DAF SBIR DAF26BX06-DV513: Autonomous On Orbit Logistics and Sustainment Architecture

Quick Answer

DAF26BX06-DV513 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic under the DAF 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. The Space Force wants prototype-ready technologies that enable a complete on-orbit logistics enterprise: autonomous resupply, refueling, repair, recovery, and reconstitution of United States space assets across Low Earth Orbit, Medium Earth Orbit, Geosynchronous Orbit, and cislunar space. The stated goal is a logistics architecture that mirrors the resilience and flexibility of terrestrial sustainment systems while adapting to the unique constraints of orbital mechanics. Awards are up to $1,000,000 for up to 12 months, with a 15 page technical volume limit. The topic opens September 23, 2026 and closes October 21, 2026 through the Defense SBIR/STTR Innovation Portal.

This is the smallest award, the shortest period of performance, and the tightest page limit in the release, which tells you something about how to scope a proposal. A twelve month, one million dollar effort is not going to build a servicing vehicle. It is going to prototype one clearly bounded piece of the logistics enterprise and demonstrate it. The topic accommodates that by offering six focus areas and requiring you to address at least one, plus two alternative architectural framings you may choose between. Precision of scope is the whole game here.

Topic At a Glance

Topic number: DAF26BX06-DV513

Title: Autonomous On Orbit Logistics and Sustainment Architecture

Solicitation: Department of the Air Force 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO), Release 6, Direct to Phase II

Program type: Direct to Phase II (D2P2), no Phase I awards will be made for this topic

Award maximum value: $1,000,000, the smallest in this release

Award maximum duration: 12 months, the shortest in this release

Technical volume page limit: 15 pages or slides, the tightest in this release

Component Technology Priority Area: Sustainment and Logistics

Projected CMMC level requirement: Level 2 (Self)

Export control status: Restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774

Orbital regimes in scope: Low Earth Orbit, Medium Earth Orbit, Geosynchronous Orbit, and cislunar space

Focus areas: six, and D2P2 proposals must address at least one

Architectural frameworks offered: two, Systems of Systems or Logistics Function, and you must identify which you are using

Named sponsor reference: Space Access PAE is identified as seeking prototype-ready propellant technologies

Topic open date: September 23, 2026

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time stated in the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO

Selection timeline: within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027

Submission portal: DSIP at dodsbirsttr.mil

Keywords: on-orbit sustainment, space logistics, orbital refueling, propellant transfer, in-space servicing, rendezvous and proximity operations, sustained maneuver, space mobility, depot architecture, spacecraft resilience, cislunar logistics, SDP 4-0

Note on the deadline time. The DAF instructions direct applicants to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO for the submission deadline date and time. DoW SBIR CSO deadlines are ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern on the close date. Confirm on the live DSIP posting rather than assuming end of day.

What the Space Force Is Actually Trying to Change

The problem with how satellites are built today

Space systems today are designed for single use and lack the ability to be maintained, repaired, or resupplied once deployed. The Space Force is direct about the consequences: this design philosophy limits maneuverability, reduces resilience, and forces operators to conserve resources.

That last consequence is the operational one. A satellite with finite propellant and no prospect of resupply is a satellite whose operators ration maneuver. If maneuver warfare is emerging in the space domain, as the topic asserts, then rationing maneuver is a losing posture.

What the Space Force says it requires is a logistics backbone that provides freedom of action, operational reach, and prolonged endurance, supporting rapid reconstitution, autonomous servicing, multi orbit distribution, and predictive sustainment.

What the topic is asking for

The On Orbit Space Logistics Challenge seeks mature technologies that can transition directly into prototype development. These technologies must support a future in which satellites are serviced, refueled, repaired, repositioned, and recovered as part of routine operations.

The D2P2 effort will focus on autonomous operations, multi orbit integration, servicing demonstrations, depot interactions, and logistics health monitoring. The performer must demonstrate how their technology contributes to a resilient logistics architecture capable of supporting sustained operations in contested environments.

The topic encourages solutions that integrate with broader Space Force concepts such as sustained space maneuver, dynamic space operations, and contested logistics. The performer must show how their technology supports mission continuity, reduces reconstitution burden, and enhances the survivability of critical space assets.

Those three outcomes, mission continuity, reduced reconstitution burden, and enhanced survivability, are the value statement the Space Force wants you to make. Whatever you propose, tie it back to at least one of them explicitly.

The Two Architectural Frameworks: Pick One and Say Which

This is an unusual and helpful structural feature of the topic. Offerors may structure their approach using one of two acceptable architectural frameworks. Both are valid for early exploration and concept development, and both support the broader goal of building a resilient on orbit logistics enterprise. Offerors should select the approach that best aligns with their proposed technology, their integration pathway, and the operational problem they intend to solve.

Critically, the topic states that the proposer must clearly identify which approach they are using and explain why it is appropriate for their concept. That is a compliance requirement, not a suggestion. Name your framework early in the proposal.

Systems of Systems approach

A Systems of Systems approach views the on orbit logistics enterprise as a collection of interconnected subsystems that work together to deliver sustained combat power. This perspective recognizes that no single technology can solve the logistics challenge alone. Instead, multiple systems must interact across orbital regimes, mission timelines, and operational conditions.

Under this approach, the proposer describes how their technology fits within a larger architecture that includes depots, warehouses, orbital transfer vehicles, servicing vehicles, drop ships, and health monitoring systems. The feasibility study should explain how the proposed system interacts with other systems, how it contributes to distribution loops, and how it supports the overall sustainment mission.

This approach is well suited to technologies that enable integration, coordination, or interoperability across multiple nodes. It encourages proposers to think about interfaces, standards, autonomy, and mission sequencing, and supports early identification of dependencies, constraints, and opportunities for modularity. It is particularly useful for technologies that enable routing, servicing, depot operations, or multi orbit logistics planning.

Logistics Function approach

A Logistics Function approach focuses on the specific logistics activity that the proposed technology enables. Instead of describing the entire architecture, the proposer concentrates on the function their system performs. Examples given include refueling, repair, recovery, resupply, warehousing, and health monitoring.

Under this approach, the feasibility study explains how the proposed technology improves the performance of a particular logistics function. The proposer describes the operational need, the current limitations, and the functional improvements their solution provides.

This approach is well suited to technologies that perform a discrete logistics task, such as propellant transfer, component replacement, autonomous inspection, or orbital resupply. It encourages proposers to think about efficiency, reliability, throughput, and mission impact, and supports early demonstration of measurable improvements in sustainment operations.

Choosing between them

The topic's own guidance: a Systems of Systems approach is appropriate when the technology interacts with multiple nodes or contributes to enterprise level coordination. A Logistics Function approach is appropriate when the technology performs a specific task that can be evaluated independently.

For a twelve month, one million dollar effort, the Logistics Function approach will fit most applicants better, because it lets you scope a bounded, demonstrable improvement and measure it. The Systems of Systems approach suits companies whose product is fundamentally about interfaces, standards, routing, or coordination, where the value only appears in the interactions.

The Six Phase II Focus Areas

The On Orbit Logistics Challenge includes several technical focus areas, and D2P2 proposals must address at least one. Expanded descriptions are provided in the topic to guide prototype development and ensure alignment with Space Force needs.

Propellant Management

Propellant management is described as essential to sustained maneuver, servicing, and logistics operations in space. A resilient on-orbit logistics enterprise requires the ability to store, transfer, meter, monitor, and manage propellant across multiple orbital regimes. Relevant propellant classes may include cryogenic propellants, storable chemical propellants, electric propulsion propellants, pressurants, and emerging multi-mode propulsion consumables.

The topic names Space Access PAE as seeking prototype-ready technologies that improve the availability, transferability, storability, quality assurance, and operational utility of propellant within an on-orbit logistics architecture. Proposed solutions should demonstrate how they support safe, reliable, and precise autonomous fueling operations and how they integrate with depots, orbital transfer vehicles, servicing systems, and client spacecraft.

D2P2 prototypes should demonstrate one or more of the following: autonomous propellant transfer methods, standardized or interoperable refueling interfaces, depot integration, propellant distribution operations, propellant quality monitoring, or technologies that improve the military utility and affordability of on-orbit refueling and maneuver sustainment.

Desired capabilities include autonomous propellant transfer and refueling operations; propellant quality monitoring, conditioning, and conversion; quick-connect, standardized, or interoperable mechanical and fluid interfaces; precision metering and custody tracking during storage and transfer; zero-gravity transfer, docking, grappling, and fluid handling; foreign object debris inspection, contamination control, and quality assurance; compatibility with depot operations, orbital transfer vehicles, and client spacecraft; and secondary utility such as cargo rideshare or optical inspection where relevant.

Enabling technologies named include pressurant recycling and management; propellant storage and sustainment technologies including boil-off mitigation; servicer and depot refueling interfaces; size-appropriate zero-gravity transfer systems; multi-mode propellant and propulsion support systems; in-space propellant extraction, processing, or conversion; sensors and diagnostics for propellant condition monitoring; and autonomous control systems for fueling safety, sequencing, and anomaly response.

Proposals in this focus area should clearly address four things as appropriate. Supply chain and sourcing: describe the relevant propellant supply chain, including industrial availability, production sources, expected throughput, and any dependence on terrestrial or in-space sources, addressing where applicable the potential role of in-situ resource utilization including extraction or processing from lunar, asteroid, or other space-based resources. Transfer and storage: describe how the propellant will be stored, transferred, and sustained over time, including expected storage duration, boil-off or loss characteristics where applicable, zero-boil-off or loss-mitigation approaches if relevant, and the method by which the solution supports interoperability across multiple systems or platforms, identifying whether you use existing interfaces, are designed to conform to emerging government or industry standards, or require a new interface approach. Metering, quality control, and custody: describe how the system meters propellant and maintains propellant quality during storage, transfer, and delivery, including approaches for contamination control, foreign object debris mitigation, quality monitoring, and assurance of propellant condition while under your custody, and explain how propellant is received from an upstream source, managed during transport or storage, and delivered to the next node in the logistics chain such as a depot, distribution vehicle, or end-user spacecraft. Value chain role and integration: identify the specific portion of the in-space propellant value chain being addressed, which may include production, extraction, transportation, storage, quality management, metering, distribution, or propulsion-system support for mobility restoration or reuse, and describe the broader military-relevant system or architecture to which the proposed intellectual property or capability contributes, such as reusable launch systems, reusable orbital transfer vehicles, depots, distribution fleets, or propulsion maintenance support systems. Economics and military utility: describe how the technology improves the cost, availability, responsiveness, or operational effectiveness of propellant delivery and use in space, which may include reduction in delivered cost per kilogram, improved availability at key orbital nodes such as GEO, increased maneuver endurance, greater operational reach, improved flexibility, or enhanced ability of space assets to generate mission effects.

Orbital Transfer Vehicles

Orbital Transfer Vehicles are described as the workhorses of the logistics enterprise. They move supplies, tow damaged satellites, reposition assets, and deliver benchstock. An OTV must be capable of multi stop routing, autonomous navigation, and precision maneuvering, must operate across multiple orbital regimes, and must support both planned and reactive logistics operations.

D2P2 prototypes must demonstrate modular chassis designs, autonomous navigation, precision propulsion control, and multi stop routing. The prototype must show how the OTV supports distribution loops and interacts with depots and satellites. The performer must demonstrate how the OTV maintains safety during autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations.

Desired capabilities include refuelability, reusability, inter and intra-domain mobility, interfacing with multiple systems including depots, clients, and launch vehicles, ability to handle and grapple supplies, long-duration mission survivability including radiation, spacecraft anomaly diagnosis, high delta-V performance, and standardized storage and containerization.

Enabling technologies named include reconfigurability and interoperability with specific mechanical, refueling, or electrical interfaces; autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking with on-orbit navigation and prioritization; different OTV classes or tiers by thrust and fuel type; modularity for component upgrades; radiation-hardened compute; encryption and security; cryogenics and boil-off management; fuel-on-orbit capability; containerization as a terrestrial analogy; foreign object debris mitigation and verification; center of gravity management and stability control for coupled loads; specific impulse efficiency improvements; multi-mode propulsion; and robotic manipulation.

Network Mechanics

Network Mechanics encompasses the integrated system of interfaces, connectors, docking systems, and the underlying orbital dynamics and operational standards that enable logistics systems to interact reliably and efficiently across the space domain. A robust logistics enterprise requires not only common physical interfaces for vehicles to dock, depots to exchange materials, and servicing systems to manipulate payloads, but also sophisticated orbital planning, navigation, and coordination mechanisms to manage the movement and interaction of these assets.

D2P2 prototypes must demonstrate standardized connectors, docking operations, autonomous rendezvous safety protocols, and interface modularity. Crucially, prototypes must also show how they leverage advanced orbital mechanics principles for efficient trajectory optimization, collision avoidance, and synchronized operations within a dynamic network of space assets. The prototype must show how the technology improves interoperability and reduces complexity across the logistics enterprise, while ensuring safe and fuel-efficient orbital maneuvers. The performer must demonstrate how the system supports modularity and reduces the number of unique form factors in orbit, integrated with intelligent orbital management.

Desired capabilities include logistics management, power beaming, or robotics supported by analytical tools for variables like client count and propellant needed; debris detection; training missions or war-gaming; hybrid propulsion coordination across the network, or the ability to troubleshoot anomalies; RPOD or cargo handling including space tugs and recycle center refurbishment; servicing frequency, routing, and autonomy that adapt to changing demand and reduce latency in high-demand areas; asset protection, security, and access control; autonomous orbital trajectory optimization for multi-asset coordination and fuel efficiency; real-time collision avoidance and dynamic re-routing for networked assets; precise orbital synchronization and station-keeping for distributed logistics nodes; and multi-body orbital mechanics solutions for cislunar and beyond-GEO operations.

Enabling technologies named include refueling interfaces or power beaming; functional network nodes or a control plane; novel propulsion integration for network coordination; AI-leveraged decision support or ontology development; sensors for troubleshooting or debris detection; advanced astrodynamics modeling and simulation for complex orbital scenarios; autonomous navigation and guidance algorithms for precise orbital maneuvers; distributed computing architectures for real-time orbital state estimation and prediction; Space Domain Awareness integration for enhanced orbital safety and operational planning; inter-satellite communication networks for synchronized orbital operations; and optimization algorithms for minimizing delta-V and transit times across the logistics network.

Orbital Warehousing

Warehouses and depots serve as storage and distribution nodes. They must hold propellant, spare parts, tools, consumables, and modular components. They must support autonomous material handling, inventory management, and asset visibility. They must operate in multiple orbital regimes and support both routine and emergency operations.

D2P2 prototypes must demonstrate depot construction concepts, inventory management systems, autonomous material handling, and environmental control. The prototype must show how depots support OTV operations, maintain asset visibility, and reduce logistics complexity, with no reliance on a unique interface for supply delivery, free-flying containers for diverse assets, and data on commercial capabilities. The performer must demonstrate how the depot maintains reliability and throughput during autonomous operations.

Desired capabilities include more autonomy, modularization, and system resilience; sizeable warehouses with self-healing support systems; ability to deliver parts across different orbits, with an economy and in-house operations that scale; warehouse resupply processes; secure, tamper-resistant tracking such as blockchain; super heavy lift or in-space assembly; and versatile, adaptable infrastructure supporting mission integration and intermodal transportation.

Enabling technologies named include space pallets and standards for space operations and interfaces; power beaming; visibility of inventory and speed of delivery; retractability and rapid, repeatable rendezvous and proximity operations; employing and testing new technology in the domain including autonomous robotic manipulation; no reliance on a unique interface for supply delivery; free-flying containers for diverse assets; and data on commercial capabilities.

Reuse, Repair, Refuel, and Recovery

This focus area addresses modular component replacement, robotic repair, autonomous triage, and towing of damaged satellites. Servicing vehicles must be able to diagnose faults, perform repairs, and support operational tempo. Recovery operations must support both planned maintenance and emergency response.

D2P2 prototypes must demonstrate how servicing vehicles diagnose faults, perform repairs, and support operational tempo. The prototype must show how repair operations reduce reconstitution burden and increase endurance. The performer must demonstrate how the system maintains precision and reliability during autonomous repair operations.

Desired capabilities include line- and orbital-replaceable units that are mindful of mass and are non-life-limiting components; serviceable systems and capabilities; adaptable software and distributed compute; ground digital twin and autonomy; all satellites prepared for servicing; in-space assembly and maintenance; and precision robotic manipulation.

Enabling technologies named include standard fluid, docking, power, data, and thermal interfaces; power, propulsion, and payload components such as valves and tanks; optical communications, gimbal-less, or robo-taxis with edge compute; gauges, metering, and active sensing such as LiDAR; fault-tolerant autonomous RPO; multi-degree-of-freedom robotic arms and servicing depots, with a second set of eyes software for Space Domain Awareness and RPO.

Logistics Health Monitoring

Health monitoring provides predictive insight for sustainment. Satellites must report their health status, depots must track inventory, and OTVs must monitor their systems. A logistics enterprise requires digital twins, autonomous anomaly detection, and fleet level dashboards that provide real time visibility.

D2P2 prototypes must demonstrate sensors, edge computing, digital twins, anomaly detection, and fleet level dashboards. The prototype must show how health data informs logistics planning and supports autonomous decision making. The performer must demonstrate how the system maintains accuracy and reliability during health monitoring operations.

Desired capabilities include environmentally controlled warehousing and hosting; rapid autonomous decision support including predictive tools for long-term planning and fault onset; communication and data sharing from stored goods with onboard health monitoring; balancing or cross-distribution of supplies; robotic manipulation and inspection; modular reconstitution and cross-domain autonomy; and decision-making systems that account for commercial versus government ownership with clear delegation of authority across ground, space, or hybrid systems.

Enabling technologies named include novel materials for monitorable components; advanced analytics, AI, and digital twin technology for health monitoring; data fusion across sensor data, maintenance logs, and digital twins with serialized pedigree and historical tracking; data norms and standardization for interoperability; docking and capture mechanisms that do not require high precision, or ejection seat designs for modular self-monitoring components; decentralized or cross-vendor data sharing and servicing modularity; and user interfaces for human or autonomous decision-making supported by advanced modeling and simulation.

Which focus area fits you

Of the six, Logistics Health Monitoring and Network Mechanics are the most software-accessible, and are plausible for a twelve month, one million dollar effort by a company whose product is analytics, digital twins, autonomy software, or astrodynamics tooling. Propellant Management is the most explicitly sponsored, with Space Access PAE named, and also the most demanding in terms of the questions the topic asks you to answer. Orbital Transfer Vehicles, Orbital Warehousing, and Reuse, Repair, Refuel, and Recovery are hardware-heavy and require you to scope a single demonstrable subsystem rather than a vehicle.

Given the award size, the realistic play in the hardware focus areas is a component, an interface, a mechanism, or a subsystem demonstration, not a spacecraft.

The Feasibility Requirement, Spelled Out in Six Parts

Direct to Phase II means you must document that you already completed the Phase I equivalent work outside the SBIR program. The DAF disqualifies proposals where the Phase I equivalency documentation does not establish the proposed technical approach's feasibility and technical merit, and applies that screen before evaluating technical merit.

This topic is the most explicit in the release about what that documentation must contain. It states that the performer must demonstrate that Phase I equivalent work has already been completed, including feasibility studies, stakeholder engagement, technical validation, and early integration planning, and that the Phase II effort will build upon this foundation to produce a prototype that demonstrates operational relevance, autonomous capability, and a clear pathway to transition into Space Force sustainment operations.

Then it lists six required elements under Phase I Equivalent Work Requirements. Offerors must provide documentation demonstrating completion of Phase I equivalent work, and that documentation must be thorough, detailed, and clearly aligned with Space Force operational needs. Use these six as literal section headings in your Volume 5 feasibility package.

Stakeholder engagement. The performer must show that they have engaged with Space Force operators, program offices, mission owners, or acquisition stakeholders. This engagement must demonstrate that the proposed technology addresses a real operational need and has a clear customer within the U.S. Space Force.

Feasibility study. The feasibility study must demonstrate technical merit, operational relevance, and mission fit. It must show that the proposed technology can operate in the space environment, integrate with existing systems, and support logistics operations across multiple orbital regimes. The study must include analysis of technical risks, operational constraints, and integration challenges.

Integration pathway. The performer must describe how the technology will integrate into Space Force logistics operations. This includes interfaces, standards, autonomy requirements, mission sequencing, and coordination with other logistics systems. The integration pathway must show how the technology contributes to a broader sustainment architecture.

Regulatory considerations. The performer must identify regulatory considerations such as ITAR, EAR, licensing, and safety requirements. The documentation must show how the performer plans to comply with these regulations during Phase II and Phase III.

Commercial dual use potential. The performer must demonstrate how the technology can be used by commercial customers such as GEO operators, satellite manufacturers, or insurance providers. This dual use potential supports long term sustainability and transition.

Phase II prototype plan. The performer must provide a clear and actionable plan for Phase II prototype development. This plan must include technical milestones, integration activities, testing requirements, and demonstration objectives.

Note that only two of those six are about technology. Four are about customers, integration, regulation, and commercial demand. That is the real bar. A company with excellent hardware and no documented Space Force stakeholder engagement does not meet this requirement, and the four week open period is not enough time to manufacture it.

The general D2P2 rules

The feasibility work must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.

Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work. This authority exists for companies that matured technology outside the SBIR pipeline.

If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property rights, provide IP rights assertions, plus a short summary for each item asserted with less than unlimited rights describing the nature of the restriction and the intellectual property intended for use in the proposed research.

Feasibility documentation can be included as part of Volume 5 and is required of all proposal submissions.

Phase III

Phase III will transition the technology to operational use. Expected activities include TRL maturation to operational readiness, commercial adoption across GEO, LEO, and cislunar markets, government approvals and certifications, integration with the Space Force logistics enterprise, transition planning and stakeholder engagement, and identification of additional Department of the Air Force customers. The performer must demonstrate how the technology supports long term sustainment and commercial viability.

The reference the Air Force cites is U.S. Space Force, Space Training and Readiness Command, Space Doctrine Publication 4-0: Sustainment. If you are writing for this topic, read that document. It is the doctrinal basis for the language in the topic, and using its vocabulary is the cheapest available alignment signal.

Funding Allowance and Cost Structure

Award ceiling and the scoping problem

Up to $1,000,000 across up to 12 months. The topic index warns 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.

Twelve months is the binding constraint more than the dollar figure. Space hardware schedules do not compress easily, and a proposal that promises a hardware prototype, integration, testing, and a demonstration in twelve months invites skepticism. Because cost realism sits inside the most important evaluation criterion, an implausible schedule is a technical credibility problem. Scope to what twelve months can actually deliver, name it precisely, and let the ambition live in the Phase III narrative.

The DAF also notes that per-award and per-topic funding caps are budgetary estimates only, more or less funding may become available, multiple procurements are planned and anticipated, each proposal is a separate procurement evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none. Funding decisions are made with complete disregard to the other awards under the same topic.

Contract type and fee

Generally firm-fixed-price contracts are appropriate for Phase II awards, and per the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive, Phase II contracts must include profit or fee.

Technical and Business Assistance

Up to $50,000 per Phase II award, in addition to the per-topic total, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal. Applicants may elect to use $25,000 on a first SBIR Phase II award and $25,000 on a sequential SBIR Phase II award.

On a one million dollar award, $50,000 of additional assistance is proportionally the largest TABA opportunity in this release, which is worth noticing. TABA can only fund the activities in 15 U.S.C. 638(q)(1)(A) through (E): access to a network of scientists and engineers, 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 through online databases. For this topic, development of regulations is directly relevant given the regulatory considerations requirement covering ITAR, EAR, licensing, and safety, and market validation supports the commercial dual use potential requirement.

The detailed request must appear in Volume 5, including provider name, point of contact with email and phone, an explanation of the provider's unique qualifications, the tasks the provider will perform including purpose and objective, and total provider cost with hours and labor rates. Average or blended rates are acceptable. The task milestone list must track to the milestone payment schedule otherwise provided by the applicant. Requests that only specify a request value in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal will not be considered.

If using TABA to hire new staff, augment staff, or direct staff into training activities, provide names and positions, the business need to be filled or training to be provided, the number of employees to be hired, augmented, or directed to participate, their qualifications or the detailed need for training, the tasks to be performed with both a description of the activity and the purpose it serves, and total staff or training cost with hours and labor rates.

Cost volume expectations

A detailed cost proposal by individual cost element and by contractor fiscal year, in sufficient detail to determine the basis for estimates and the purpose, necessity, and reasonableness of each. Cost proposal attachments do not count toward page limits, and cost proposal information will be treated as proprietary.

Direct labor: identify key personnel by name where possible, labor category otherwise, with direct labor hours, labor overhead or fringe benefits, and actual hourly rates for each individual, which the Contracting Officer needs in order to determine whether hours, fringe rates, and hourly rates are fair and reasonable.

Direct cost materials: an itemized list of types, quantities, prices, and where appropriate purpose. For planned computer or software purchases, detailed information such as manufacturer, price quotes, proposed use, and support for the need will be required. On a hardware focus area, long-lead components with quotes belong here.

Other direct costs: specialized services such as machining or milling, special test and analysis, and costs for temporary use or lease of specialized facilities or equipment, with usage hours expected, rates, sources, and a brief discussion of purpose and justification. Proposals including leased hardware must include an adequate lease versus purchase rationale. Thermal vacuum, vibration, or robotics testbed access lives here.

Special tooling, special test equipment, and material: inclusion is carefully reviewed relative to need and appropriateness to the work proposed. 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 an applicant would otherwise possess in the normal course of business.

Subcontracts: must be supported with copies of subcontract agreements adequately describing the work to be performed and cost bases, including a statement of work, assigned personnel, hours and rates, materials, and proposed travel. A letter from a subcontractor agreeing to perform a task or tasks at a fixed price is expressly not considered sufficient. The prime must accomplish price analysis including reasonableness of proposed subcontractor costs, identify the basis where prior efforts are used for comparison, and provide cost analysis where price analysis techniques are inadequate or the FAR requires cost or pricing data.

Consultants: for each consultant, provide a separate agreement letter briefly stating the service to be provided, hours required, and hourly rate, plus a short concise resume.

Travel: each effort should include at a minimum a kickoff or interim meeting, with travel costs justified as required for the effort, including destinations, number of trips, number of travelers per trip, airfare, per diem, lodging, and ground transportation, against the Joint Travel Regulation.

Indirect costs: indicate proposed rate bases, identify the specific rates used and allocation bases to which they are applied, and provide proposed rates and applications per fiscal year throughout the anticipated performance period. Do not propose composite rates.

Non-SBIR governmental or private investment is allowed but not required, and will not be a proposal evaluation factor.

If no exceptions are taken to your proposal, the Government may award a contract without exchanges, so your initial proposal should contain your best terms from a cost, price, and technical standpoint.

Work performance requirements

The instructions state two thresholds that do not obviously align. The Consultants and Subcontractors section requires, per the SBA SBIR Policy Directive, a minimum of 50 percent of the R/R&D be performed by the proposing firm unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The Performance of Work Requirements section states that for Phase II a minimum of one-third of the research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by both direct and indirect costs, not including profit. Separately, the proposed total of all consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontract or purchase agreements may not exceed one-half of the total contract price unless approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.

On a one million dollar hardware effort, that one-half cap is roughly $500,000 for all outside costs combined, which is easy to exceed if you are buying components and leasing testbeds. Model this before you finalize your approach. Planning to perform at least half the R/R&D in house and keeping all outside costs below half the contract price satisfies every reading.

If your structure cannot meet that, requests for Performance of Work deviations must be made twice: prior to submission during the topic open period, and again as part of the initial proposal submission. The DAF will not consider these requests before proposal submission. Given the ambiguity between the two stated thresholds, raise it with the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk early in the open period.

Where work must be performed

All R/R&D must be performed in the United States by the small business and its team members. Based on rare and unique circumstances the DAF may approve a particular portion of the work to be performed or obtained outside the United States, and the awarding Funding Agreement officer must approve each specific condition in writing. Applicants seeking that approval must request it with the initial proposal submission.

Export Control and Foreign Nationals

The technology in this topic is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services including sensitive technical data, and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items.

Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals, their countries of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work tasks intended for accomplishment by those individuals. The topic advises that foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under U.S. export control laws.

A foreign national means any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States, not a lawful permanent resident, and not a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b. All applicants proposing to use foreign nationals must follow the FY26 SBIR CSO and disclose regardless of whether the topic is subject to ITAR restrictions.

Where the topic area is subject to export control, permitted foreign national participants are limited to work in the public domain, and assigned tasks must not be capable of assimilation into an understanding of the project's overall objectives, which prevents foreign persons from acting in key positions such as Principal Investigator or Senior Engineer. Additional information may be requested during negotiations to verify eligibility.

For projects with military or dual-use applications developing beyond fundamental research, the contractor must comply with all U.S. export control laws, is responsible for obtaining appropriate licenses or other approvals including for deemed exports of hardware, technical data, and software, must obtain export licenses before utilizing foreign persons including where work is performed on-site at any Government installation whether inside or outside the United States, is responsible for all regulatory record keeping associated with the use of licenses and license exemptions or exceptions, and must ensure these provisions apply to its subcontractors.

If asserting export-controlled status, a certified DD Form 2345 Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement, or evidence of application submission, belongs in Volume 5, and DD Form 2345 approval will be required if the proposal is selected for award.

Note the useful overlap: the feasibility requirement's regulatory considerations element already asks you to identify ITAR, EAR, licensing, and safety requirements and describe your compliance plan for Phase II and Phase III. Write that analysis once and use it in both places.

Proposal Structure: The Seven Volumes

Formatting, and the 15 page problem

Type no smaller than 11-point on standard 8.5 by 11 paper, one-inch margins, pages consecutively numbered. This differs from Army SBIR instructions, which allow 10-point.

The technical volume limit is 15 pages or slides, the tightest in this release. Pages in excess will not be considered by the Government in evaluations. Because the limit is expressed as pages or slides, a slide-format volume is acceptable, and on a 15 page budget many teams find slides more information-dense.

Fifteen pages must cover the required Volume 2 element list, your chosen architectural framework and why, your chosen focus area and technical approach, a milestone schedule, a commercialization plan, key personnel, facilities, and prior support. There is no room for scene-setting. Two things help. First, push everything permitted into the volumes that do not count: cost proposal attachments, subcontract copies, and supporting documents do not count toward the page limit, and feasibility documentation goes in Volume 5. Second, do not restate the topic back to the Government. Evaluators wrote it.

Proposals should be direct, concise, and informative. Applicants are discouraged from including promotional and non-programmatic items, and if included such material counts toward the page limit. Marketing material will not be evaluated. Preferred format is PDF, graphics must be distinguishable in black and white, and all submissions must be virus-checked.

Volume 6 Fraud, Waste, and Abuse training must be completed before proposal submission, and DSIP will not allow submission until it is complete and certified. The DAF recommends completing submission early because site traffic is heavy prior to solicitation close and causes system lag, will not be responsible for proposals not completely submitted before the deadline due to system inaccessibility unless advised by DoW, and will not accept alternative means of submission outside DSIP.

Volume 1, Cover Sheet

Per DSIP instructions. The technical abstract should include a brief description of program objectives, a description of the effort, anticipated benefits, commercial applications, and a list of keywords and terms. The abstract of each successful proposal goes to the Office of the Secretary of War for publication and must not contain proprietary or classified information. If selected for funding, the technical abstract and discussion of anticipated benefits will be publicly released.

Volume 2, Technical Volume

Required items in the order provided: table of contents immediately after the cover sheet; glossary of acronyms and abbreviations; milestone identification with a program schedule showing all key milestones; identification and significance of the problem or opportunity; Phase II technical objectives with the technical approach and methods and an assessment of potential commercial application for each objective; work plan; deliverables; related work; commercialization potential; relationship with future R/R&D efforts; key personnel; facilities and equipment; consultants and subcontractors; and prior, current, or pending support of similar proposals or awards.

The work plan is a separate and distinct part of the proposal package, divided from the technical proposal by a page break and begun on a new page. It must contain a summary description of the technical methodology and task description in broad enough detail to provide contractual flexibility, and must not contain proprietary information, because if the proposal is selected the work plan will be incorporated into the resulting contract by reference. Recommended format is 1.0 Objective, a brief overview of the specialty area explaining purpose and expected outcome; 2.0 Scope, concisely describing the work to be accomplished including the technology area to be investigated, goals, and major milestones, with task development and deliverables as key elements meaning the anticipated end result or the effort's product, consistent with section 4.0; 3.0 Background, identifying appropriate specifications, standards, and other documents applicable to the effort, including explanation for or constraints to understanding requirements, relationships to previous, current, or future operations, and techniques previously determined ineffective; and 4.0 Task and Technical Requirements, with detailed individual task descriptions developed in orderly progression with sufficient detail to establish overall program requirements and goals, work segregated into major tasks and identified in separately numbered paragraphs, each numbered major task delineating work by subtask. The work plan must contain every task to be accomplished in definite, realistic, and clearly stated terms. Use "shall" whenever the work plan expresses a binding provision, "should" or "may" to express a declaration or purpose, and "will" when no contractor requirement is involved.

Deliverables must include a section clearly describing the specific sample or prototype hardware and software to be delivered, as well as data deliverables, schedules, and quantities. Be aware of the possible requirement for unique item identification in accordance with DFARS 252.211-7003, Item Identification and Valuation, for hardware. If hardware or software will be developed but not delivered, provide an explanation. At a minimum, all Phase II contracts require Scientific and Technical Reports. Rights in technical data including software developed under the terms of any contract resulting from a SBIR Announcement generally remain with the contractor, and the Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights in all data developed or generated under the SBIR/STTR contract for a period of 20 years commencing at contract award, after which the Government has Government purpose rights to the SBIR data. The Final Report's first page will be a single-page project summary identifying the work's purpose, providing a brief description of the effort accomplished, and listing potential result applications, which may be published by DoW and therefore must not contain any proprietary or classified information; the remainder should contain details of project objectives met, work completed, results obtained, and technical feasibility estimates. Status reports are due quarterly at a minimum. The Air Force may require additional reporting documentation including software documentation and users' manuals, engineering drawings, operation and maintenance documentation, safety hazard analysis when the project will result in partial or total development and delivery of hardware, and updates to the commercialization results.

Related work must describe significant activities directly related to the proposed effort, including any previous programs conducted by the principal investigator, proposing firm, consultants, or others, and their application to the proposed project, describe how these activities interface with the proposed project, and discuss any planned coordination with outside sources. Also list any applicant-identified subject matter experts regardless of affiliation, providing comments regarding the applicant's knowledge of the state of the art in the specific approach proposed. Describe previous work not directly related to the proposed effort but similar, providing a short description, the client for which the work was performed including an individual to be contacted and phone number, and the date of completion.

Commercialization potential requires a commercialization plan submitted with the Phase II proposal, specifically addressing what the first planned product to incorporate the proposed technology is, who the probable customers are and what the estimated market size is, how much money is needed to bring the technology to market and how it will be raised, whether the firm has the necessary marketing expertise and if not how the firm will compensate, and who the probable competitors are and what price or quality advantage is anticipated by the firm. The commercialization strategy plan should briefly describe the commercialization potential for the project's anticipated results as well as plans to exploit it. Commercial potential is evidenced by the existence of private sector or non-SBIR/STTR governmental funding sources demonstrating commitment to Phase II efforts and results, the existence of Phase III follow-on commitments for the research subject, and the presence of other indicators of commercial technology potential including the firm's commercialization strategy. If awarded a D2P2, the awardee will be required to update periodically the commercialization results of the project via SBA, at completion of the effort and subsequently when submitting a new SBIR/STTR proposal to DoW, with firms not submitting a new proposal requested to provide updates annually after the D2P2 completion. The Commercialization Plan and the Company Commercialization Report are distinct documents.

Note the useful overlap again: the feasibility requirement's commercial dual use potential element names GEO operators, satellite manufacturers, and insurance providers as example commercial customers. Those are strong candidates for the probable customers question in the commercialization plan.

Relationship with future R/R&D efforts must state the anticipated results of the proposed approach, specifically addressing plans for Phase III if any, and discuss the significance of the D2P2 effort in providing a basis for the Phase III R/R&D effort if planned. The topic's own Phase III list gives you the structure: TRL maturation to operational readiness, commercial adoption across GEO, LEO, and cislunar markets, government approvals and certifications, integration with the Space Force logistics enterprise, transition planning and stakeholder engagement, and identification of additional DAF customers.

Key personnel must identify all key personnel involved in the project with information directly related to education, experience, and citizenship, and include a technical resume for the principal investigator with publications if any. Concise technical resumes for subcontractors and consultants are also useful. Identify all non-U.S. citizens expected to be involved in the project as direct employees, subcontractors, or consultants, and for those individuals, in addition to technical resumes, provide countries of origin, type of visas or work permits held, and identify the tasks they are anticipated to perform. The principal investigator's primary employment must be with the small business concern at the time of award and during the entire period of performance, where primary employment means more than one-half of the PI's time is spent in the small business's employ, which precludes full-time employment with another entity. Only one principal investigator or project manager can be designated to a proposal at any given time.

Facilities and equipment must describe instrumentation and physical facilities necessary and available to carry out the D2P2 effort, justify equipment to be purchased with detail in the cost proposal, and state whether proposed performance locations meet environmental laws and regulations of federal, state, and local governments for, but not limited to, airborne emissions, waterborne effluents, external radiation levels, outdoor noise, solid and bulk waste disposal practices, and handling and storage of toxic and hazardous materials.

Consultants and subcontractors: private companies, consultants, or universities may be involved in the project, and all should be described in detail and included in the cost proposal. Signed copies of all consultant or subcontractor letters of intent must be attached to the proposal, briefly stating the contribution or expertise being provided, with statements of work and detailed cost proposals, and information regarding consultant or subcontractor unique qualifications. Subcontract copies and supporting documents do not count against the Phase II page limit. Identify any subcontractor or consultant foreign citizens.

Prior, current, or pending support of similar proposals or awards: while it is permissible with proper notification to submit identical proposals or proposals containing a significant amount of essentially equivalent work for consideration under numerous federal program solicitations, it is unlawful to enter into contracts or grants requiring essentially equivalent effort, and any potential for that situation must be disclosed to the solicitation agencies before award. If a proposal submitted in response to this CSO is substantially the same as another submitted previously, currently, or in the process of being funded by another federal agency, DoW component, or the DAF, the applicant must indicate so on the cover sheet and provide the name and address of the federal agencies or DoW components to which proposals were or will be submitted or from which an award is expected or has been received, the proposal submission or award dates, the proposal title, the PI's name and title for each proposal submitted or award received, the solicitation titles, numbers, and dates, the contract number if an award was received, and the applicable topics for each SBIR proposal submitted or award received. If this section does not apply, state so in the proposal and certify on the cover sheet, "No prior, current, or pending support for proposed work."

Volume 3, Cost Volume

Covered above.

Volume 4, Company Commercialization Report

Completion of the CCR in DSIP is required. The DAF states that information contained in the CCR will not be considered by the DAF during proposal evaluations, which differs from Army SBIR practice. Complete it for compliance.

Volume 5, Supporting Documents

May be required if applicable: DD Form 2345, which applies to this export-controlled topic, with the form, instructions, and FAQs at the United States and Canada Joint Certification Program website; Verification of Eligibility of Small Business Joint Ventures, Attachment 3 to the DoW SBIR FY26 CSO; and Technical Data Rights Assertions if asserting data rights restrictions.

Required of all submissions: feasibility documentation. D2P2 proposals require a comprehensive, detailed effort description and should demonstrate sufficient technical progress or problem-solving results to warrant more extensive RDT&E. Developing technologies with commercial and military potential is described as extremely important, and the DAF is particularly seeking proposals emphasizing technologies' dual-use applications and commercialization. The applicant must provide information enabling the agency to make the 15 U.S.C. 638(cc) determination of scientific and technical feasibility and merit. Feasibility efforts detailed must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the PI. If technology in the feasibility documentation is subject to intellectual property rights, the applicant must provide IP rights assertions and a short summary for each item asserted with less than unlimited rights describing the restriction's nature and the intellectual property intended for use in the proposed research.

If appropriate, include a reference or works cited list as the last page. Do not include marketing material, which will not be evaluated.

Volume 6, Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Training

Complete once per year, before submission.

Volume 7, Disclosures of Foreign Affiliations or Relationships to Foreign Countries

Complete the webform in Volume 7 of the DSIP proposal submission. It will not be accepted as a PDF supporting document in Volume 5, and do not upload any previous versions of this form to Volume 5.

How Your Proposal Will Be Evaluated

The criteria for this topic

DV513 is evaluated under the criteria set covering DV026, DV511, DV512, and DV513, in descending order of importance.

Criteria A, most important: the soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the proposed approach and its incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution, and the qualifications of the proposed principal and key investigators, supporting staff, and consultants. This includes whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the technical proposal.

Two features of this criterion matter especially on this topic. First, incremental progress toward topic or subtopic solution rewards a bounded, well-defined step rather than an overreach. With six focus areas designated as subtopics, name yours and frame your progress against it. Second, cost realism inside the top criterion is where an implausible twelve month hardware schedule gets penalized. If your work plan promises fabrication, integration, and demonstration in twelve months, your cost volume and milestone schedule have to make that arithmetic work.

Criteria B, second: the degree of mission impact and the urgency of the identified need, the specificity of the defense requirement addressed, and the adequacy of the proposed effort in fulfilling the research topic or subtopic solution.

Criteria C, third: the potential for commercial application in the Government or private sector and the benefits expected to accrue from that commercialization.

General evaluation process

D2P2 proposals are evaluated on a competitive basis by subject matter expert scientists, engineers, or other technical personnel, with confidential proposal and evaluation information protected to the greatest extent possible. Proposals will be disqualified and not evaluated if the Phase I equivalency documentation does not establish the proposed technical approach's feasibility and technical merit.

Selections are based on a determination of the overall technical value of each proposal and an evaluation of the cost volume for selection of the proposals most advantageous to the Government. Where technical evaluations are essentially equal in merit, cost or price will be considered in determining successful applicants. All evaluation criteria other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The DAF is seeking varying technical and scientific approaches and varying and new technologies responsive to the problem statements and areas of interest in the topic, multiple procurements are planned and anticipated, each proposal is a separate procurement evaluated on its own merit, and the Government may award all, some, or none of the proposals.

Foreign risk evaluation

The DAF will evaluate all small business concerns submitting under this release on whether the concern presents a security risk, using 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, federal law enforcement, and other counterintelligence capabilities of the United States Government.

The risk-based assessment covers cybersecurity practices, patent analysis, employee analysis, foreign ownership of the concern including financial ties and obligations covering surety, equity, and debt obligations of the concern and its employees to a foreign country, foreign person, or foreign entity, foreign affiliations of a covered individual, owner, or other key personnel with an entity in a foreign country of concern, investment relationships of the 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.

Two of those items deserve particular attention on this topic. Patent analysis matters because in-space servicing and propellant transfer are patent-dense areas with significant international activity. Technology licensing agreements and joint ventures matter because commercial space companies frequently have international partners, launch agreements, and cross-licensing arrangements. Map yours before you propose.

The DAF also assesses proposals using open-source analysis and analytical tools for nondisclosures of the information set forth in 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(13) or 638(o)(17), and examines 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, it 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.

Awards must be denied under 15 U.S.C. 638(g)(16) or 638(o)(20) where the DAF determines the concern has an owner or covered individual party to a malign foreign talent recruitment program; a business entity, parent company, or subsidiary located in the People's Republic of China or another foreign country of concern; an owner or covered individual with a foreign affiliation with a research institution located in the PRC or another foreign country of concern; or a security risk connecting the concern, including any affiliates, to an entity or individual on the UFLPA Entity List maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, the Non-SDN Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List maintained by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Section 889 Prohibition List established under section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, the list of Chinese Military Companies required under section 1260H of the William M. Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, the Military End User List maintained by Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security, the Entity List maintained by BIS, the FCC List of Equipment and Services, or the Withhold Release Orders and Findings List maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The DAF also will not make an award where the concern has a security risk with a primary source that is classified or a security risk the DAF determines warrants a denial.

Applicants must 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, and must provide a written statement of any substantial changes to the foreign disclosure form to the awarding agency within 30 days of any changes while on a project for the DAF.

Where an award is denied on these grounds, the DAF will as appropriate and in a manner that does not compromise security provide a notification advising the small business of the determination, the basis for it, and a statement that denial of award does not prohibit the concern from being eligible for an award in a subsequent award cycle.

Ownership, support contractors, status, and protests

Small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics. This matters on this topic, since in-space servicing and logistics is a venture-funded sector.

Proposals may be handled for administrative purposes only by support contractors, which may include APEX, Peerless Technologies, Engineering Services Network, HPC-COM, Mile Two, REI Systems, MacB (an Alion company), Montech, Oasis, Astrion/Oasis, and Infinite Management Solutions. In addition, only Government employees and technical personnel from the FFRDCs MITRE and Aerospace Corporations working under contract to provide technical support to Air Force Life Cycle Management Center and Space Force may evaluate proposals. All support contractors are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements. Contact the DAF SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer with concerns about any of these 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 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 proposals designated Not Selected, and 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, and each organization operates within its own schedule for proposal evaluation and selection, so update and notification timeframes will vary. If contacted regarding a proposal submission, it is not necessary to request information regarding additional submissions, since separate notifications are provided for each proposal.

The DAF anticipates that all proposals will be evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close. Refrain from contacting the DAF for proposal status before that time. Protests after award should be submitted, as further prescribed in FAR 33.106(b) and FAR 52.233-3, to the Air Force SBIR/STTR Contracting Officer and to the individual procuring contracting officer listed on the firm's selection notification. All final reports will be submitted to the awarding DAF organization in accordance with contract instructions, and companies will not submit final reports directly to the Defense Technical Information Center.

Timeline and What to Do When

The dates

Topic opens: September 23, 2026

Proposal deadline: October 21, 2026, at the time specified in the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO, ordinarily 12:00 p.m. Eastern. Confirm on DSIP.

Selections finalized: within approximately 90 calendar days of close, on or about January 19, 2027

Period of performance: up to 12 months from award

A working backward plan

Before September 23. The gating item is your stakeholder engagement documentation. The feasibility requirement demands evidence that you have engaged Space Force operators, program offices, mission owners, or acquisition stakeholders, and that the engagement shows a real operational need and a clear customer within the U.S. Space Force. Pull together records of those conversations now. Read Space Doctrine Publication 4-0 Sustainment, which the topic cites, and adopt its vocabulary. Choose your architectural framework and your focus area. Map your patents, international licensing arrangements, and joint ventures against the foreign risk criteria. Assemble the regulatory analysis covering ITAR, EAR, licensing, and safety, which serves both the feasibility requirement and your export control posture. Confirm which team members are U.S. persons. Start DD Form 2345 if you do not hold one. Complete Volume 6 training, verify SAM and DSIP alignment, and send clarifying questions to the DAF SBIR/STTR One Help Desk, which explicitly encourages early inquiries.

September 23 through October 2. Draft Volume 2 against the 15 page limit, which will take multiple compression passes. State your architectural framework and why it fits, and your focus area, in the opening page. Build a twelve month milestone schedule you can actually defend, since the TABA task milestone list must track to your milestone payment schedule and cost realism sits in the top evaluation criterion.

October 3 through October 10. Assemble the Volume 5 feasibility package under the six required headings: stakeholder engagement, feasibility study, integration pathway, regulatory considerations, commercial dual use potential, and Phase II prototype plan. This is the document that gets you past the disqualification screen, and it does not count against your 15 pages, so give it the room it deserves.

October 11 through October 16. Build the cost volume by element and fiscal year. Collect signed letters of intent, statements of work, and detailed cost proposals from every consultant and subcontractor, remembering that a letter agreeing to a fixed price is not sufficient. Check that all outside costs stay under half the contract price, which on a one million dollar award is a tighter constraint than it sounds. Complete the Volume 7 webform and the Volume 4 CCR. Run compliance: 15 page limit, 11-point minimum type, one-inch margins, consecutive page numbers, graphics legible in black and white, virus-checked PDF, no marketing material, and no proprietary content in the technical abstract or the work plan.

October 17 through October 19. Submit and certify in DSIP.

October 20 through October 21. Buffer only.

Frequently Asked Questions

‍ ‍

What is DAF SBIR topic DAF26BX06-DV513?

‍ ‍

DAF26BX06-DV513 is a Department of the Air Force SBIR Direct to Phase II topic titled "Autonomous On Orbit Logistics and Sustainment Architecture," released under the DAF 2026 SBIR Commercial Solutions Opening, Release 6. It seeks prototype-ready technologies enabling a complete on-orbit logistics enterprise supporting autonomous resupply, refuel, repair, recovery, and reconstitution of U.S. space assets across LEO, MEO, GEO, and cislunar space.

‍ ‍

How much funding is available under DAF26BX06-DV513?

‍ ‍

Up to $1,000,000 for a period of performance up to 12 months, the smallest ceiling and shortest duration in this release. Proposals exceeding either limit will not be considered for evaluation or award. Up to $50,000 in Technical and Business Assistance may be requested in addition.

‍ ‍

When is the proposal deadline?

‍ ‍

The topic closes October 21, 2026. The DAF instructions direct applicants to the DoW FY26 SBIR CSO 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.

‍ ‍

How should I scope a twelve month, one million dollar space logistics effort?

‍ ‍

Narrowly and precisely. Twelve months is the binding constraint, and space hardware schedules do not compress. In the hardware focus areas the realistic scope is a component, interface, mechanism, or subsystem demonstration, not a vehicle. Because cost realism sits inside the most important evaluation criterion, an implausible schedule reads as a technical credibility problem. Put the ambition in the Phase III narrative and keep the Phase II scope defensible.

‍ ‍

What are the two architectural frameworks and do I have to pick one?

‍ ‍

Yes, and the topic requires you to clearly identify which you are using and explain why it is appropriate for your concept. A Systems of Systems approach views the enterprise as interconnected subsystems and suits technologies enabling integration, coordination, or interoperability across multiple nodes, including routing, servicing, depot operations, or multi orbit logistics planning. A Logistics Function approach focuses on the specific logistics activity your technology enables, such as refueling, repair, recovery, resupply, warehousing, or health monitoring, and suits technologies performing a discrete task that can be evaluated independently.

‍ ‍

Which framework should I choose?

‍ ‍

The topic says Systems of Systems is appropriate when your technology interacts with multiple nodes or contributes to enterprise level coordination, and Logistics Function is appropriate when your technology performs a specific task that can be evaluated independently. For a twelve month effort, the Logistics Function approach will fit most applicants better because it lets you scope and measure a bounded improvement.

‍ ‍

What are the six focus areas?

‍ ‍

Propellant Management, Orbital Transfer Vehicles, Network Mechanics, Orbital Warehousing, Reuse Repair Refuel and Recovery, and Logistics Health Monitoring. D2P2 proposals must address at least one.

‍ ‍

Which focus area fits my company?

‍ ‍

Logistics Health Monitoring and Network Mechanics are the most software-accessible and most plausible for a twelve month effort by an analytics, digital twin, autonomy, or astrodynamics software company. Propellant Management is the most explicitly sponsored, with Space Access PAE named as seeking prototype-ready propellant technologies, and also asks the most detailed questions of proposers. Orbital Transfer Vehicles, Orbital Warehousing, and Reuse Repair Refuel and Recovery are hardware-heavy and require scoping to a single demonstrable subsystem.

‍ ‍

What does the Propellant Management focus area require me to address?

‍ ‍

Five areas as appropriate: supply chain and sourcing including industrial availability, production sources, expected throughput, dependence on terrestrial or in-space sources, and where applicable in-situ resource utilization; transfer and storage including storage duration, boil-off or loss characteristics, loss-mitigation approaches, and interoperability across systems with a statement of whether you use existing interfaces, conform to emerging standards, or require a new interface; metering, quality control, and custody including contamination control, foreign object debris mitigation, quality monitoring, and how propellant moves from upstream source through your custody to the next node; value chain role and integration identifying the specific portion of the in-space propellant value chain addressed and the broader military-relevant architecture your capability contributes to; and economics and military utility including delivered cost per kilogram, availability at nodes such as GEO, maneuver endurance, operational reach, flexibility, or enhanced ability to generate mission effects.

‍ ‍

Can I submit a Phase I proposal for this topic?

‍ ‍

No. This topic is intended for technology proven ready to move directly into Phase II, and Phase I awards will not be made.

‍ ‍

What feasibility documentation does this topic require?

‍ ‍

Six elements, and the documentation must be thorough, detailed, and clearly aligned with Space Force operational needs. Stakeholder engagement showing you have engaged Space Force operators, program offices, mission owners, or acquisition stakeholders and that the technology addresses a real operational need with a clear customer within the U.S. Space Force. A feasibility study demonstrating technical merit, operational relevance, and mission fit, showing the technology can operate in the space environment, integrate with existing systems, and support logistics operations across multiple orbital regimes, including analysis of technical risks, operational constraints, and integration challenges. An integration pathway describing interfaces, standards, autonomy requirements, mission sequencing, and coordination with other logistics systems. Regulatory considerations identifying ITAR, EAR, licensing, and safety requirements and your compliance plan for Phase II and Phase III. Commercial dual use potential showing use by commercial customers such as GEO operators, satellite manufacturers, or insurance providers. And a Phase II prototype plan with technical milestones, integration activities, testing requirements, and demonstration objectives.

‍ ‍

What is the hardest part of the feasibility requirement?

‍ ‍

The stakeholder engagement element. Only two of the six required elements are about technology, and four are about customers, integration, regulation, and commercial demand. A company with excellent hardware and no documented Space Force stakeholder engagement does not meet this requirement, and four weeks is not enough time to create that record.

‍ ‍

Can I use a prior SBIR award as my feasibility basis?

‍ ‍

No. Feasibility documentation cannot be based upon or logically extend from any prior or ongoing federally funded SBIR or STTR work, and the feasibility effort must have been substantially performed by the applicant or the principal investigator.

‍ ‍

How long can my technical volume be?

‍ ‍

15 pages or slides, the tightest limit in this release. Pages in excess will not be considered during evaluations. Type must be no smaller than 11-point on 8.5 by 11 paper with one-inch margins and consecutively numbered pages. Cost proposal attachments, subcontract copies, and supporting documents do not count toward the limit, and feasibility documentation goes in Volume 5, so use those volumes for detail.

‍ ‍

Is this topic export controlled?

‍ ‍

Yes. The technology is restricted under ITAR 22 CFR Parts 120-130 and EAR 15 CFR Parts 730-774. You must disclose any proposed foreign nationals with countries of origin, visa or work permit type, and the statement of work tasks intended for them, and the topic advises those individuals may be restricted from performing. A certified DD Form 2345, or evidence of application, belongs in Volume 5, and approval will be required if selected for award.

‍ ‍

How is my proposal evaluated?

‍ ‍

Under three criteria in descending order of importance. Criteria A, most important, covers soundness, technical merit, and innovation of the approach, incremental progress toward the topic or subtopic solution, the qualifications of key personnel, and whether proposed cost elements are realistic and consistent with the technical proposal. Criteria B covers degree of mission impact, urgency of the identified need, specificity of the defense requirement, and adequacy of the effort. Criteria C covers commercial application potential. All criteria other than cost or price, combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

‍ ‍

How much of the work must my company perform?

‍ ‍

The instructions state two thresholds. The Consultants and Subcontractors section requires at least 50 percent of the R/R&D be performed by the proposing firm unless the Contracting Officer approves otherwise in writing. The Performance of Work Requirements section states at least one-third of the Phase II research or analytical effort must be performed by the awardee, measured by direct and indirect costs excluding profit. Separately, all consultant fees, facility leases, and other subcontract or purchase agreements together may not exceed one-half of the total contract price without written Contracting Officer approval, which on a one million dollar award is roughly $500,000 for all outside costs combined. Model this before finalizing your approach. Deviation requests must be made twice, prior to submission during the open period and again with the initial proposal.

‍ ‍

Does the Company Commercialization Report affect my score?

‍ ‍

No. Completing the CCR as Volume 4 is required, but the DAF states information contained in the CCR will not be considered during proposal evaluations.

‍ ‍

What is TABA and how do I request it?

‍ ‍

Up to $50,000 per Phase II award in addition to the per-topic ceiling, identified in the Volume 3 Cost Proposal, splittable as $25,000 on a first SBIR Phase II and $25,000 on a sequential one. On a one million dollar award this is proportionally the largest TABA opportunity in the release. Development of regulations and market validation are eligible activities that map directly to the regulatory considerations and commercial dual use elements of the feasibility requirement. The detailed request must be in Volume 5 with provider name, point of contact, unique qualifications, tasks with purpose and objective, and total cost with hours and labor rates, and the task milestone list must track to your milestone payment schedule. Requests specifying only a value in Volume 3 will not be considered.

‍ ‍

Who owns the data and software I develop?

‍ ‍

Rights in technical data including software developed under a SBIR contract generally remain with the contractor. The Government obtains SBIR/STTR data rights in all data developed or generated under the contract for 20 years commencing at contract award, after which the Government has Government purpose rights to the SBIR data.

‍ ‍

What happens in Phase III?

‍ ‍

Phase III will transition the technology to operational use. Expected activities include TRL maturation to operational readiness, commercial adoption across GEO, LEO, and cislunar markets, government approvals and certifications, integration with the Space Force logistics enterprise, transition planning and stakeholder engagement, and identification of additional Department of the Air Force customers. The performer must demonstrate how the technology supports long term sustainment and commercial viability.

‍ ‍

What doctrine should I read before writing?

‍ ‍

Space Doctrine Publication 4-0, Sustainment, published by U.S. Space Force Space Training and Readiness Command, which is the reference the topic cites. It is the doctrinal basis for the topic's language, and using its vocabulary is the cheapest alignment signal available to you.

‍ ‍

Are venture-backed companies eligible?

‍ ‍

Yes. Small business concerns owned in majority part by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity funds are eligible to submit applications or receive awards for DAF topics.

‍ ‍

When will I hear about selection?

‍ ‍

The DAF anticipates all proposals evaluated and selections finalized within approximately 90 calendar days of solicitation close, meaning on or about January 19, 2027. The principal investigator and Corporate Official on the cover sheet are notified by email, with a separate notification for each proposal submitted.

‍ ‍

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. 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 SBIR CSO Address Change."

‍ ‍

Positioning Advice for Startups Considering This Topic

‍ ‍

Scope to twelve months honestly. This is the most common way a good company loses this topic. The logistics enterprise the Space Force describes is a decade-long build, and you are being funded for one year. Name one bounded deliverable, show it is achievable, and describe the enterprise contribution around it rather than promising the enterprise.

‍ ‍

State your framework and focus area on page one. The topic requires you to identify which architectural approach you are using and explain why. Doing that immediately signals that you read the topic carefully, and with only 15 pages, ambiguity about scope is expensive.

‍ ‍

Build the Volume 5 feasibility package around the six named headings. Stakeholder engagement, feasibility study, integration pathway, regulatory considerations, commercial dual use potential, Phase II prototype plan. Mirroring the topic's own structure makes the disqualification screen easy to pass and does not consume your page limit.

‍ ‍

Treat stakeholder engagement as the real gate. Space Force operators, program offices, mission owners, or acquisition stakeholders, with evidence the technology addresses a real operational need and has a clear customer. That is not something a proposal can assert its way past.

‍ ‍

Read and quote SDP 4-0. The topic cites Space Doctrine Publication 4-0 Sustainment as its only reference. Sustained space maneuver, dynamic space operations, and contested logistics are the operating concepts the topic names. Alignment scores, and alignment here is largely vocabulary plus a genuine understanding of the doctrine.

‍ ‍

Answer the interoperability question directly. Across several focus areas the topic asks whether you use existing interfaces, are designed to conform to emerging government or industry standards, or require a new interface approach. That is a live and consequential question in in-space servicing, and a clear answer with reasoning beats an evasive one.

‍ ‍

Do the economics. The Propellant Management focus area explicitly asks about delivered cost per kilogram, availability at orbital nodes, maneuver endurance, and operational reach. Even outside that focus area, quantified sustainment economics distinguish a serious proposal from a technology description.

‍ ‍

Model the subcontract cap early. Half of one million dollars for all consultant fees, facility leases, and subcontracts combined is restrictive for hardware. If your plan involves buying a lot or leasing testbeds, check the arithmetic before you commit to the approach.

‍ ‍

Map your international entanglements. Patent analysis and technology licensing agreements or joint ventures with entities in countries of concern are both named in the foreign risk assessment. Commercial space companies commonly have international launch, licensing, and partnership arrangements. Know yours and be ready to describe them.

‍ ‍

Use GEO operators, satellite manufacturers, and insurers as your commercial customers. The topic names them in the feasibility requirement, which means the Space Force already accepts them as credible. Your commercialization plan's probable customers question has a ready answer.