DAF STTR DAF26TZ06-NV007: Automated Combat Assessment at the Edge
Quick Answer
DAF26TZ06-NV007 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Phase I topic under the DAF 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is a single sentence: develop a real time automated combat assessment at the edge system. The problem it solves is a timeline problem. Today, battle damage assessment arrives hours after mission execution as an after-action report built from multiple imagery collects, assembled through a sequence of independent manual tasks. The Air Force states plainly that this does not meet timeline requirements for prosecuting advanced enemy threat systems, because critical missions require battle damage assessment immediately post-strike to inform re-strike planning. 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 gates come first. 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 as an STTR topic it requires a research institution partner performing a minimum of 30 percent of the effort, with the small business conducting a minimum of 40 percent, and the DAF states it will not consider deviation requests.
Topic At a Glance
Topic number: DAF26TZ06-NV007
Title: Automated Combat Assessment at the Edge
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
Named standards: CJCSI 3162.02 for damage classification, Intelligence Community Directive ICD 302 for confidence intervals
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: combat assessment, physical damage, functional damage, machine learning, edge processing, testing, 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.
Because this provision is not uniform across the DAF Release 6 component instructions, here is where it actually stands 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.
Every Commercial Solutions Opening document permits venture-backed firms. Three of the four Broad Agency Announcement documents exclude them, the SBIR BAA Phase I instructions being the exception. The DAF has not explained the variation. What matters 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 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, and no deviations
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 the same figures and adds that 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. The instructions also point to the DoW STTR FY26 BAA for information regarding the required Allocation of Rights Agreement.
On a $300,000 award, that means at least roughly $90,000 flowing to your research institution partner and at least roughly $120,000 staying with you. There is no deviation process available here, unlike several other DAF Release 6 documents, so the split has to work as designed.
This document is also the clearest statement of the STTR work requirement anywhere in the DAF Release 6 instructions. The STTR CSO Phase I document states a two-thirds in-house floor and the STTR BAA Direct to Phase II document states 50 percent plus a two-thirds figure labeled Phase I, neither of which matches the statutory STTR structure. If you are working a topic governed by one of those, this document is useful evidence of what the requirement actually is, and the discrepancy is worth a Help Desk question.
What the Air Force Is Actually Looking For
The timeline problem
Combat assessment, both physical and functional, provides tactically relevant information for re-strike and re-planning.
The state of practice for traditional targeting involves generating after-action reports including battle damage assessment hours after mission execution, relying on multiple imagery collects, specifically electro-optical. This analysis is performed as a sequence of independent tasks that are outdated, time consuming, and lack automation.
Then the consequence, stated bluntly. This does not meet timeline requirements for prosecution of advanced enemy threat systems, as critical missions require battle damage assessment immediately post-strike, to inform planning for re-strike and to drive potential changes to operations.
So the deliverable value is measured in time. Hours to minutes, or minutes to seconds, depending on the phase of the problem you attack. Your proposal should quantify the timeline improvement you expect, because that is the currency this topic trades in.
The three named barriers
Despite advancements in technology, challenges still remain for speeding processes.
The time-consuming and often incomplete nature of traditional damage assessment methods.
Limitations in remote sensing technologies, hindering data collection especially in remote or difficult-to-access areas.
The lack of real time pre- and post-event satellite imagery for model training.
That third barrier is worth pausing on, because it is a data problem rather than an algorithm problem, and it shapes what a six month Phase I can honestly claim. If real time pre- and post-event satellite imagery is not available for training, your proposal needs a credible answer about what you will train on. The topic's own invitation to propose novel or under-utilized data modalities is partly a response to this constraint.
The three operational realities the system must follow
The topic seeks the development of a system for the automation of damage assessment following three operational realities. Treat these as the three pillars of your technical approach.
Edge Processing Software. Software programs and data-sharing instructions designed to run directly on physical field equipment such as sensors and unmanned aerial vehicles. This covers multi-sensor, multi-modal data collection and processing, damage classification and assessment at the edge in near real time, and information sharing protocols, all under low size, weight, and power and contested environment constraints.
Note the compound constraint: multi-sensor and multi-modal, at the edge, in near real time, under low SWaP, in contested environments. Each of those individually is manageable. Together they are the hard part, and a proposal that addresses only the classification accuracy question has answered the easy third of the problem.
AI and ML Software Model Development. AI and ML software designed to automatically classify military damage. For damage classification, both physical and functional, aligned to CJCSI 3162.02 for DoD customers. Confidence intervals aligned to Intelligence Community Directive ICD 302. And performance metrics for accuracy, computation time, and sensors density and location.
Three specifics there. CJCSI 3162.02 is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction on combat assessment methodology, and aligning your damage classification taxonomy to it is a stated requirement rather than a suggestion. ICD 302 governs confidence expression, which means your model outputs need calibrated, doctrinally expressed confidence rather than raw scores. And the three performance metrics are accuracy, computation time, and sensor density and location, which together mean the Air Force wants to know not just how well you classify but how fast and with how much sensing.
A note on the references. The topic body cites ICD 302 for confidence intervals, while the reference list cites ICD 203, the Analytic Standards Technical Amendment. ICD 203 is the directive most commonly associated with analytic confidence and probabilistic language standards. We cannot resolve which the author intended, so read both and address analytic confidence standards explicitly, and consider asking the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period.
Robust Testing and Evaluation. To ensure the operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the aforementioned technologies, testing and evaluation would be conducted in a phased approach. Beginning with laboratory-based testing to verify basic functionality and performance, followed by increasingly complex testing in simulated and field environments. The goal is to ensure that the technologies developed for combat assessment are operationally effective, suitable, and can be confidently deployed in operationally relevant environments.
Operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability are formal test and evaluation terms. Their presence signals that the Air Force expects a real T&E plan, phased from laboratory through simulated to field, not an ad hoc validation approach.
Phase I
Phase I will focus on the analysis and design of an automated combat assessment at the edge system for re-strike, described as a particularly targeted asset, and re-attack recommendations, with preliminary laboratory model testing.
Awardees must demonstrate an innovative approach to physical and functional combat assessment, and novel or under-utilized data modalities.
The final report must detail feasibility study findings and a Phase II plan.
Four things to draw out. Phase I is analysis and design plus preliminary laboratory model testing, not a working system. The scope is re-strike and re-attack recommendations, which is narrower than combat assessment in general and gives you a bounded use case. Physical and functional assessment are both required, and they are genuinely different problems: physical damage is what the structure looks like, functional damage is whether the target can still do its job. And novel or under-utilized data modalities is an explicit requirement, which pairs with the stated barrier around imagery availability.
That last requirement is the clearest differentiation opportunity in the topic. The state of practice relies on electro-optical imagery. If your approach brings synthetic aperture radar, radio frequency signatures, acoustic sensing, infrared, multispectral, passive collection, or fused combinations, that is responsive to a stated requirement rather than a nice extra.
Phase II
Develop, implement, test, evaluate, and demonstrate a distributed automated damage assessment system at the edge that follows the criteria in the Description and Phase I sections of this proposal. The final report must detail all criteria implementations and a Phase III plan.
Phase II performance will focus on the development, integration, and operational evaluation of a functional prototype software system for distributed, edge-based automated combat assessment. Awardees will transition Phase I designs into working software models running on representative edge hardware, culminating in a demonstration within a simulated or operationally relevant environment.
Required deliverables may include three items. Functional prototype software and compiled AI and ML model weights. Comprehensive system architecture and interface control documentation. And a Phase II final report detailing test results, performance metrics, criteria implementations, and a commercialization and transition plan for Phase III production and deployment.
Note that compiled model weights are named as a deliverable. That has intellectual property implications worth thinking through in Phase I, particularly on an STTR award where a research institution partner may contribute to model development and where the Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights for 20 years in what is developed under the contract.
Note also the words distributed and representative edge hardware. Phase II runs on real edge devices, not a workstation, and it is distributed rather than centralized. Your Phase I architecture should be designed for that from the start.
Phase III
The awardee will identify and pursue commercial applications, including urban surveillance, disaster and humanitarian response, and other use cases.
That is a short Phase III section but the two named applications are genuinely adjacent. Disaster and humanitarian response in particular is a strong dual-use fit: rapid automated damage assessment from multi-modal sensing at the edge is exactly what post-earthquake, post-hurricane, and post-flood assessment requires, and the customer set includes FEMA, international relief organizations, insurers, and infrastructure operators. Build the commercialization case there rather than straining for something more exotic.
The references
Three are cited, and all three are worth obtaining before you write.
"Analytic Standards, Intelligence Community Directive 203 Technical Amendment," Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2023, available at dni.gov.
"Methodology for Combat Assessment," United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2021, which is CJCSI 3162.02A, available at jcs.mil.
Broad Agency Announcement title: Targeting Operations and Analytics Development, BAA FA8750-25-S-7002, available at sam.gov.
The third reference is the most interesting and the least obvious. FA8750 is the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate contracting office prefix, and a live BAA on Targeting Operations and Analytics Development tells you there is an existing AFRL program area in this space. Reading that BAA tells you who the government is already working with and what language the program office uses. That is competitive intelligence available for free.
CJCSI 3162.02 is not optional reading. Your damage classification taxonomy must align to it, and the terms physical damage assessment, functional damage assessment, and target system assessment come from that doctrine.
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.
With the mandatory 30 percent minimum to your research institution partner, roughly $90,000 or more leaves your firm. Six months of a small team plus an academic effort supports analysis, architecture, and preliminary laboratory model testing, which is what Phase I asks for. It does not support building a distributed edge system, and Phase I does not ask you to.
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.
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.
Given that compiled model weights are a Phase II deliverable and an Allocation of Rights Agreement with your research institution partner is required, intellectual property protections is the most directly useful eligible activity here.
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. On this topic, representative edge compute hardware for laboratory model testing belongs here.
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. Commercial satellite or aerial imagery purchases, and compute resources for model training, plausibly sit here and may be significant given the data barrier the topic names.
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.
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.
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. That said, targeting and combat assessment is sensitive subject matter, and your disclosure obligations 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, and computer vision and machine learning groups are among the most internationally staffed in engineering. Request a complete roster with citizenship and visa status from your partner early. Note also that foreign affiliation with a research institution in a country of concern is a mandatory award denial under the foreign risk provisions below.
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, which matters here since you will want to show imagery examples, classification outputs, and architecture diagrams.
The Technical Volume must be no smaller than 10-point on standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper with one-inch margins. 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, and 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.
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. On a targeting-adjacent topic, be deliberate about abstract content.
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 that on this topic the final report is a substantive deliverable: it must detail feasibility study findings and a Phase II plan.
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 matter here more than on most topics, because compiled AI and ML model weights are a named Phase II deliverable and because an STTR structure puts a research institution's contributions in the same codebase as yours. Pre-existing models, training pipelines, and architectures are background intellectual property, and this is the mechanism for saying so.
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.
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).
Two items deserve extra attention on this topic. Employee analysis and foreign affiliations, because computer vision research is globally distributed and academic appointments abroad are common. And the eight denial lists, because edge compute hardware sourcing can touch them.
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.
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.
Because the Phase II request can arrive while Phase I is still running and is based on demonstrated technical progress, getting preliminary laboratory model testing results early rather than at the end of the six months is worth planning for.
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: venture-backed majority ownership excludes you under this document. Contact your research institution partner's sponsored programs office, get their internal timeline and 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. Obtain and read CJCSI 3162.02 on combat assessment methodology, ICD 203 on analytic standards, and the AFRL Targeting Operations and Analytics Development BAA FA8750-25-S-7002 on sam.gov. Settle your novel or under-utilized data modality and your training data answer, given the topic's stated barrier around real time pre- and post-event imagery. Select representative edge hardware for laboratory testing. 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. Structure it around the three operational realities: edge processing software under low SWaP in contested environments, AI and ML model development aligned to CJCSI 3162.02 with ICD-compliant confidence expression and the three named performance metrics, and a phased test and evaluation plan from laboratory through simulated to field. Make the timeline improvement quantitative. 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. Itemize edge hardware, imagery purchases, and compute with quotes. 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.
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-NV007?
DAF26TZ06-NV007 is a Department of the Air Force STTR Phase I topic titled "Automated Combat Assessment at the Edge," released under the DAF 2026 STTR Broad Agency Announcement, Release 6. The objective is to develop a real time automated combat assessment at the edge system, replacing a current practice in which battle damage assessment arrives hours after mission execution.
How much funding is available under DAF26TZ06-NV007?
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. The 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. 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. On a $300,000 award that means roughly $90,000 or more to your partner.
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 deviations are not permitted.
What is the problem this topic solves?
A timeline problem. The state of practice generates after-action reports including battle damage assessment hours after mission execution, relying on multiple electro-optical imagery collects, performed as a sequence of independent tasks that are outdated, time consuming, and lack automation. The Air Force states this does not meet timeline requirements for prosecution of advanced enemy threat systems, because critical missions require battle damage assessment immediately post-strike to inform re-strike planning and drive potential changes to operations.
What are the three named barriers?
The time-consuming and often incomplete nature of traditional damage assessment methods; limitations in remote sensing technologies hindering data collection especially in remote or difficult-to-access areas; and the lack of real time pre- and post-event satellite imagery for model training.
What are the three operational realities the system must follow?
Edge Processing Software, meaning software and data-sharing instructions running directly on field equipment such as sensors and UAVs, covering multi-sensor multi-modal data collection and processing, damage classification and assessment at the edge in near real time, and information sharing protocols, all under low SWaP and contested environment constraints. AI and ML Software Model Development, meaning software that automatically classifies military damage, physical and functional, aligned to CJCSI 3162.02, with confidence intervals aligned to Intelligence Community Directive ICD 302, and performance metrics for accuracy, computation time, and sensors density and location. And Robust Testing and Evaluation in a phased approach from laboratory-based testing through increasingly complex simulated and field environments.
What standards must my damage classification align to?
CJCSI 3162.02, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction on methodology for combat assessment, for damage classification covering both physical and functional damage. Read it before writing, since the terminology comes from that doctrine.
Is it ICD 302 or ICD 203 for confidence intervals?
The topic body cites ICD 302 for confidence intervals, while the reference list cites ICD 203, the Analytic Standards Technical Amendment. ICD 203 is the directive most commonly associated with analytic confidence and probabilistic language standards. We cannot resolve which the author intended, so read both, address analytic confidence standards explicitly, and consider asking the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk during the open period.
What performance metrics does the topic name?
Accuracy, computation time, and sensors density and location. Note that two of the three are not about classification quality: the Air Force wants to know how fast your model runs and how much sensing it needs, which are edge deployment questions.
What does Phase I deliver?
Analysis and design of an automated combat assessment at the edge system for re-strike and re-attack recommendations, with preliminary laboratory model testing. Awardees must demonstrate an innovative approach to physical and functional combat assessment, and novel or under-utilized data modalities. The final report must detail feasibility study findings and a Phase II plan.
What counts as a novel or under-utilized data modality?
The topic does not define it, but the state of practice it describes relies on electro-optical imagery. Synthetic aperture radar, radio frequency signatures, acoustic sensing, infrared, multispectral, passive collection, and fused combinations are all plausible answers. This is an explicit requirement, so name your modality and explain why it is under-utilized and what it adds.
What is the difference between physical and functional damage assessment?
Physical damage assessment concerns the observable structural effect on the target. Functional damage assessment concerns whether the target can still perform its mission. Both are required by this topic, and they are genuinely different inference problems. CJCSI 3162.02 defines the terms.
What happens in Phase II?
Develop, implement, test, evaluate, and demonstrate a distributed automated damage assessment system at the edge following the criteria in the Description and Phase I sections. Awardees transition Phase I designs into working software models running on representative edge hardware, culminating in a demonstration within a simulated or operationally relevant environment. Required deliverables may include functional prototype software and compiled AI and ML model weights, comprehensive system architecture and interface control documentation, and a Phase II final report detailing test results, performance metrics, criteria implementations, and a commercialization and transition plan for Phase III.
Compiled model weights are a deliverable. What are the IP implications?
Significant, and worth planning in Phase I. The Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights in data developed or generated under the contract for 20 years, and on an STTR award your research institution partner may contribute to model development. Use Technical Data Rights Assertions in Volume 5 to identify pre-existing models, training pipelines, and architectures as background intellectual property, and settle the Allocation of Rights Agreement with your partner early.
What are the commercial applications?
The topic names urban surveillance and disaster and humanitarian response, plus other use cases. Disaster response is the strongest dual-use fit, since rapid automated damage assessment from multi-modal sensing at the edge is exactly what post-earthquake, post-hurricane, and post-flood assessment requires, with customers including emergency management agencies, relief organizations, insurers, and infrastructure operators.
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, this BAA document does not require a government template.
Is this topic export controlled?
This topic does not carry a topic-level ITAR and EAR restriction paragraph. That said, targeting and combat assessment is sensitive subject matter, and your disclosure obligations apply in full, 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.
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.
What references should I read?
Three are cited and all three are worth obtaining. ICD 203 Analytic Standards Technical Amendment, ODNI, 2023. "Methodology for Combat Assessment," Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2021, which is CJCSI 3162.02A. And BAA FA8750-25-S-7002, Targeting Operations and Analytics Development, on sam.gov. That third reference is the least obvious and the most useful competitively: FA8750 is the AFRL Information Directorate contracting prefix, and reading that BAA shows you the existing program area and the language the program office uses.
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. The detailed request must be in Volume 5 with 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. Requests specifying only a value in Volume 3 will not be considered. Given the model weights deliverable and the required Allocation of Rights Agreement, intellectual property protections is the most useful eligible activity.
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 first. Venture-backed majority ownership excludes you under this document, and the 40/30 STTR split is not waivable. Your research institution partner has to do at least 30 percent of the work, so pick one whose contribution is real.
Make the timeline claim quantitative. The entire premise is that hours is too slow. State what your approach delivers and when: seconds, minutes, or the first actionable assessment within a stated window. A proposal that describes better classification without addressing latency has missed the point of the topic.
Read CJCSI 3162.02 and use its vocabulary. Physical damage assessment, functional damage assessment, and target system assessment are doctrinal terms with specific meanings. Aligning your classification taxonomy to that instruction is a stated requirement, and getting the language right signals you understand the customer's process rather than just the computer vision problem.
Answer the confidence expression requirement properly. Whether the governing directive is ICD 302 or ICD 203, the point is that model outputs must carry calibrated, doctrinally expressed confidence rather than raw softmax scores. Analysts and targeteers work in probabilistic language standards, and a model that cannot express uncertainty in their terms is not usable in their workflow.
Take the compound edge constraint seriously. Multi-sensor, multi-modal, near real time, low SWaP, contested environment. Any one of those is tractable. Together they force real architecture decisions about what runs on the sensor, what runs on the platform, what gets transmitted, and what happens when the link degrades. Show those decisions.
Bring a real answer on training data. The topic names the lack of real time pre- and post-event satellite imagery as a barrier. Synthetic data generation, transfer learning from civil damage datasets, few-shot approaches, physics-based simulation, or commercial imagery partnerships are all plausible. Silence on this looks like you have not thought about it.
Use the novel modality requirement to differentiate. It is an explicit Phase I requirement and most competitors will default to electro-optical imagery with better models. If you bring synthetic aperture radar, radio frequency, acoustic, or fused multi-modal sensing, lead with it.
Write a real test and evaluation plan. Operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability are formal terms, and the topic specifies a phased approach from laboratory through simulated to field. A credible phased plan with entry and exit criteria per stage distinguishes a serious proposal.
Read the AFRL Targeting Operations and Analytics BAA. FA8750-25-S-7002 is cited in the references and it is on sam.gov. It tells you the existing program area, the office behind it, and the terminology in use. Very few SBIR topics hand you a live related BAA to study.
Plan the intellectual property boundary now. Compiled model weights as a deliverable, 20 year Government data rights, and a research institution co-developing the models is a combination that needs a plan before award, not after. The Allocation of Rights Agreement is required, and TABA can fund IP support.
Build the commercial case on disaster response. Urban surveillance and disaster and humanitarian response are the two named applications, and the second is a genuinely large market with the same technical shape: rapid, automated, multi-modal damage assessment at the edge where connectivity is poor.
