DAF STTR DAF26TZ06-NV006: Artificial Intelligence Performance Evaluation Tool
Quick Answer
DAF26TZ06-NV006 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Phase I topic under the DAF 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The Air Force Test Center has a problem it states plainly: current AI evaluation processes lack standardization and reproducibility across varying operational environments, which makes it difficult for AFTC to confidently assess AI models' trustworthiness, reliability, and operational readiness. This topic funds the design of a tool that fixes that, capable of evaluating AI-enabled sensor suites and aligning with the simulation environments AFTC already uses. Awards are up to $300,000 for a period of performance up to 6 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.
Two eligibility facts to settle before you invest effort. This document states that small businesses majority-owned in part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible. And because this is STTR, you need a research institution partner, with a work split this document states precisely and refuses to waive: a minimum of 40 percent of each STTR award conducted by the awardee and a minimum of 30 percent performed by the single partnering research institution, with the DAF stating it will not consider deviation requests.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: DAF26TZ06-NV006
Title: Artificial Intelligence Performance Evaluation Tool
Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), Release 6, Phase I Proposal Submission Instructions
Program: STTR, requiring a single partnering research institution
Program type: Phase I
Award maximum value: $300,000
Award maximum duration: 6 months
Technical volume page limit: 20 pages or slides
OUSD (R&E) Critical Technology Area: Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI)
Component Technology Priority Area: Trusted AI and Autonomy
Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)
Export control status: no topic-level ITAR or EAR restriction paragraph appears on this topic
Venture capital, hedge fund, private equity majority ownership: not eligible under this document
Work split: minimum 40 percent by the small business, minimum 30 percent by the single partnering research institution, for both Phase I and Phase II. Deviations will not be considered
Technology readiness: Phase I initial TRL 2, target TRL 4. Phase II initial TRL 4, target TRL 6
Named customer: Air Force Test Center, with the 412th Test Wing test environment and the 416th Test Squadron at Edwards AFB as the Phase III transition partner
Named simulation environments: AFSIM, Ansys Test and Evaluation Tool Kit (TETK), or Joint Simulation Environment (JSE)
Technical and Business Assistance: up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total
Type size: no smaller than 10-point
Evaluation criteria: not restated in this document. See the FY26 STTR BAA
Topic open date: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time stated in the FY26 STTR BAA
Selection timeline: within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027
Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil
Keywords: artificial intelligence, AI performance evaluation, trusted AI, autonomy, explainability, AI metrics, AI validation, AI systems, sensor technologies, information systems, operational testing, ABMS, 412TW, AFTC, DoD AI standards, test and evaluation
Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the FY26 STTR BAA for the proposal submission deadline date and time. DoW deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm the exact time on the live DSIP posting rather than assuming end of day.
The Two Eligibility Gates
Venture capital ownership is disqualifying under this document
The instructions state that small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible to submit applications or receive awards for Department of Air Force Topics.
This provision is not uniform across the DAF Release 6 component instructions, so here is the actual state of it across all seven documents.
Not eligible: the SBIR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions covering topic DV037; the STTR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions covering topic DV008; and this STTR BAA Phase I document covering topics NV006 and NV007.
Eligible: the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions covering topics NV034 through NV036; the SBIR CSO Direct to Phase II instructions; the SBIR CSO Phase I instructions; and the STTR CSO Phase I instructions.
Read as a pattern, every Commercial Solutions Opening document permits venture-backed firms, and three of the four Broad Agency Announcement documents exclude them, with the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions the lone exception. Whether that is deliberate or a drafting inconsistency, the DAF has not said. What matters practically is that the exclusion appears in the document governing this topic, so treat it as operative. Verify your status against 13 CFR 121.702 and the definition in the instructions, and raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period rather than assuming it resolves in your favor.
The STTR work split, stated precisely and not waivable
This document is the clearest of the DAF Release 6 instructions on the STTR partnership requirement, and it is worth quoting closely because two other DAF STTR documents in the same release handle it less clearly.
For both Phase I and Phase II, a minimum of 40 percent of each STTR award must be conducted by the awardee and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort must be performed by the single partnering research institution. Applicants and awardees may partner with multiple entities that separately meet the definition of a research institution as indicated in the STTR BAA. Applicants may use only one partnering research institution to meet STTR eligibility requirements. The DAF will not consider requests for deviations to these performance of work requirements.
The Subcontracts section restates it: a minimum of 40 percent of each STTR project must be conducted by the small business concern and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort performed by the single partnering research institution, and deviations from these performance of work requirements are not permitted. The STTR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit.
Four practical points. The 40/30 split is the statutory STTR structure, correctly stated here, and it applies to both phases. You may have multiple research institution partners, but only one of them counts toward satisfying STTR eligibility, so designate which one deliberately. Deviations are not available, so unlike several other DAF Release 6 documents there is no deviation process to fall back on. And the percentage calculation uses direct and indirect costs after removing your proposed profit, which is the same convention used elsewhere in the release.
The instructions also point to the DoW STTR FY26 BAA for more information regarding the required Allocation of Rights Agreement. That agreement governs intellectual property between you and your research institution partner, and it is a real document your partner's technology transfer office will need to negotiate. Start it early.
Worth noting for anyone reading across our other DAF Release 6 pages: the STTR CSO Phase I instructions state a two-thirds in-house floor and the STTR BAA Direct to Phase II instructions state 50 percent plus a two-thirds figure labeled Phase I, neither of which matches the STTR statutory split. This document gets it right at 40/30. If you are working a topic governed by one of those other documents, that discrepancy is worth a Help Desk question, and this document is useful evidence of what the STTR requirement actually is.
What the Air Force Is Actually Looking For
The problem, in AFTC's terms
The proposed research effort aims to address critical gaps in the evaluation and validation of artificial intelligence systems within the Air Force by developing an Artificial Intelligence Performance Evaluation Tool. The tool will provide a standardized, adaptive, and robust framework capable of assessing the performance, reliability, and explainability of AI models, with a targeted application in sensor and information systems used in test and evaluation missions under the 412th Test Wing of the Air Force Test Center. This effort aligns with the Department of Defense's thrust toward advancing Trusted AI and Autonomy and operationally focused Advanced Battle Management System initiatives.
The unmet need is stated directly. Current AI evaluation processes lack standardization and reproducibility across varying operational environments, making it difficult for the AFTC to confidently assess AI models' trustworthiness, reliability, and operational readiness. Furthermore, the escalation in complexity of AI-enabled systems has underscored the need for technologies that can quantitatively measure AI performance while adhering to DoD Responsible AI principles. These challenges prevent the Air Force from leveraging AI advancements at scale, impacting readiness and modernization goals.
That last sentence is the value argument. The bottleneck on fielding AI is not model capability, it is the inability to evaluate models to a standard someone will sign off on. Frame your proposal around removing that bottleneck.
The desired outcome
By creating a modular AI evaluation tool, this effort provides an opportunity to establish a scalable and adaptable solution that aligns with emerging DoD AI standards. The desired outcome is a measurable enhancement in the fidelity, speed, and consistency of AI performance assessments, reducing decision-making cycles and increasing mission readiness. The tool will enable practical implementation of AI validation in secure environments, ensuring compliance with applicable standards and operational conditions. Successful deployment will support the broader modernization priorities tied to mission-critical AI deployment and advanced autonomy.
Fidelity, speed, and consistency are the three named improvement axes. Quantify your expected gains against all three where you can.
The hard requirements
Three requirements in the objective paragraph function as gates, and a proposal that does not address them is not responsive.
Sensor suite evaluation. To demonstrate early-stage feasibility, the proposed tool must be capable of evaluating AI-enabled sensor suites, with electro-optical and infrared, radar, and radio frequency systems given as the examples. This is not a generic model evaluation framework. It has to handle AI operating on sensor data.
Environment alignment. The tool must align with AFTC's primary simulation and digital engineering environments, specifically the Advanced Framework for Simulation, Integration, and Modeling (AFSIM), the Ansys Test and Evaluation Tool Kit (TETK), or the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE). Note the "or," meaning you may pick one, but you must pick one and show the alignment. If you have never worked with any of the three, that is the gap to close before writing.
Standards compliance. Ensuring compliance with evolving Department of Defense AI standards, such as those delineated in the DoD Responsible AI Strategy and Implementation Pathway.
The three critical gaps the tool must address
By addressing critical gaps in assessing AI robustness under dynamic and contested conditions, the effort aims to establish early-stage feasibility for an adaptive framework capable of identifying key performance indicators, assessing trustworthiness through explainability metrics, and ensuring compliance with evolving DoD AI standards.
The three named robustness gaps are real-time inference latency, adversarial resilience, and data drift detection. Those three recur in the Phase I research task, so treat them as your core metric set.
Phase I, and a note on the document's structure
The topic contains two Phase I descriptions and two Phase II descriptions, which do not fully align with each other. The first pair is written around the AI evaluation framework and sits under an Approach heading with explicit TRL targets. The second pair appears after a Conclusion paragraph and is written around flight test analysis workflows, hardware and software architectural design, Python-based extensibility, and Time Space Position Information processing accuracy.
The second pair reads as though it may have been carried in from a related but distinct topic, since a hardware architectural design and TSPI processing accuracy are not natural fits for a software AI evaluation framework. We have not resolved which governs, and neither have the instructions. The prudent approach is to write primarily to the first, more detailed pair, while addressing the elements of the second pair that are compatible: the analysis of current flight test analysis workflows to identify bottlenecks, constraints, and user requirements is genuinely useful, and modularity, security, and Python-based extensibility are reasonable architectural commitments. Ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period which description governs.
Here is what the primary Phase I description requires. Phase I is Feasibility and Concept Development, initial TRL 2, target TRL 4.
Research. Conduct an initial landscape analysis of AI performance metrics, methodologies, and tools with a focus on gaps and challenges specific to AFTC's mission space. Identify and assess algorithms for measuring real-time inference latency, adversarial resilience, and data drift specifically for different sensor models. This research must establish and utilize open-source or synthetically generated surrogate sensor datasets that are representative of AFTC flight test scenarios.
That surrogate data requirement is the most consequential sentence in the Phase I description. You will not be given real AFTC flight test sensor data. You must establish and use open-source or synthetic surrogate datasets that are representative of AFTC flight test scenarios, and the deliverables list names a Surrogate Data Strategy and Baselining as a possible component. Your proposal should name your datasets or your synthesis approach and argue their representativeness.
Framework Design. Develop a software architecture for an adaptable AI performance evaluation framework designed to address reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics. Awardees will need to base their design on widely accepted DoD digital engineering and telemetry standards. The architecture must explicitly define the assumed data ingestion pipelines for surrogate sensor data and detail the computational methods that will be used to calculate reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics.
Note two explicit requirements there: data ingestion pipelines defined, and computational methods for the metrics detailed. Not described in general terms, but defined and detailed.
Simulation. Perform initial simulation tests to explore early-stage integration of explainability metrics and KPI identification methodologies. This will consist of running dry-runs within a localized software sandbox. The objective of these tests is to demonstrate that the proposed mathematical models can successfully process these inputs, identify key performance indicators such as data drift, and output quantifiable explainability scores.
Deliverables. A feasibility report describing how the tool can practically operate within the AFTC environment, a detailed framework design document, and initial simulation results demonstrating concept validity. This could include Surrogate Data Strategy and Baselining, algorithmic and mathematical validation, architectural alignment and computational overhead, and Phase II scalability and transition pathway.
Computational overhead appears in that list, which is a useful signal. A framework that produces excellent metrics at prohibitive computational cost will not fit a test environment, and the Air Force is asking you to characterize the cost.
The secondary Phase I description adds: a comprehensive study of current flight test analysis workflows to identify specific bottlenecks, constraints, and user requirements; a detailed hardware and software architectural design emphasizing modularity, security, and Python-based extensibility; development and simulation of proof-of-concept algorithms for automated metric generation and data processing; and a final report summarizing findings, the complete system design, simulation results, and a detailed plan for Phase II prototype development.
Phase II
Phase II is Prototype Development and Validation, initial TRL 4, target TRL 6.
Prototype Development. Build a functional prototype of the performance evaluation tool with a secure Python-based backend and a user-friendly graphical user interface.
Integration. Test and integrate the tool with existing sensor and information systems in a controlled 412th Test Wing test environment to assess real-world performance.
AI Metrics Library. Develop an expandable library of explainability metrics aligned with DoD Trusted AI standards to support diverse mission applications.
Validation. Conduct comprehensive testing in operationally relevant scenarios to ensure reliability, scalability, and compliance with DoD standards.
Deliverables. A fully functional prototype, test reports validating system performance, and a roadmap for field-level deployment.
The secondary Phase II description adds performance validation against a set of metrics including Time Space Position Information processing accuracy, comparative analysis against legacy methods, integrity of automated report generation, and system security and resilience against simulated threat and victim scenarios, plus lab-based testing in a secure closed-loop environment and an end-to-end demonstration.
Upon completion of Phase II, the AI Performance Evaluation Tool is expected to reach TRL 6, with a clearly defined transition pathway toward operational implementation across the 412th Test Wing and other DoD components.
Phase III and the named transition partner
The 416th Test Squadron at Edwards Air Force Base, which specializes in F-16 flight testing and has a history of integrating advanced systems, will serve as the dedicated transition partner for this effort.
That is unusually specific for a Phase I topic and it is the most valuable line in the Phase III section. A named squadron with a stated history of integrating advanced systems is a transition pathway you can reference and build toward.
The commercialization strategy is described as multifaceted. Productization, refining the successful Phase II prototype into a robust, user-friendly, and cost-effective commercial product. User-centric feedback, conducting extensive operational testing with the 416th Test Squadron and other target users to gather feedback for iterative product improvements. Dual-use applications, where the primary customer is the Department of War but commercial aerospace, avionics testing, and other sectors requiring complex data analysis will be explored. And infrastructure and support, establishing comprehensive manufacturing, customer support, and training infrastructure to ensure a smooth transition from a prototype to a fully supported operational tool.
The reference list, which is a reading assignment
Eleven references, and they map the standards landscape you are expected to work within.
Department of Defense Responsible Artificial Intelligence Strategy and Implementation Pathway, at ai.mil. National Institute of Standards and Technology Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework, at nist.gov/ai-risk-management. Air Force Test Center Organizational Overview, at aftc.af.mil. John M. McQuade, et al., "Metrics for Trustworthy AI: Evaluating Reliability, Robustness, and Explainability in Defense Applications," DoD Artificial Intelligence Symposium, 2023. Executive Order 13960, Promoting the Use of Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in the Federal Government. Advanced Battle Management System Fact Sheet, U.S. Air Force. Defense Innovation Unit, "Trusted AI Framework: Operationalizing AI Ethics and Reliability," March 2022. Test and Evaluation Framework for Autonomy, presented at T&E Working Group, AFTC, 2022. "Explainable AI (XAI) Principles for DoD Applications," DARPA XAI Program Summary, 2021. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, "Key Performance Indicators for AI and Autonomy Testing," Report No. OUSD(A&S)-21-0045, 2023. And an April 15, 2026 AFTC news article, "From weeks to minutes: How AI is accelerating the flight test process."
Three observations. The McQuade paper title maps almost exactly onto the topic's three metric categories of reliability, robustness, and explainability, so it is likely the conceptual backbone. The OUSD KPI report on AI and autonomy testing is directly on point for the KPI identification requirement. And the April 2026 AFTC news article is recent and specific to this customer, which suggests the topic was written by people close to a live effort. Read it.
Funding Allowance and Cost Structure
Award ceiling
Up to $300,000 across up to 6 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 instructions add 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.
At $300,000 with a mandatory 30 percent minimum to your research institution partner, roughly $90,000 or more flows to the partner and your own share is at least $120,000. Six months of a small team plus an academic effort is enough for a rigorous landscape analysis, an architecture, a surrogate data strategy, and sandbox simulation, which is what the topic asks for. It is not enough for a working tool, and Phase I does not ask for one.
Contract type
The DAF primarily makes STTR 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.
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. The DAF will provide up to $6,500 per Phase I award, and this total is in addition to the per-topic total identified in the DSIP Volume 3 Cost Proposal.
Note that this STTR BAA document carries the full detailed TABA request requirements, unlike the DAF CSO Phase I documents which state the amount in a single sentence.
Awardees can only use TABA funding for the activities outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1) and the purposes outlined in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E). Eligible activities include access to a network of scientists and engineers engaged in a wide range of technologies, 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 available through online databases. Those activities can be undertaken in furtherance of making better technical decisions concerning such projects, solving technical problems which arise during the conduct of such projects, minimizing technical risks associated with such projects, developing and commercializing new commercial products and processes resulting from such projects including intellectual property protections, and screening for potential foreign involvement in technology development or commercialization activities.
On an STTR award with a required Allocation of Rights Agreement, intellectual property protections is the standout eligible activity.
Requests for TABA funding creditable to a TABA provider must include the following or will be subject to denial: the TABA providers; the providers' point of contact, email address, and phone number; an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications to provide the TABA service; the tasks that will be performed by the provider including the purpose and objective of the assistance, with the task milestone list tracking to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant; and total provider cost, number of hours, and labor rates, with average or blended rates acceptable.
If proposing TABA funding to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff to conduct or participate in training activities consistent with the purpose of TABA, the following must be included or may be subject to denial: names and positions, business need to be filled or training to be provided; number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate in training activities; qualifications of employees hired or augmented, or detailed need for training; tasks that will be performed including both a description of the activity and the purpose that it will serve; and total staff or training cost, number of hours, and labor rates.
A detailed request for TABA funding must be included in the Volume 5 Supporting Documents in DSIP. TABA requests that only specify a TABA request value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.
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. The DSIP Cost Volume and Itemized Cost Volume Information will not count against the specified page limit, and the itemized listing may also be submitted in Volume 5 under the "Other" dropdown option.
Direct cost materials. Justify costs for materials, parts, and supplies with an itemized list containing types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose.
Other direct costs. This category 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 resources for model training and simulation, and any licensing for AFSIM, TETK, or JSE access, plausibly sit here.
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 and design Phase I this is the dominant element.
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 a topic with a named customer at Edwards AFB, that trip has substantive value.
Subcontracts. Involvement of a consultant in the project's planning or research stages may be appropriate. If so, describe in detail and include information in the Cost Volume. A minimum of 40 percent of each STTR project must be conducted by the small business concern and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort performed by the single partnering research institution. Deviations from these performance of work requirements are not permitted. The STTR 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. Additionally, see the DoW STTR FY26 BAA for more information regarding the required Allocation of Rights Agreement.
Special tooling, special test equipment, and material. The 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, and should not be of a type that an offeror would otherwise possess in the normal course of business.
Consultants. Provide a separate agreement letter for each consultant, briefly stating what service or assistance will be provided, the number of hours required, and the hourly rate.
Where work must be performed
All R/R&D 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.
Personnel Disclosure
This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph. Your disclosure obligations still apply in full.
Identify in the Technical Volume all key personnel who will be involved in this project, including information on directly related education, experience, and citizenship. A technical resume of the principal investigator, including a list of publications if any, must be included, and only one principal investigator or project manager can be designated to a proposal at any given time. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants are also useful.
Identify all U.S. permanent residents to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. Identify all non-U.S. citizens expected to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants. For all non-U.S. citizens, in addition to technical resumes, provide countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing, and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement on this project, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested during negotiations in order to verify the foreign citizen's eligibility to participate on a contract issued as a result of this announcement.
Do not upload information such as Permanent Resident Cards, birth certificates, Social Security Numbers, or other personally identifiable information to the DSIP system. Provide the categories of information requested, not the underlying identity documents.
On an STTR award, this reaches your research institution partner's personnel. University AI and machine learning groups are internationally staffed, so request a complete roster with citizenship and visa status from your partner early. Note also that the foreign risk evaluation below treats foreign affiliation with a research institution in a country of concern as a mandatory award denial.
Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes
Formatting, and what does not count against the page limit
The Technical Volume should include all graphics and attachments but should not include the Cover Sheet, which is completed separately as Volume 1. Ensure that all graphics are distinguishable in black and white.
The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. Note this differs from the DAF Direct to Phase II instructions, which require 11-point.
The Phase I Technical Volume page and slide limits identified for the topics do not include the Cover Sheet, the Cost Volume, or the Cost Volume Itemized Listing. Only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments count toward the page limit. The documents required for upload into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the specified limits. In the interest of equity, pages or slides in excess of the stated limits will not be reviewed.
The limit for this topic is 20 pages or slides. Because it is expressed as pages or slides, a slide-format volume is acceptable.
Note that this document, unlike the STTR CSO Phase I instructions in the same release, does not require a government proposal template. You build the technical volume yourself, subject to the required elements below.
Fraud, Waste and Abuse training must be completed prior to proposal submission, and DSIP will indicate completion of the Volume 6 requirement once the training is complete and certified.
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.
Volume 2, Technical Volume
The Phase I technical volume shall contain the required elements below. These instructions supplement the FY26 STTR BAA, and in addition to the requirements found in the BAA, applicants are required to provide the following information in Volume 2.
Key personnel, as described above.
Phase I Statement of Work outline. The DAF uses the work plan outline as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. Therefore, do not include proprietary information in the work plan outline. To do so will necessitate a request for revision, if selected, and may delay award.
Include a work plan outline in the following format. Scope, listing the effort's major requirements and specifications. Task Outline, providing a brief outline of the work to be accomplished during the Phase I effort. Milestone Schedule. Deliverables. Progress reports. Final report with SF 298.
The SF 298 is the Report Documentation Page that accompanies a technical report. It is named in the required outline, so plan for it. Note also that the topic's secondary Phase I description makes the final report substantive: it must summarize findings, the complete system design, simulation results, and a detailed plan for Phase II prototype development.
Volume 3, Cost Volume
Covered above.
Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report
Completion of the CCR as Volume 4 of the proposal submission in DSIP is required. Refer to the FY26 STTR BAA for full details. Information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the Air Force during proposal evaluations.
Volume 5, Supporting Documents
Three documents may be required if applicable to your proposal. DD Form 2345, for proposals submitted under export-controlled topics. Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the FY26 STTR BAA. Technical Data Rights Assertions, if asserting data rights restrictions.
Technical Data Rights Assertions deserve attention on an STTR AI topic. Your existing models, evaluation code, and metric implementations are likely background intellectual property, and your research institution partner will have its own. The Allocation of Rights Agreement and these assertions together are how the boundaries get drawn.
The detailed TABA request, if requesting TABA, also goes in Volume 5. Documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count toward the page limit, and the Cost Volume Itemized Listing may also be submitted there.
Volume 6, 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.
Volume 7, Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries
Small business concerns must complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. The disclosures will not be accepted as a PDF Supporting Document in Volume 5, and previous versions of this form must not be uploaded to Volume 5. For additional details, refer to the STTR Program BAA.
How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated
The criteria live in the BAA
Proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 STTR BAA. 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.
This document does not reproduce the evaluation criteria, unlike the DAF CSO instructions which restate Criteria A, B, and C with their relative importance. Read the criteria in the FY26 STTR BAA before you begin writing, and do not assume the CSO criteria carry over.
Foreign risk evaluation
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 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: the 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 concern to an entity, including any affiliates of the entity, or individual on any of the following: 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; or 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 an award is denied on these grounds, 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 applies to denials under 15 U.S.C. 638(vv).
The mandatory denial for foreign affiliation with a research institution in a country of concern is a first-order diligence item on an STTR award with a required academic partner. Work through your partner's personnel affiliations and international collaborations before you propose.
Support contractors, status, feedback, and protests
Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors, which 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 AF Life Cycle Management Center and Space and Missiles Centers may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Contact the DAF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer with concerns regarding the use of support contractors.
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.
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 BAA Contracting Officer for proposal status before that time.
Refer to the FY26 STTR BAA for procedures to protest the Announcement. As further prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, protests after award should be submitted to Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer Daniel J. Brewer.
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.
How Phase II works
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. This decision will be based on the awardee's technical progress, as determined by a DAF Technical Point of Contact review using the Phase II review criteria.
Phase II is the demonstration of the technology found feasible in Phase I. 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. If the physical or email addresses or firm points of contact have changed since submission of the Phase I proposal, correct information shall be sent to the AF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk. 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.
The DAF reserves the right to modify the Phase II submission requirements, and should the requirements change, all Phase I awardees will be notified. The DAF also reserves the right to change any administrative procedures that will improve management of the DAF SBIR/STTR Program at any time.
Because the Phase II request can arrive while Phase I is still running and is based on demonstrated technical progress, producing real simulation results early rather than saving them for the final report is worth planning for on a six month award.
Timeline and What to Do When
The dates
Topic opens: September 23, 2026
Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time specified in the FY26 STTR BAA, 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 6 months from award
A working backward plan
Before September 23. Settle eligibility: if venture capital, hedge fund, or private equity funds hold majority ownership in part, you are excluded under this document, so resolve your status first. Contact your research institution partner's sponsored programs office and get their internal review timeline plus their formal budget with federally negotiated rates, and confirm the 40/30 split closes with no deviation available. Begin the Allocation of Rights Agreement conversation. Read the evaluation criteria in the FY26 STTR BAA. Work through the eleven references, especially the McQuade metrics paper, the OUSD KPI report, and the April 2026 AFTC article. Choose your simulation environment from AFSIM, TETK, or JSE and establish what access requires. Identify your surrogate sensor datasets, open-source or synthetic, and your representativeness argument. Ask the One Help Desk which of the two Phase I descriptions governs. Request a personnel roster with citizenship and visa status from your partner. Complete Volume 6 training and verify SAM and DSIP alignment.
September 23 through October 3. Draft the technical volume against the 20 page limit. Lead with the AFTC gap, then your framework architecture with data ingestion pipelines explicitly defined and computational methods for reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics detailed, then the surrogate data strategy, then the sandbox simulation plan. Address real-time inference latency, adversarial resilience, and data drift detection as your named metric set. Write the work plan outline separately with no proprietary content, since it becomes the Statement of Work.
October 4 through October 12. Build the cost volume and itemized listing, neither of which counts against the page limit. Verify the 40/30 split in the numbers. Get executed agreements with statements of work and detailed cost volumes for your partner and every consultant. Include the recommended trip to the Air Force location managing the contract. Write the detailed TABA request into Volume 5 if requesting TABA, and consider intellectual property protections as the activity.
October 13 through October 16. Assemble Volume 5 with Technical Data Rights Assertions, complete the Volume 7 webform, finish the Volume 4 CCR, and run compliance: 20 page limit, 10-point minimum type, one-inch margins, graphics distinguishable in black and white, no PII uploaded to DSIP, no proprietary content in the technical abstract or the work plan outline.
October 17 through October 19. Submit and certify in DSIP.
October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is DAF STTR topic DAF26TZ06-NV006?
DAF26TZ06-NV006 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Phase I topic titled "Artificial Intelligence Performance Evaluation Tool," released under the DAF 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. It seeks to design, develop, and demonstrate a tool that streamlines, standardizes, and enhances the evaluation of AI-enabled systems across various operational conditions, with a targeted application in sensor and information systems used in test and evaluation missions under the 412th Test Wing of the Air Force Test Center.
How much funding is available under DAF26TZ06-NV006?
Up to $300,000 for a period of performance up to 6 months. Proposals in excess of that amount or duration will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $6,500 in Technical and Business Assistance is available per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total.
When is the proposal deadline?
The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct offerors to the FY26 STTR BAA 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.
Are venture capital backed companies eligible?
No, under this document. The instructions state that firms owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are not eligible for Department of Air Force topics. This provision is not uniform across DAF Release 6: all three Commercial Solutions Opening documents permit such firms, while three of the four Broad Agency Announcement documents exclude them, the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions being the exception. The exclusion appears in the document governing this topic, so treat it as operative.
Do I need a research institution partner?
Yes. This is an STTR topic. For both Phase I and Phase II, a minimum of 40 percent of each STTR award must be conducted by the awardee and a minimum of 30 percent of the effort must be performed by the single partnering research institution.
Can I use more than one research institution?
You may partner with multiple entities that separately meet the definition of a research institution as indicated in the STTR BAA, but you may use only one partnering research institution to meet STTR eligibility requirements. Designate which one deliberately.
Can I get a waiver on the work split?
No. The instructions state that the DAF will not consider requests for deviations to these performance of work requirements, and the Subcontracts section states that deviations are not permitted. This differs from several other DAF Release 6 documents, which provide a deviation process.
How is the work percentage calculated?
The STTR funded work percentage calculation considers both direct and indirect costs after removal of the small business concern's proposed profit.
What is the Allocation of Rights Agreement?
A required agreement governing intellectual property between the small business and the research institution. The instructions direct you to the DoW STTR FY26 BAA for more information. Your partner's technology transfer office will need to negotiate it, so start early.
What must the tool be capable of evaluating?
AI-enabled sensor suites, with electro-optical and infrared, radar, and radio frequency systems given as examples. This is not a generic model evaluation framework; it must handle AI operating on sensor data.
Which simulation environments must I align with?
The tool must align with AFTC's primary simulation and digital engineering environments, specifically the Advanced Framework for Simulation, Integration, and Modeling (AFSIM), the Ansys Test and Evaluation Tool Kit (TETK), or the Joint Simulation Environment (JSE). You may choose one, but you must choose one and demonstrate the alignment.
What are the three critical robustness gaps?
Real-time inference latency, adversarial resilience, and data drift detection. Those recur in the Phase I research task, so treat them as your core metric set.
Will the Air Force give me flight test data?
No. The Phase I research task requires you to establish and utilize open-source or synthetically generated surrogate sensor datasets that are representative of AFTC flight test scenarios, and the deliverables list names a Surrogate Data Strategy and Baselining as a possible component. Name your datasets or synthesis approach and argue their representativeness.
What technology readiness levels apply?
Phase I is initial TRL 2 with a target of TRL 4. Phase II is initial TRL 4 with a target of TRL 6. Upon completion of Phase II the tool is expected to reach TRL 6 with a clearly defined transition pathway toward operational implementation across the 412th Test Wing and other DoD components.
What are the Phase I deliverables?
A feasibility report describing how the tool can practically operate within the AFTC environment, a detailed framework design document, and initial simulation results demonstrating concept validity. This could include Surrogate Data Strategy and Baselining, algorithmic and mathematical validation, architectural alignment and computational overhead, and Phase II scalability and transition pathway.
Why does the topic seem to describe Phase I twice?
The topic contains two Phase I descriptions and two Phase II descriptions that do not fully align. The first pair is written around the AI evaluation framework with explicit TRL targets. The second pair, appearing after a Conclusion paragraph, is written around flight test analysis workflows, hardware and software architectural design, Python-based extensibility, and Time Space Position Information processing accuracy, which reads as though it may have come from a related but distinct topic. Write primarily to the first, more detailed pair while addressing compatible elements of the second, and ask the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk which governs.
What does the architecture requirement specifically demand?
Develop a software architecture for an adaptable AI performance evaluation framework addressing reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics, based on widely accepted DoD digital engineering and telemetry standards. The architecture must explicitly define the assumed data ingestion pipelines for surrogate sensor data and detail the computational methods that will be used to calculate reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics. Note that both the pipelines and the computational methods must be defined and detailed, not described generally.
Who is the Phase III transition partner?
The 416th Test Squadron at Edwards Air Force Base, which specializes in F-16 flight testing and has a history of integrating advanced systems, will serve as the dedicated transition partner for this effort. That is an unusually specific transition pathway for a Phase I topic and worth referencing throughout your proposal.
How long can my technical volume be?
20 pages or slides, per the topic index. The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. The Cover Sheet, Cost Volume, and Cost Volume Itemized Listing do not count toward the limit; only the Technical Volume and any enclosures or attachments do. Documents uploaded into Volume 5 under "Other" do not count either.
Is there a required proposal template?
No. Unlike the DAF STTR CSO Phase I instructions in this same release, which require a government template, this BAA document does not. You build the technical volume yourself, subject to the required key personnel and work plan outline elements.
Is this topic export controlled?
This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph. Your general disclosure obligations still apply, including identifying all U.S. permanent residents and all non-U.S. citizens involved with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and anticipated level of involvement.
How will my proposal be evaluated?
This document does not restate the evaluation criteria. It says only that proposals will be evaluated for overall merit in accordance with the criteria discussed in the FY26 STTR BAA. Read those criteria before writing, and do not assume the Criteria A, B, and C structure from the DAF CSO instructions carries over.
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.
Why does the work plan outline matter so much?
Because the DAF uses it as the initial draft of the Phase I Statement of Work. The instructions direct you not to include proprietary information in it, warning that doing so will necessitate a request for revision if selected and may delay award.
What is TABA and how do I request it?
Up to $6,500 per Phase I award, in addition to the per-topic total, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal. This BAA document carries the full detailed request requirements: provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of unique qualifications, the tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, with the task milestone list tracking to your milestone payment schedule. The detailed request must be in Volume 5, and requests specifying only a value in Volume 3 will not be considered.
What references should I read?
Eleven are cited, and they map the standards landscape. The most directly useful are the McQuade et al. paper on metrics for trustworthy AI evaluating reliability, robustness, and explainability, which maps onto the topic's three metric categories; the OUSD report on Key Performance Indicators for AI and Autonomy Testing; the DoD Responsible AI Strategy and Implementation Pathway; the NIST AI Risk Management Framework; and an April 15, 2026 AFTC news article, "From weeks to minutes: How AI is accelerating the flight test process," which is recent and specific to this customer.
How do I get to Phase II?
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, and only one Phase II proposal may be submitted for each Phase I award.
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.
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. For technical questions about the topics during the pre-announcement and open period, reference the FY26 STTR BAA. 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 STTR BAA Address Change."
Positioning Advice for Companies Considering This Topic
Clear the two gates before anything else. Venture-backed majority ownership disqualifies you under this document, and the 40/30 STTR split is not waivable. Both are threshold questions, and the second one means your research institution partner has to be real and has to be doing at least 30 percent of the work.
Pick your simulation environment and prove you know it. AFSIM, TETK, or JSE. Alignment with one of the three is a stated requirement, and it is the fastest way to separate a proposal written by someone who understands AFTC from one written from the outside. If your team lacks that experience, your research institution partner may be where you get it.
Make the surrogate data strategy a centerpiece. You will not get real flight test data, and the topic requires representative open-source or synthetic surrogates. Naming specific datasets, describing your synthesis approach, and arguing representativeness against AFTC flight test scenarios is where a credible proposal distinguishes itself from a hand-wave.
Detail the computational methods, because the topic asks you to. The architecture must explicitly define data ingestion pipelines and detail the computational methods for reliability, robustness, and explainability metrics. Vague references to standard techniques will not satisfy that. Show the math.
Report computational overhead honestly. It appears in the deliverables list, and a framework that produces beautiful metrics at prohibitive cost is not deployable in a test environment. Characterizing overhead is a credibility signal.
Frame the value as unblocking AI fielding. The topic says these challenges prevent the Air Force from leveraging AI advancements at scale, impacting readiness and modernization goals. That is the argument: evaluation is the bottleneck, and your tool removes it. Fidelity, speed, and consistency of assessments are the three named improvement axes.
Use the named customer chain. The 412th Test Wing test environment, the Air Force Test Center, the 416th Test Squadron at Edwards as the dedicated transition partner, and ABMS alignment are all in the topic. Very few Phase I topics hand you a specific squadron. Build your transition narrative on it.
Take explainability seriously, not decoratively. The reference list includes DARPA XAI, the DIU Trusted AI Framework, and the McQuade metrics paper. The topic asks for quantifiable explainability scores from the sandbox simulation. That is a measurable output, not a discussion section.
Ask about the duplicated phase descriptions. The two Phase I and two Phase II descriptions in this topic do not align, and one pair mentions hardware architecture and TSPI accuracy that fit a different kind of effort. A quick Help Desk question in the first week could save you from writing to the wrong specification.
Start the Allocation of Rights Agreement now. It is required, your partner's technology transfer office has to be involved, and TABA can fund intellectual property support. On a six month award, an IP dispute discovered at contract negotiation is expensive.
