Part of the DoW SBIR/STTR FY27 Release 2 topic list. Browse all 83 topics by industry or service.
Topic MDA27BZ02-DV009 from the DoW SBIR 2027 BAA, Release 2. Pre-release now; proposals due January 6, 2027, 12:00 PM ET.
Quick answer
MDA27BZ02-DV009 is a Missile Defense Agency Direct-to-Phase II SBIR topic seeking Government-configurable software that represents human operator decisions in constructive missile defense test and evaluation simulations. Phase I-like proposals will be rejected. Proposals are due January 6, 2027, 12:00 PM ET.
Solicitation at a glance
- Topic number: MDA27BZ02-DV009
- Official title: Configurable Operator Decision Models for Constructive Test and Evaluation Simulations
- Agency: Missile Defense Agency
- Program: SBIR (DoW SBIR 2027 BAA, Release 2)
- Award type: Direct to Phase II (no Phase I awards)
- Award amount: Up to $2,000,000 (Direct to Phase II). Source: MDA Release 2 instructions in DSIP.
- CMMC level: Level 2 (Self)
- ITAR: Yes. Export-controlled (ITAR/EAR); see topic text
- Technology areas: Battlespace, Human Systems, Information Systems
- 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 MDA27BZ02-DV009)
BW&CO's take
What the Missile Defense Agency wants
MDA wants an analyst-facing prototype that represents human operator decisions in constructive missile defense test and evaluation simulations, replacing fixed scripts and simple timing rules. Analysts should be able to configure behavior by experience level, workload, decision latency, rules of engagement, mission priority, and information availability, run repeatable scenario ensembles, and capture decision traces and outcome metrics. It must integrate with Government-owned or Government-approved simulation environments and produce explainable outputs, uncertainty statements, and validation evidence for VV&A. Phase II includes mid-period and final demonstrations and delivery of software, documentation, test reports, data rights assertions, and a Phase III transition plan.
Who is a good fit
- Human behavior representation or intelligent agent models for military simulation, using AI/ML, reinforcement learning, rules-based, or hybrid methods
- Integration with constructive simulation environments through open, modular interfaces
- Design of experiments and Monte Carlo ensemble tooling with decision logging and data provenance
- VV&A, responsible AI, and explainability practice for Government models
Watch-outs
- This is Direct-to-Phase II only. Phase I-like proposals are rejected as nonresponsive, and your feasibility documentation must show proof of concept in a relevant environment and/or TRL 5 or higher, from work substantially performed by your company or PI.
- The Government says it is not seeking a vendor white paper, a visualization-only training game, or a single hard-coded operator model.
- The threshold is a prototype at relevant-environment maturity with integration, documentation, and test evidence. Deliverables are extensive: software or executable package, interface documentation, user guidance, test plan and report, validation evidence, cybersecurity notes, data rights assertions, and a transition plan.
- The topic is marked ITAR-restricted, so export-control rules apply, and it lists CMMC Level 2 (Self).
Think your company fits MDA27BZ02-DV009? Talk with BW&CO before the January 6 deadline.
Plan Your MDA27BZ02-DV009 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
Configurable Operator Decision Models for Constructive Test and Evaluation Simulations
Objective
Develop and demonstrate a government-configurable software capability that improves the representation, tuning, execution, and validation of human operator decision effects in constructive test and evaluation simulations. The capability shall enable Government analysts to instantiate credible operator behavior models across selectable conditions such as experience level, workload, decision latency, engagement posture, rules of engagement, mission priority, and information availability; execute repeatable scenario ensembles; capture decision traces and outcome metrics; and integrate with Government-owned or Government-approved constructive simulation environments used for missile defense test planning, mission engineering, wargaming, and analysis.
The desired outcome is an analyst-facing prototype that makes operator-dependent effects measurable, repeatable, explainable, and suitable for verification, validation, and accreditation (VV&A) consideration without requiring extensive scenario-specific software development.
Description
Government problem: Missile defense test and evaluation rely on constructive simulations to examine large numbers of scenarios, explore operational concepts, evaluate system-of-systems interactions, and reduce risk before live flight events. These simulations can represent physical platforms, sensors, weapons, communications, terrain, and threat laydowns, but operator decision effects are often represented by fixed scripts, simplified timing rules, or manually coded behaviors. This can cause analysis results to overstate or understate operational performance because human choices influence detection, classification, engagement, prioritization, communication, and response timing across the kill chain.
Capability gap: The Government lacks a reusable and validated way to generate, configure, execute, and assess operator decision representations across many scenario variations and proficiency levels. Current approaches can require extensive custom programming for each model, scenario, or operator role; may not provide traceable rationale for actions taken during simulation; and may be difficult to compare across test events, analysis teams, or simulation environments. The gap affects the Government’s ability to understand sensitivity to operator behavior, evaluate alternate tactics, and support VV&A with documented evidence of intended use, assumptions, limitations, data pedigree, and risk.
Why innovative solutions are likely available: The Government believes innovative small businesses can apply advances from artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled simulation, human behavior representation, synthetic data generation, reinforcement learning, design of experiments, digital engineering, development, security, and operations, and modular simulation integration to address this problem. Related industry capabilities already demonstrate AI-assisted constructive simulation, synthetic data generation, intelligent agents, and integration of commercial simulation toolchains with Government simulation environments. This topic seeks to mature those types of innovations into a Government-purpose capability suitable for missile defense test and evaluation workflows.
Government interest: The Government is not seeking a vendor white paper, a visualization-only training game, or a single hard-coded operator model. The Government is seeking a Direct-to-Phase-II prototype capability that can be adapted to multiple missile defense analysis contexts; that can use Government-provided scenarios, models, data, and subject matter expert (SME) input; that can be evaluated against explicit measures of performance and effectiveness; and that can produce artifacts needed for future transition, reuse, and accreditation.
Desired characteristics:
- Open, modular interfaces for integration with constructive simulations and analysis workflows.
- Configurable operator roles and behavior profiles that can be reviewed and adjusted by authorized Government analysts or SMEs.
- Support for scenario ensembles, design of experiments, and repeatable Monte Carlo-style analysis.
- Decision traceability, data provenance, uncertainty characterization, and explainable outputs suitable for analyst review.
Responsible AI, cyber, data-management, and VV&A considerations incorporated from the beginning of Phase II.
Phase I
Phase I-like proposals will not be evaluated and will be rejected as nonresponsive. For this topic, the Government expects the small business would have accomplished the following in a Phase I-like effort via some other means, e.g., independent research and development (IRAD) or other source, a concept for a workable prototype or design to address, at a minimum, the basic capabilities of the stated objective above. Proposal must show, as appropriate, a demonstrated technical feasibility or nascent capability. The documentation provided must substantiate the proposer’s development of a preliminary understanding of the technology to be applied in their Phase II proposal in meeting topic objectives.
Documentation should comprise all relevant information including, but not limited to, technical reports, test data, prototype designs/models, and performance goals/results. Feasibility = maturity and what have you already done/validated.
Proposers interested in participating in Direct to Phase II must include in their responses to this topic Phase I feasibility documentation that substantiates the scientific and technical merit and Phase I feasibility described in Phase I above has been met.
(i.e., the small business must have performed a proof of concept like “Phase I” component and/or other validation in a relevant environment, and/or at a much higher Technology Readiness Level (TRL) level (5 or higher) and describe the potential commercialization applications. The documentation provided must validate that the proposer has completed development of technology in previous work or research completed.)
IRAD work: Documentation should include the most relevant information including, but not limited to: technical reports, test data, prototype designs/models, and/or performance goals/results. Work submitted within the feasibility documentation must have been substantially performed by the proposer and/or the principal investigator (PI).
Phase II
The Phase II effort shall mature, integrate, demonstrate, and document a prototype capability suitable for Government evaluation within missile defense constructive modeling, simulation, test, and evaluation workflows. The Government seeks an innovative capability that improves the representation of operator decision effects in constructive simulations, enables repeatable analysis across scenario variations, and provides evidence needed to assess credibility, limitations, and transition potential.
Offerors shall propose their own technical approach, architecture, tools, algorithms, data strategy, and integration methods. The proposed solution shall address the following Key Technical Objectives:
Key Technical Objective 1: Establish a Government-relevant use case and evaluation baseline.
The contractor shall coordinate with Government stakeholders to define at least one representative missile defense constructive simulation use case. The baseline shall include the intended use, operator roles or decision functions to be represented, data assumptions, measures of performance, measures of effectiveness, credibility considerations, and transition constraints. The use case shall be scoped to support meaningful prototype demonstration within the Phase II period.
Key Technical Objective 2: Develop a modular prototype capability for representing operator decision effects.
The contractor shall develop a prototype capability that can receive relevant simulation state information, represent operator-relevant decisions or actions, return those decisions or actions to a simulation or analysis workflow, and record the information needed for Government review. The prototype shall include well-defined interfaces, configuration controls, and logging sufficient to support repeatable analysis, technical assessment, and future integration into Government modeling and simulation environments.
Key Technical Objective 3: Provide configurable and analyzable operator behavior representations.
The contractor shall demonstrate a method for representing operator decision behavior across Government-defined conditions, such as experience level, risk posture, workload, degraded information, rules of engagement, mission priorities, or other operationally relevant factors. The capability shall allow Government users, analysts, or subject matter experts to adjust key assumptions without requiring major software redevelopment for each new scenario. The approach may use AI/ML, statistical learning, reinforcement learning, rules-based methods, hybrid methods, SME-informed models, or other innovative techniques proposed by the offeror.
Key Technical Objective 4: Enable repeatable scenario analysis, validation, and explainability.
The contractor shall provide a workflow to execute and assess repeated simulation runs across Government-defined scenario variables and operator-behavior assumptions. The prototype shall generate outputs that allow the Government to compare decision behavior, mission outcomes, and sensitivity to operator assumptions. The contractor shall provide analyst-readable decision traces, uncertainty and limitation statements, validation evidence, and documentation that supports responsible AI use, VV&A considerations, and reduction of unreviewed automation bias.
Key Technical Objective 5: Demonstrate transition-ready prototype performance and documentation.
The contractor shall conduct a mid-period technical demonstration and a final demonstration in a representative constructive simulation or analysis workflow. The final demonstration shall show configurable operator-behavior representation, repeatable scenario execution, decision/output logging, outcome analysis, and evidence generation suitable for Government evaluation. The contractor shall deliver the prototype software or executable evaluation package, architecture/interface documentation, user guidance, test plan, test report, validation evidence, cybersecurity/deployment notes, data rights assertions, and a Phase III transition plan identifying Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and non-MDA transition opportunities.
Threshold expectation: The contractor shall demonstrate a prototype capability at a relevant-environment maturity level appropriate for Direct-to-Phase-II evaluation, with sufficient integration, documentation, and test evidence for Government users to assess technical performance, credibility, limitations, cybersecurity posture, and transition risk.
Objective expectation: The contractor shall demonstrate a modular, reusable capability that can be adapted to additional constructive simulation environments, operator decision functions, missile defense mission areas, and other Government or commercial modeling and simulation applications with limited new software development.
Phase III Dual Use Applications
Scale up the capability from the Phase II prototype into a mature, fieldable capability for Government modeling, simulation, test, evaluation, mission engineering, wargaming, training, and analysis workflows. Work with MDA, other Department of War organizations, Intelligence Community users, and commercial partners to integrate the technology into system-level testbeds, constructive simulation environments, and analyst workflows.
References
DoD Instruction 5000.61, DoD Modeling and Simulation Verification, Validation, and Accreditation, September 17, 2024.
OUSD(R&E), Digital Engineering, Modeling and Simulation.
DoD Responsible Artificial Intelligence Strategy and Implementation Pathway, June 2022.
Defense Systems Information Analysis Center, Advanced Framework for Simulation, Integration, and Modeling (AFSIM), October 4, 2023.
DARPA, A New Take on Modeling & Simulation for Improved Autonomy, October 17, 2023.
Applied Intuition Defense, AFWERX Autonomy Prime Selects Applied Intuition Defense to Integrate Simulation Tools With AFSIM, May 6, 2024.
Keywords
Modeling and Simulation; Constructive Simulation; Test and Evaluation; Missile Defense; Operator Decision Modeling; Human Behavior Representation; Artificial Intelligence; Machine Learning; Reinforcement Learning; Data Driven Decision Aids
Frequently asked questions
What is MDA27BZ02-DV009?
It is a Missile Defense Agency SBIR topic for a Government-configurable capability that represents, tunes, runs, and validates human operator decision effects in constructive simulations used for missile defense test and evaluation.
When is MDA27BZ02-DV009 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 is allowed only until the topic opens on December 2, 2026, 8:00 AM ET.
Is this a Phase I or Direct-to-Phase II topic?
It is Direct-to-Phase II. Phase I-like proposals will be rejected as nonresponsive, so you must include feasibility documentation, such as technical reports, test data, and prototype designs, showing Phase I-equivalent work substantially performed by your company or PI.
Which modeling methods are acceptable?
Offerors propose their own approach. The topic allows AI/ML, statistical learning, reinforcement learning, rules-based methods, hybrid methods, SME-informed models, or other innovative techniques, as long as Government users can adjust key assumptions without major software redevelopment for each scenario.