, and be explicit about the integration path, because that is what the topic asks for and what the government is actually buying.
Do the OPIR Tap Lab homework before you write. A clear path to integration and testing within the lab is a stated proposal requirement. What data is available there, what interfaces exist, how outside algorithms get evaluated, and what the onboarding process involves are all things you should know before drafting. A generic statement that you would like to integrate is not a path.
Scope the critical technology element list tightly. Per CTE you owe literature research, trade studies, analysis demonstrating technical solutions, and heritage usage with identified differences. Three months buys that for a handful of elements, not for a dozen. Four or five well-analyzed CTEs will read as rigorous; fifteen thin ones will read as unserious and will hurt you on cost realism inside the top criterion.
Write the CONOPS in the order the topic specifies. System level first, then how your technology's functions enable successful military operations. Most AI companies naturally write outward from the algorithm. This topic asks for the reverse, and following the instruction is free points.
Make explainability a first-class part of the approach. The OODA loop area asks for sufficient confidence and explainability to assure mission-critical decisions. In a warning mission, an unexplainable output is unusable regardless of accuracy. Treat confidence quantification and explainability as design requirements, not as a paragraph near the end.
Address the hard fusion problem specifically. Diverse sensor resolutions, data cadences, and observational geometries is where multi-orbit fusion actually breaks. Naming that problem precisely and describing your data association approach against it is the fastest way to signal that you understand the mission rather than the buzzwords.
Take onboard processing seriously. The topic asks about computational efficiency for onboard satellite processing. An algorithm that only works on a ground cluster answers half the question, because the desired future state is ground migrating with space via edge fusion. State your compute budget assumptions.
Consider claiming the fourth focused area if it fits. New sources and methods outside current missile warning TTPs is an explicit invitation to be different. Few topics offer that, and if your approach genuinely does not fit today's paradigm, that framing turns a weakness into responsiveness.
Check the two-thirds rule against your team plan early. Phase I requires you to perform two-thirds of the research or analytical effort in house, and all outside costs to stay under one-third of contract price. AI and ML proposals often lean on academic collaborators. If yours does, either restructure or start the Performance of Work deviation request during the open period, since it must be made before submission as well as with the proposal.
Assert your data rights. Your models and pipelines predate this award. Technical Data Rights Assertions in Volume 5 is how you keep that boundary clear, and a small Phase I is exactly the situation where companies neglect it and regret it later.
Budget the trip. The instructions recommend at least one trip to the Air Force location managing the contract. On a topic built around integration into a specific lab, that trip is substantive rather than administrative. Put it in the cost volume with a stated purpose.
