DAF27BZ02-DV024: Expeditionary 3D Concrete Printing

Part of the DoW SBIR/STTR FY27 Release 2 topic list. Browse all 83 topics by industry or service.

Topic DAF27BZ02-DV024 from the DoW SBIR 2027 BAA, Release 2. Pre-release now; proposals due January 6, 2027, 12:00 PM ET.

Quick answer

The Department of the Air Force wants a field-operable 3D concrete printing capability, with matching materials and blast-mitigating geometries, that Air Force civil engineers can use to build protective structures at contested airbases. This is a Direct-to-Phase II SBIR topic with no Phase I awards. Proposals are due January 6, 2027, 12:00 PM ET.

Book a Free Fit Call

Solicitation at a glance

• Topic number: DAF27BZ02-DV024
• Official title: Mobile Expeditionary 3D Concrete Printer (MX3DCP)
• Agency: Department of the Air Force
• Program: SBIR (DoW SBIR 2027 BAA, Release 2)
• Award type: Direct to Phase II (no Phase I awards)
• Award amount: Up to $3,000,000. Source: Department of the Air Force Release 2 instructions in DSIP.
• CMMC level: Level 2 (Self)
• ITAR: No
• Technology areas: Materials
• Pre-release (direct TPOC contact allowed): November 4 to December 2, 2026, 8:00 AM ET
• Opens in DSIP: December 2, 2026, 8:00 AM ET
• Proposals due: January 6, 2027, 12:00 PM ET
• Official source: DSIP Topics app (search DAF27BZ02-DV024)

BW&CO's take

What the Department of the Air Force wants

Expeditionary bases need protective structures faster than conventional construction delivers, and tents, trailers, and flat-walled buildings offer little protection against missiles, one-way drones, and fragmentation. The Air Force wants three things combined: printable cementitious materials (including AFCEC-developed mixes and local feedstocks), mobile printers and workflows that uniformed civil engineers can run, and printed geometries that reduce blast reflection and fragmentation exposure. Phase II covers material characterization, blast modeling, printed test articles, controlled blast and fragmentation testing, validated print parameters, draft operator procedures, and a transition package, targeting TRL 6 to 7 and MRL 5 to 6.

Who is a good fit

• Physical large-scale cementitious printing with documented print parameters, mix designs, and repeated results, not concepts or renderings.
• Mix formulation experience covering pumpability, extrudability, interlayer bond, curing, and alternative or locally sourced aggregates.
• Protective design or blast modeling capability, such as overpressure, fragment control, progressive collapse resistance, or occupant survivability.
• Prior printed curved, cellular, ribbed, or other non-rectilinear geometries, with the toolpath generation to produce them.

Watch-outs

• Direct-to-Phase II: the Air Force expects about TRL 5 at the start, shown by printed representative material, measured structural or material performance, and repeated prints with documented parameters.
• The process must work for uniformed civil engineers in heat, dust, and wind without persistent reliance on vendor technicians. A printer that needs a specialist team is a weak fit.
• Offerors propose their own structural, blast, and fragmentation testing approach. Prior full-scale blast testing is not required, but you must show related protective design or modeling work and a credible Phase II test plan.
• The topic lists CMMC Level 2 (Self). It is not marked ITAR.

Think your company fits DAF27BZ02-DV024? Talk with BW&CO before the January 6 deadline.

Plan Your DAF27BZ02-DV024 Submission

Official topic text (verbatim from DSIP)

The text in this section is copied word for word from the official DSIP topic as published on November 4, 2026. DSIP is the official source and topics can be amended. Always confirm the current version at dodsbirsttr.mil before you submit. Our commentary above is BW&CO's interpretation, not Government guidance.

Title

Mobile Expeditionary 3D Concrete Printer (MX3DCP)

Objective

Mature and validate expeditionary 3D concrete printing technologies, materials, and geometries so military personnel can rapidly construct combat-relevant, blast-resistant force-protection structures at contested airbases.

Description

Problem: The U.S. Air Force faces an urgent and growing gap in its ability to rapidly harden, repair, and reconstitute expeditionary airbase infrastructure during combat operations. Recent attacks against airbase infrastructure in the Middle East have reinforced a reality already evident in planning for the Indo-Pacific and other contested theaters: U.S. forces must be able to operate from bases that are vulnerable to missiles, rockets, artillery, one-way unmanned aircraft, and fragmentation-producing weapons. Current expeditionary infrastructure is often too slow to construct, too logistics-intensive to transport, or too lightly protected to provide meaningful survivability under modern attack conditions. Put bluntly, the Air Force has spent decades building exquisite kill chains while too often housing the Airmen who sustain them in tents, trailers, and flat-walled structures that were never designed for the threat environment now arriving overhead.

Opportunity: 3D concrete printing offers a potential step-change in expeditionary construction by enabling military engineers to rapidly print protective structures using automated or semi-automated construction workflows, reduced skilled labor, and locally available cementitious materials where feasible. Prior work has demonstrated that cementitious materials can be printed, that full-scale structures can be produced with mobile 3DCP systems, and that limited blast testing can be performed on printed wall assemblies. However, the existing state of the art has not yet fully addressed the combined problem that matters most for combat survivability: printable expeditionary materials, field-executable operator workflows, and structure geometry deliberately optimized to mitigate blast-wave behavior and fragmentation effects.

This Direct-to-Phase II effort will improve the current DoD technological state by integrating three related areas of technical development: advanced cementitious materials suitable for expeditionary printing; mobile, field-operable 3D concrete printing systems and workflows; and printable protective geometries designed to mitigate blast and fragmentation effects. First, the project will evaluate advanced cementitious materials, including Air Force Civil Engineer Center-developed materials and other candidate mixes, for printability, strength gain, curing behavior, environmental tolerance, pumpability, layer adhesion, and compatibility with native or in situ material sourcing. Second, the effort will develop and evaluate novel printable geometries that improve survivability beyond conventional flat-wall construction, including shapes intended to reduce blast reflection, limit pressure amplification, interrupt fragmentation paths, and improve internal occupant protection. Third, the project will validate these material and geometry combinations through representative printing, structural evaluation, and controlled blast/fragmentation testing.

The initial technology readiness level is estimated at TRL 5, with discrete material, printer, and structure demonstrations approaching TRL 6. The current manufacturing readiness level is estimated at MRL 4 to 5, because the underlying processes exist but require maturation for repeatable production in austere conditions by lightly trained military personnel. The target at the end of Phase II is TRL 6 to 7 and MRL 5 to 6, supported by relevant-environment demonstrations, printed test articles, validated print parameters, documented material performance, and blast-response data suitable for transition planning.

The required Phase II effort will include material screening and characterization; evaluation of locally sourced or partially substituted cementitious feedstocks; printability testing under relevant environmental conditions; development of candidate protective geometries; computational modeling of blast interaction and fragmentation exposure; printing of representative components and structure sections; controlled structural, blast, and fragmentation testing; operator workflow development; logistics and deployment analysis; and documentation of design rules, print parameters, safety considerations, and transition recommendations.

Minimum deliverables will include a material characterization report; a printability and expeditionary logistics assessment; a geometry design and modeling report; representative printed test articles; blast and fragmentation test results; validated print parameters for selected material/geometry combinations; operator-ready draft technical procedures; and a final transition package identifying recommended use cases, limitations, equipment requirements, training requirements, and follow-on test needs.

The desired outcome is a validated technical foundation for rapidly printed protective infrastructure that can be employed by Air Force civil engineers in expeditionary and combat environments. A successful effort will not replace all conventional construction, but it may give commanders a faster and more survivable option when the choice is currently between slow construction, vulnerable temporary shelters, or telling Airmen to make do with whatever was shipped before the shooting started.

Phase I

As this is a Direct-to-Phase-II (D2P2) topic, no Phase I awards will be made as a result of this topic. To qualify for this D2P2 topic, the Air Force expects applicant(s) to demonstrate feasibility by means of a prior “Phase I-type” effort that does not constitute work undertaken as part of a prior or ongoing SBIR/STTR funding agreement. Applicant(s) shall provide documentation demonstrating that the proposed technology has already achieved sufficient scientific and technical merit to proceed directly into applied Phase II development, integration, testing, and validation.

At a minimum, applicant(s) should provide evidence that they understand and have previously demonstrated the core technical elements required for expeditionary 3D concrete printing of protective infrastructure. This includes documented experience with large-scale additive construction; cementitious material formulation, mixing, pumping, and extrusion; layer-by-layer structural behavior; print path generation; printer set up, calibration, and operation; quality control; curing behavior; and construction of representative vertical or protective structures.

Feasibility documentation may include prior test reports, technical papers, government or commercial demonstration records, prototype performance data, photographs or video of printed structures, material characterization data, print logs, mix designs, structural calculations, equipment specifications, operator workflow documentation, environmental test data, and customer or government evaluation reports. Documentation should show that the applicant’s technology is not merely conceptual or architectural slideware in a hard hat, but has been demonstrated through physical printing, measured performance, and repeatable technical processes.

Applicant(s) should provide sufficient prior technical evidence, as applicable to the proposed approach, to substantiate feasibility in the following areas. These elements are not tasks to be completed as part of a new Phase I effort; rather, they identify the types of prior Phase I-equivalent work and evidence that may demonstrate that the proposed technology has advanced beyond basic feasibility and is ready to proceed directly into Phase II maturation, integration, testing, and validation:

1. Printing System Feasibility. Evidence that the proposed system, subsystem, or technology has successfully printed cementitious materials at a scale relevant to infrastructure construction. Documentation should describe printer architecture, build volume or repositioning approach, positioning accuracy, extrusion method, pump and hose configuration, power requirements, transportability, setup time, crew size, and environmental limitations.
2. Material Feasibility. Evidence that candidate cementitious materials can be mixed, pumped, extruded, layered, and cured with predictable performance. Documentation should include, as applicable, compressive strength, flexural strength, tensile or bond strength, interlayer adhesion, open time, set time, pumpability, extrudability, buildability, shrinkage, durability, and curing sensitivity. Applicant(s) should also describe prior experience with alternative aggregates, locally sourced materials, supplementary cementitious materials, admixtures, or other approaches that reduce logistics burden.
3. Structural Feasibility. Evidence that printed components or structures can achieve relevant structural performance. Documentation may include calculations, finite element analysis, load testing, wall stability data, reinforcement strategies, printed geometry performance, or comparison to applicable construction or force-protection criteria. Applicant(s) should identify known limitations of printed concrete construction and proposed methods to mitigate them.
4. Expeditionary Use Feasibility. Evidence that the technology can be adapted for use in austere or expeditionary environments. Documentation should address crew training, operator skill level, field setup, equipment transport, material sourcing, quality assurance, maintenance burden, environmental operating range, dust/heat/wind effects, power generation, water demand, and repairability. The Air Force is specifically interested in approaches that can be executed by uniformed civil engineer personnel without requiring a boutique team of PhDs, factory technicians, and a spiritually fragile printer that only works in perfect weather.
5. Blast and Force Protection Relevance. Evidence that the applicant understands blast loading, fragmentation hazards, structural response, and protective design considerations. Because comprehensive blast validation of 3D-printed geometries remains a major technical gap, prior full-scale blast testing is not required for D2P2 eligibility. However, applicant(s) should provide documentation of any related blast, impact, structural, or protective design work; relevant modeling capability; prior testing of protective systems; or experience designing structures for overpressure, fragment control, progressive collapse resistance, or occupant survivability.
6. Geometry and Design-to-Print Feasibility. Evidence that the applicant can generate printable designs beyond simple flat walls or demonstration objects. Documentation should show capability to translate protective geometry concepts into printable toolpaths, control layer geometry, manage openings and transitions, and evaluate constructability. Preferred documentation includes prior printed curved, cellular, ribbed, sacrificial, energy-dissipating, or non-rectilinear geometries.7. Measurement and Quality Control Feasibility. Evidence that the applicant can measure and control key process variables during printing. Documentation may include print speed, extrusion rate, bead dimensions, layer height, layer timing, material temperature, ambient conditions, slump/flow measurements, dimensional accuracy, destructive or nondestructive test data, and acceptance criteria used during prior demonstrations.

For purposes of D2P2 eligibility, the Air Force expects the proposed technology to be at approximately TRL 5 or higher at the start of the Phase II effort, with selected subsystems or prior demonstrations at TRL 6 where applicable. The applicant should demonstrate that the core concept has been validated in laboratory or relevant environments and that the proposed Phase II work is focused on maturing, integrating, and validating the capability rather than establishing basic feasibility.

The notional Phase I-type feasibility threshold is satisfied when an applicant can show that: cementitious material has been successfully printed in representative form; printed components have achieved measurable structural or material performance; the printing process has been repeated with documented parameters; the applicant understands how to adapt the process for expeditionary constraints; and the applicant has a technically credible approach for evaluating blast-mitigating geometry during Phase II.

Successful D2P2 applicant(s) should enter Phase II prepared to produce representative printed test articles, evaluate advanced materials, develop and print novel protective geometries, support structural and blast/fragmentation testing, and deliver validated technical data suitable for Air Force transition planning.

Phase II

Phase II will mature, integrate, and validate an expeditionary 3D concrete printing capability for force-protection infrastructure at contested airbases. The effort shall culminate in a well-defined deliverable prototype consisting of validated material formulations, printable protective geometries, representative printed test articles, blast and fragmentation performance data, and operator-ready technical procedures suitable for transition into Air Force civil engineering, Agile Combat Employment, airbase survivability, and base recovery use cases.

The desired outcome is not simply a printed concrete wall or a visually impressive demonstration structure. The desired outcome is a technically defensible, repeatable, and field-relevant construction capability that enables uniformed military engineers to rapidly print protective shelters, walls, revetments, equipment enclosures, personnel fighting positions, and other mission-support structures using expeditionary equipment and locally available or minimally transported cementitious materials where feasible.

The Government is interested in innovative technical approaches that advance the following Phase II objectives. These objectives describe areas of interest and desired outcomes rather than a prescribed statement of work. Offerors should propose the technical approach, methods, sequencing, materials, system architecture, analytical tools, testing strategy, and other activities they determine most appropriate to achieve the topic objective.

1. Advanced Material Evaluation. The Government is interested in approaches that identify and evaluate candidate cementitious materials suitable for expeditionary 3D concrete printing. Candidate approaches may consider AFCEC-developed or government-furnished materials where available, commercially available printable mixes, formulations incorporating native or in situ materials, or other technically credible material solutions proposed by the offeror. Relevant considerations may include pumpability, extrudability, open time, set time, layer stability, interlayer bond, curing sensitivity, compressive strength, flexural behavior, durability, environmental performance, logistics burden, and field usability.
2. Expeditionary Printability Demonstration. The desired outcome is evidence that the proposed printing approach can operate repeatably under conditions relevant to expeditionary use. Offerors should identify the field variables most significant to their proposed solution, which may include heat, dust, wind, water quality, aggregate variability, batch consistency, equipment setup time, crew size, power demand, maintenance burden, and operator skill level. The Government is particularly interested in approaches suitable for operation by uniformed personnel without persistent reliance on specialized vendor technicians.
3. Blast-Mitigating Geometry Development. The Government is interested in printable structural geometries or other design approaches intended to improve survivability compared with conventional flat-wall or rectangular expeditionary construction. Candidate concepts may include curved, angled, ribbed, cellular, buttressed, sacrificial, double-wall, voided, berm-integrated, energy-dissipating, or other configurations proposed by the offeror. Desired outcomes include measurable reduction of blast-wave reflection, pressure amplification, fragmentation exposure, structural failure risk, hazardous debris effects, or other relevant hazards to occupants or protected assets.
4. Modeling and Design-to-Print Workflow. The Government is interested in approaches that effectively connect structural design, blast-informed geometry selection, toolpath generation, constructability assessment, and field printing parameters. Offerors may propose computational modeling, simulation, physical experimentation, or other analytical methods appropriate to their solution. The desired outcome is a technically defensible design-to-print process that identifies relevant design rules, limitations, and acceptance criteria for printable force-protection structures.
5. Representative Prototype Construction. The Government is interested in physical demonstration of the proposed material, geometry, system, or integrated approach at a scale sufficient to substantiate its technical and operational potential. Representative test articles or prototype structures may demonstrate material and geometry combinations, openings or penetrations where applicable, constructable transitions, dimensional accuracy, repeatable print quality, or other characteristics relevant to the proposed solution. Potential use cases include personnel shelters, protective walls, equipment enclosures, entry-control protective features, aircraft support-area protection, or rapid base-recovery structures.
6. Structural, Blast, and Fragmentation Testing. The Government is interested in approaches that generate objective data sufficient to characterize the structural and protective performance of proposed printed materials, geometries, or integrated solutions. Offerors should propose testing and validation methods appropriate to their technical approach, which may include structural evaluation, blast or fragmentation-relevant testing against representative threats or scaled surrogates, modeling correlated with physical testing, or other technically defensible methods. Comparison against an appropriate baseline configuration is encouraged where it provides meaningful evidence of performance improvement. Relevant measures may include damage mechanisms, failure modes, displacement, cracking, spalling, fragmentation behavior, overpressure effects, and post-event usability.
7. Operator Workflow and Transition. The Government is interested in solutions capable of transitioning from specialized development or vendor-led demonstrations toward practical employment by Air Force civil engineer personnel in expeditionary environments. Relevant considerations may include operator procedures, quality control, training requirements, safety, material handling, field setup, troubleshooting, sustainment, maintenance, and other factors necessary to support repeatable field use. Offerors should propose the documentation, training, or transition products appropriate to their technical approach.

Offerors should propose Phase II deliverables appropriate to their unique technical approach and sufficient to substantiate the results of the effort. Depending upon the solution proposed, anticipated technical outputs may include:

Phase II success will be evaluated by the extent to which the proposed effort demonstrates repeatable printing performance; measurable structural and/or blast-relevant performance of the proposed protective solution; execution under relevant expeditionary constraints; and sufficient technical maturity and supporting data to provide the Air Force with a credible pathway to further operational testing, military utility assessment, and transition.

The target maturity at the completion of Phase II is TRL 6 to 7 and MRL 5 to 6. A successful Phase II will provide the Air Force with validated data, prototype structures, and operator-ready documentation needed to determine whether expeditionary 3D concrete printing can become a practical tool for protecting Airmen, aircraft support functions, critical equipment, and mission operations in contested environments.

Phase III Dual Use Applications

Following successful Phase II completion, Phase III will focus on transitioning validated expeditionary 3D concrete printing materials, blast-mitigating geometries, and operator-ready construction workflows into military and commercial applications using non-SBIR/STTR funding. The expected Phase III entry maturity is TRL 6 to 7, with selected materials, printed geometries, and construction workflows validated through relevant-environment printing, structural testing, and blast/fragmentation evaluation. Phase III will mature the capability toward TRL 8 to 9 through operational demonstrations, military utility assessments, field exercises, design standardization, training development, procurement planning, and integration into Service construction and force-protection programs.

A successful Phase III military effort would transition the capability from “we can print something interesting” to “a civil engineer unit can deploy, set up, print, inspect, and use protective infrastructure fast enough to matter.” That distinction is critical. The wartime value of this technology is not novelty; it is the ability to harden or reconstitute infrastructure within operational timelines when conventional construction, imported barriers, or temporary shelters are too slow, too heavy, or too vulnerable.

Potential government funding pathways may include operations and maintenance funding for demonstrations and exercises; procurement funding for deployable printer systems and support equipment; military construction or unspecified minor construction funding where appropriate; installation resilience funding; rapid capability or combatant command-sponsored transition funding; and Service or joint force protection modernization lines. Phase III may also support transition into pre-positioned equipment sets, theater engineering packages, base recovery kits, and contingency construction planning.

The dual-use commercial potential is substantial. The same material, geometry, and printability research needed to protect expeditionary airbases can be adapted to protect critical civilian infrastructure. A printable, locally adaptable construction method could provide faster and more affordable hardening options for infrastructure that is currently too expensive or too slow to protect using conventional construction.

Commercial transition partners may include critical infrastructure utilities, electric cooperatives, water and wastewater authorities, telecommunications providers, rail and port operators, airport authorities, emergency management agencies, state National Guard civil support organizations, industrial facility owners, insurance-driven resilience programs, and construction firms specializing in hardened or resilient infrastructure. The technology may also support humanitarian assistance and disaster response by enabling rapid construction of durable shelters, sanitation structures, retaining walls, and protective barriers in locations where supply chains are disrupted.

Phase III commercialization will likely require additional engineering approvals and code alignment, including development of structural design guidance, material quality-control standards, inspection criteria, environmental compliance processes, occupational safety procedures, and acceptance pathways under applicable building codes and infrastructure owner requirements. For military use, additional approvals may include explosive safety review, force-protection engineering validation, cybersecurity review for digitally controlled equipment where applicable, airworthiness or airfield operational compatibility review where structures are used near flightline operations, and environmental or host-nation review for deployed construction. Ultimately, the objective is a deployable and commercially scalable construction capability that helps protect Airmen at contested bases and civilians whose infrastructure is increasingly exposed to physical attack, extreme weather, and system-level disruption.

References

1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Automated Construction of Expeditionary Structures (https://www.erdcinnovation.org/technology/automated-construction-of-expeditionary-structures-aces/)

2. Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) & U.S. Army, 3D-Printed Barracks at Fort Bliss (UFC-aligned additive construction pilot) (https://www.diu.mil/latest/defense-innovation-unit-and-u-s-armys-installation-management-command-begin)

3. U.S. Army / DoD Additive Construction Program, Building in 3D (Additive Construction for Military Infrastructure) (https://asc.army.mil/web/building-in-3d/)

4. DoD Instruction 5000.93 Use of Additive Manufacturing in the DOD (https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_aq/publication/dodi5000.93_dafi63-149/dodi5000.93_dafi63-149.pdf)

Keywords

3D concrete printing, expeditionary construction, airbase survivability, blast mitigation, protective structures, additive construction, contested logistics, hardening, resilient basing, force protection, ACE operations, additive manufacturing

Frequently asked questions

What is DAF27BZ02-DV024?

The Mobile Expeditionary 3D Concrete Printer (MX3DCP) topic from the Department of the Air Force in the DoW SBIR 2027 BAA. It seeks to mature expeditionary 3D concrete printing materials, systems, and blast-resistant geometries for force protection at contested airbases.

When is DAF27BZ02-DV024 due?

Proposals are due January 6, 2027, 12:00 PM ET. DSIP pre-release began November 4, 2026, and direct contact with the topic authors (TPOCs) is allowed only until the topic opens on December 2, 2026, 8:00 AM ET.

Is DAF27BZ02-DV024 Phase I or Direct-to-Phase II?

Direct-to-Phase II. No Phase I awards will be made. Applicants must document prior Phase I-type work, outside any SBIR/STTR funding agreement, showing the technology has been physically printed and measured.

Do I need prior blast test data to qualify?

No. The topic states that prior full-scale blast testing is not required for D2P2 eligibility. Applicants should still document related blast, impact, structural, or protective design work, relevant modeling capability, or prior testing of protective systems.

Book a Free Fit Call